GL’s “Extremely Important” Questions

Posted by James Bowery on Saturday, 21 July 2012 17:35.

Giving Guessedworker’s subject its due as a main blog post (and moving related comments here), Guessedworker wrote:

The questions raised here are extremely important. They go to the very heart of the meaning and utility of politics. If we do not address them but, on the contrary, simple assume that “everything will turn out right” providing Jewish struggle is removed from the equation, then we are proposing an anti-politics and a void where history should stand. We become mere racial actors in a racial world, sans the traction of intellect.

Now, obviously I am not an advocate of the single Jewish cause. I am an advocate of the European genius. I believe that the long cycle of self-forgetting in modernity has to be broken, and the return to self-awareness that characterises less creative peoples, and which characterised Europeans during our collective phase of emergence from mere survivalism, has to be re-ignited. I believe that is the challenge which the Jewish racial paradigm presents us (and it is a drive for the singular possession of ethnicity), and that it can be resolved only through that process of rediscovery.

But we will never achieve that through protest alone. We will achieve it through philosophy.

Here is Graham’s comment.

OK people a number of conceptual questions issues arise from this discussion. Let’s try to be as cool-headed and scholarly as possible.

Firstly and most importantly what would count as evidence against the monocausal conjecture? More broadly what is the falsification criterion employed in such a world-view both with regard to any specific hypothesis under consideration and also at the meta-level? If there is none, such that the foundational assumptions animating this meta-hypothesis are taken to be infallible (and hence unfalsifiable) are we not in the realm of a theological commitment outwith the fallabist realm of ordinary thought that can be tested under the illumination of judgemental rationality?

Secondly in constructing a plausible parallel reality where the monocausal problem had in some way or other been “satisfactorily dealt with” (according to the standards of monocausalists - whatever they may be) then what, precisely, would the modern world look like?

Would radical liberal individualism in the shape of Locke, Hayek, Nozick et al., have emerged as a major political philosophy shaping the ideational life of the modern West?

Would the Enlightenment and the subsequent birth of a secular regime of moral universalism within the West have still occurred?

Would the forces of science/technology as shaped and directed by the ideological environment of market-based liberal-capitalism still resulted in the broad process known as globalisation?

How precisely would modern (or even post-modern) forms of communication, mass media and popular culture and socio-cultural norms in general look in like the absence of the monocausal factor/influence?

Would corrupt and amoral ‘endogenously generated’ power elites not exist or arise? What precise state would the political systems of Western democratic polities be in today?

How would the broad contours of Western jurisprudence be different and how would the development of the concept of universal human rights have been altered?

To sum up how would the socio-cultural, economic, political and philosophical dynamics shaping the developmental of modernity have alternatively played themselves out if indeed ‘Jewish power’ had been historically neutralised? Or alternatively, what would the world look like in the near-future if such power was neutralised (to the satisfaction of the monocausalists) in the present age?

They must have some thoughts on these important issues in counter-factual or parallel/alternative historiography? Given the very large explanatory weight placed upon the preferred diagnostic scheme of the monocausalists then they surely cannot ignore the subjects raised above?

Something cannot be an “all important” variable/factor within a system (such as a human society) and yet simultaneously its absence make little or no difference to the state of that system – so what precisely would be different and why?

Restrict oneself to matters American (rather than Western or global) if that is a less onerous task. Try to be as serious, scholarly and rigorous as possible in the consideration of both the issues of a robust falsification criterion and the alternative shape of modernity (or how different the near-future would look). Thanks.

Graham Lister

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Monocausal Monologue on Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:42 | #

Wow is it all a double bluff guys? Jeez those people (you know who) are super smart. Wait maybe it’s a triple bluff or a some crazy shit like a 2.71828 bluff?

This conspiracy just keeps getting bigger and bigger - it blows my mind.

You know what else I heard through the grapevine?

“Tropical Fantasy” is really made by the KKK (but they are also “controlled opposition” why I just know that shit deep down in my bones) and the product has a secret ingredient that renders black men sterile!!!

Brothas this shit is seriously intense!

Who is with me on this vibe?

Posted by Monocausal Monologue on Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:01 | #

You know brothas there is great guide on how to think gangsta here:

“I Heard It Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture”

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heard-Through-Grapevine-African-American-ebook/dp/B003SE6TG4/

Now remember my niggas stay safe in the hood - just because you is paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get ya all at every turn!

P.S. who on cares about which stooge they put in the Executive Mansion? Politricks is wicked and corrupt and Babylon is still Babylon.

McCain to have saved America - yeh man where you getting the herb from cause me need to be smoking that ganja pronto.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:04 | #

MM, chill. If you’ve got something to contribute to the topic, which anyone with high school reading comprehension can see isn’t what you apparently think it is, then contribute. A good example to follow is Thorn.

Posted by American Whig on Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:09 | #

What’s with all this anti-American BS?

This is but one reason why I love the USA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRStmDp3A28&

Watch it and take pride.

Now all you haters of America shut the fuck up!

USA #1

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:39 | #

@James

Monocausal Monologue is the Lister troll. He can’t criticize the evidence and has nothing to add. Specifying “trolling = trash” would’ve prevented input from such disruptors.

On Adobe Illustrator, it, or for that matter no other software in the world, imports a scan as multiple images/layers with one image in 8-bit color and the rest in 1-bit monochrome. The monochrome images were explained in terms of OCR, but no software attempts to OCR signatures, especially in part only, and the pdf has no text; all 9 parts of it are images.

Follow the link I gave you. The forgery can be observed in a text or HEX editor.

Posted by Monocausal Monologue on Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:44 | #

Look the key historiographical issue is the notion that history, tout court, is a ‘conspiracy’. Does history have various forms of coordinated action even, stricto sensu, the odd conspiracy within it? Yes. Is conspiracism, characterised as the belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history, the key modality of human history? In a word no.

Anyone that takes conspiracism as their foundational ‘analytical premise’ (I use the phase very loosely) is, of course, in the territory of loons and kooks such as David Icke and his space lizards et al., and other purveyors of folklore old and new and even post-modern.

Can anyone name a remotely serious historian of any intellectual standing that is of the ‘conspiracism’ school? Unless of course serious historians are all “in on it” right? Or are those historians simply ignorant of this key insight that our internet inspired historiographical cyber ‘gnostics’ have somehow magically discerned?

Richards would not know serious historical scholarship if it took a bite out of his arse (take for example his woeful exchanges with Dan Dare over the history of post-war immigration policy in the UK, right here at MR). And frankly no-one should waste their precious time on his hundreds of “independent lines of evidence” from equally dubious and unreliable sources.

But then I would say that wouldn’t I? The hermeneutics of suspicion cannot allow for any other interpretation now can they?

And I couldn’t care less where Obama was born. Is anyone here still under the child-like delusion that anyone presently within the upper reaches of the political class of the USA is not an amoral, ruthlessly self-serving scumbag, happily in hock to all manner of lobbyists (all with very large checks)?

The democratic systems of the West are atrophying rapidly into a merely formal parody of themselves. You cannot vote against the interests of the criminal gang called Goldman Sachs or indeed any other plutocratic corporation (whomever is on the board). They collectively, more or less, own the entire damn system. Wake the fuck up. Money talks. It’s not some secret. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s there in the open for anyone that wants to observe the system at work. The various big money lobbies are very effective and coordinated in looking after their interests and in the absence of any coordinated and effective opposing ideological movement that state of affairs will continue unabated.

But thankfully politics can be far more than mere voting but this requires that one reads and thinks as widely, deeply and systematically as possible (outwith the banal clichés of the mass media or various cyber ‘echo-chambers’).

Let’s move beyond the “Oh oh oh if only we had more Republicans in the White House everything would be wonderful!” crap. Got any more fairy-tales chaps? Never heard of the colourful phase “same shit, different arsehole” I take it?

P.S. Hi Dan good to know you have not totally disappeared!

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:14 | #

@Lister

I gave you a clear warning not to equate me to Icke. I’ll let it pass this time because you’ve done a good job exposing yourself.

You cannot vote against the interests of the criminal gang called Goldman Sachs or indeed any other plutocratic corporation (whomever is on the board). They collectively, more or less, own the entire damn system. Wake the fuck up. Money talks. It’s not some secret. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s there in the open for anyone that wants to observe the system at work. The various big money lobbies are very effective and coordinated in looking after their interests and in the absence of any coordinated and effective opposing ideological movement that state of affairs will continue unabated.

Goldman Sachs is one of many financial corporations that you claim own the entire damn system. I’ll hold you to this.

Look the key historiographical issue is the notion that history, tout court, is a ‘conspiracy’. Does history have various forms of coordinated action even, stricto sensu, the odd conspiracy within it? Yes. Is conspiracism, characterised as the belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history, the key modality of human history? In a word no.

You brought in the term conspiracism and you defined it. I’ve never used the term nor do I look for conspiracies in history. Data come first; analysis, conclusions come later. If the data point to a conspiracy, the debate should be over the data and whether the correct conclusion’s been reached. You consistently show no interest in the data let alone how the data lead to an alternative conclusion.

Conspiracism for you is the uncovering of what the Jews have been doing. Keep out the Jews and your concern would be limited to whether the discovery could implicate Jews. Uncover conspiracies that could never implicate Jews, and you won’t slander them with conspiracism.

In your own words, that the money power collectively owns the entire damn system isn’t a conspiracy. Haller and many others would call this a conspiracy theory. But it’s not a conspiracy to you if it’s factual and avoids pointing the finger at Jews. If it’s factual and points the finger at Jews, then facts be damned; it’s conspiracism!

Anyone that takes conspiracism as their foundational ‘analytical premise’ (I use the phase very loosely) is, of course, in the territory of loons and kooks such as David Icke and his space lizards et al., and other purveyors of folklore old and new and even post-modern.

Again, you brought in conspiracism and idiosyncratically defined it. Being incapable of showing how the evidence points to something other than Jews in a discussion of a specific Jewish crime or lie, your feeble mind can do nothing better than resort to appeal to ridicule, false analogy, guilt by association following false analogy, and other vile rhetorical tools.

The purveyors of the lunatic conspiracies you bring in don’t believe in them; they’re members of your community or employees of your community, deliberately mixing lunacy with true conspiracies to tarnish good information by association.

Can anyone name a remotely serious historian of any intellectual standing that is of the ‘conspiracism’ school? Unless of course serious historians are all “in on it” right? Or are those historians simply ignorant of this key insight that our internet inspired historiographical cyber ‘gnostics’ have somehow magically discerned?

The ‘conspiracism’ school is of course work exposing Jewish criminality. Let’s see. What would happen to a ‘respectable’ historian who exposes the Holocaust for the lie it is? I don’t have to tell you. Scholars have shown the Holocaust for the lie it is: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/

And these scholars don’t even go into the more ridiculous aspects of the Holocaust lie, one amazing testimony after another. Here’s one:

Of the millions who came to Auschwitz, Mengele loved to single out those who had not been created “in God’s image.” I remember how he once brought a woman to our area who had two noses. Another time he brought a girl of about ten years of age who had the wool of a sheep on her head instead of hair. On another occasion, he brought a woman who had donkey ears. — Auschwitz: True Tales From a Grotesque Land (1985), by Sara Nomberg-Przytyk, translated by Roslyn Hirsch. Editors: Eli Pfefferkorn, David Hirsch. Page 89.

You can look up the fate of the scholars who compiled the scholarly work “Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of ‘Truth’ and ‘Memory’” and it should be clear why more historians aren’t as forthcoming.

Again, according to you, it isn’t a conspiracy that the money power collectively owns the entire damn system. Arthur Kitson told about the professors of economics who were fired for introducing students to Kitson’s writings on the fraud of the gold standard and principles of monetary reform. Economist and historian Anthony Sutton said:

This is the third and final volume of a trilogy describing the role of the American corporate socialists, otherwise known as the Wall Street financial elite or the Eastern Liberal Establishment, in three significant twentieth-century historical events: the 1917 Lenin-Trotsky Revolution in Russia, the 1933 election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States, and the 1933 seizure of power by Adolf Hitler in Germany.

Each of these events introduced some variant of socialism into a major country — i.e., Bolshevik socialism in Russia, New Deal socialism in the United States, and National socialism in Germany.

Contemporary academic histories, with perhaps the sole exception of Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy And Hope, ignore this evidence. On the other hand, it is understandable that universities and research organizations, dependent on financial aid from foundations that are controlled by this same New York financial elite, would hardly want to support and to publish research on these aspects of international politics. The bravest of trustees is unlikely to bite the hand that feeds his organization.

Kitson and Sutton came too close to exposing the money power that enables Jewish malfeasance. Sutton was particularly made to suffer for his efforts.

It’s obvious why we don’t see one “serious historian of any intellectual standing” after another exposing Jewish criminality, what you refer to as conspiracism. But if these historians come up with Muslims waging a Jihad conspiracy against the West, you won’t describe it as a conspiracy or use conspiracism to describe the mindset of these historians.

Richards would not know serious historical scholarship if it took a bite out of his arse (take for example his woeful exchanges with Dan Dare over the history of post-war immigration policy in the UK, right here at MR). And frankly no-one should waste their precious time on his hundreds of “independent lines of evidence” from equally dubious and unreliable sources.

Either your memory’s slipping old man or you’re lying. I had no exchange with Dan Dare over his series on post-war immigration policy in the U.K. A quick glance and I knew what he was up to: an argumentum verbosium, full of details that didn’t go to the heart of the matter; the entire work an exercise in sending the reader into a futile goose chase, away from the Jews and bankers at the root of the problem. One could read 100,000 words on the topic by Dan Dare and not have any understanding of immigration policy in the U.K. Or one could read “The Nation Wreckers [ Jewish Influence in British Politics]” by Sandra Ross, 1975, and learn about the Jews responsible for immigration problems in Britain. And one could put this work in context, expand on it, and learn about the bigger picture by reading Carroll Quigley, Anthony Sutton and Janine Wedel.

The “dubious and unreliable sources” refers to my analysis of the Norwegian incident on July 22, 2011. I took the pictures provided by the mainstream media, the book they promoted and other evidence from the same sources blaming it on a single individual, which you’d consider reliable. You couldn’t muster one argument against any inference and resorted to aluminum foils, space lizards… the highest output your intellect is capable of.

But then I would say that wouldn’t I? The hermeneutics of suspicion cannot allow for any other interpretation now can they?

Hermeneutics… nice word. Alan Sokal liked it enough to include it in the title of his peer-reviewed journal article

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

This was meaningless garbage he managed to publish in a leading sociology journal to show how you folks like to use complex words to criticize; the criticism has no meaning.

And I couldn’t care less where Obama was born.

A couple of points.

1. No one gives a rat’s what you care about.

2. Of course you care, as evident from your trolling, disruption, character assassination and resortment to foul rhetoric, all distraction from the issues at hand: whether the BC is fake and what are the implications.

3. The issue isn’t where he was born. A fake BC doesn’t prove he wasn’t born in America. The issue is whether the BC is a forgery and if so, what can be inferred from the mainstream media so zealously promoting this forgery.

4. You’ve pulled a Noam Chomsky. Chomsky, the man rating against Western entities creating havoc abroad, should’ve jumped on 9/11 truth, but to him it isn’t important who did it. Chomsky knows IsraHell did it; 9/11 brought out Chomsky the Zionist Jew.

The BC forgery brought out the Jew in you. You know that the BC forgery has big, bad implications. If the mainstream media can coordinate to sell a major hoax to the public, then why trust it on other important issues? What other major lies have they shoved down our throats? And surely, this coordination isn’t possible unless they’re controlled by the same people. And the implications for any legislation passed by Obama… he’s a pawn doing the bidding of his masters. One thing leads to another ....

The democratic systems of the West are atrophying rapidly into a merely formal parody of themselves.

America isn’t supposed to be a democracy. And your complaint isn’t sincere as you wouldn’t allow a discussion of the root causes of the decline.

But thankfully politics can be far more than mere voting but this requires that one reads and thinks as widely, deeply and systematically as possible (outwith the banal clichés of the mass media or various cyber ‘echo-chambers’).

Trolling… irrelevant to Bowery’s post.

Let’s move beyond the “Oh oh oh if only we had more Republicans in the White House everything would be wonderful!” crap.

Trolling. The caricature you call crap wasn’t put up by anyone in this discussion but you.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:26 | #

no one in this thread is concerned about getting a Republican into the Presidency over Obama (Bowery)

Way wrong, pal. For the first time in my life I shall actually be voting GOP at the Prez level (I always vote Third Party or write-in). This is critical. Any WN who doesn’t support Romney is an idiot. First, because the next Prez will likely have 1-3 Supreme Court picks; Obongo only needs 1 (or 2, if GinzJew retires) to lock in radical leftism for the next quarter century (if not forever if we don’t end immigration). And the SC really has a lot of power (hardly Hamilton’s “least dangerous branch” anymore). Second, Obama will go extreme communist/black nationalist once freed from reelection concerns. Third, Obama may try to unilaterally amnesty all 20+ million illegals. Fourth, some of us survive in the real economy (even if we’re back in grad school we rely on investment income) and we simply cannot take any more socialist/Obammunist economic punishment!!!! The economy is heading towards Armageddon, but the Republicans can and will save us, at least in the short term.

This is the most important election since 1964, if not 1860. America is dying, but an Obama victory will hasten its demise by at least a decade, maybe more.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:58 | #

Leon, aside from the fact that you had not participated in this thread until after my comment, my comment was directed toward the subject of the original post which is the Obama birth certificate authenticity controversy; specifically that what is interesting about it is not its impact on the election of Romney vs Obama. Do you think that controversy is significant to getting Romney elected?

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:27 | #

Leon it’s not gloating at all. I don’t have anything against Mr. & Mrs. Average of America as such – the regime they live under is quite a different matter. Any social-order has negative and positive aspects: the key question is what is the balance between the two and just how bad are the bad aspects?

I would guess that, on balance, you would consider a foundational commitment to a Lockean-derived individualism to be one of the key positives of American life (and that such a value should be maximally expressed both institutionally and culturally). I would disagree as I’m not a liberal nor do I think that maximal individual liberty or personal freedom is the highest of all political values. My objections are both philosophically and practically grounded. But let’s not get into all of this again.

More narrowly it is that I get rather bored by parochial Americans who in their tiresome way implicitly think the USA is the world. Sorry America ≠ the world.

Secondly following on from that I also tire of an entirely Americo-centric view of politics, life, the universal etc., as they are inevitably limited in their general applicability (well at least at the level of discussion typically observed at MR).

Thirdly given some of the very negative aspects of American life it does get laughably absurd for Americans to lecture everyone else on the wonders of ideological ‘Americanism’. Hmm not really buying that one – sorry.

It does seem very hard indeed for most Americans to actually acknowledge any of the above.

But by all means carry on with chit-chat about Obama’s birth-place as if it’s of world-historic significance! I will not ‘interfere’.

P.S. my little quips about the urban folklore of Black America was for a wider purpose. The group in the USA which has more than anyone embraced ‘conspiracism’ is of course Black America. Now if one wants to adopt that particular mode of thought that’s fine but I’m really not sure that it offers a robust methodology for gaining real insight into the world.

Posted by jove on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 01:49 | #

Thomas Fleming is a fuddy-duddy faggot papist. Who the hell cares about his annoying lecturing.

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 03:18 | #

@Lister

You posted a comment that started with “Icke-Richards monocausal conjecture.” I gave you two warnings; now it’s in trash. You may repost the comment if you’re willing to debate in a rational manner, which is not resort to straw men, false analogy, argument by ridicule following false analogy and other forms of foulness.

Reasonable debate can’t be one-sided questions. I gave you a detailed reply above. But you ignored all answers and went ahead with a bunch of questions, some of which were answered months ago, such as the falsification criteria, which you fully ignored. You must respond to my answers before asking further questions and not repeat questions already answered. And you mustn’t ask questions based on caricatures of your creation. Otherwise, I suggest you limit yourself to commenting on issues other than the ones raised by me.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:10 | #

So Richards, after a much appreciated absence, is now back to his old tricks at MR.

Really bad decision, GW! Just appalling.

This used to be a good site. But I think now it’s finished. Perhaps this is GW’s gentle way of saying he’s tired of the whole thing, UK is gone, England gone, Europe fading to black ...

I suggest any persons with past comments they value but haven’t copied to their own hard drives begin doing so. I suspect MR will be offline by year’s end, if not sooner.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:32 | #

@Leon Haller

Leon we might disagree on any number of topics, but yes I have much sympathy with you on some rather retrograde recent developments.

Posted by Silver on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:32 | #

Haller, stop being so melodramatic. Get a grip. It’s but one blog. Turning the ship around was always going to be a multi-decade process, so if one publication stops circulating or one blog folds, there’s always others around. The fact is the ideas generated by racial thinkers are slowly making there into the general culture—despite the best efforts of the kook contingent to keep them ghettoized. If you start your own project, rule number one has to be prevent the Gresham’s Law effect. They will to try to invade your turf, you can be sure, so you have to marginalize them immediately. Or you can just apply the rule of thumb that political speech is always one level lower than that of political feeling and this may well keep them away on its own, eg anti-illegal immigration is really anti-immigration; anti-immigration is really pro-white; pro-white is really “naziistic” (for want of a better term); naziistic is probably what it claims to be but God knows what’s going through their heads.

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:41 | #

This is a bad place to be re-posting Graham’s comment as he’s trying to troll, deflect from the important question that is Bowery’s subject matter.

The comment should’ve been posted as a separate entry.

As far as my name is removed from the subject matter and the discussion doesn’t address my arguments within the questions raised, I have no objections to the discussion taking place in a separate entry.

I’ll add the following. Monocausality isn’t a valid scientific concept and it isn’t recognized in psychology or psychiatry as a personality type, mental condition or mental illness. It’s Lister’s concoction, a feeble attempt to slander arguments he doesn’t like. I don’t recognize anything of the sort in my thought processes or anyone else’s.

Correspondingly, there’s no single Jewish cause hypothesis. Lister doesn’t slander Hunter Wallace with monocausality and the single black cause even though HW incessantly talks about black-run America. He slanders me because he doesn’t like Jewish behaviors exposed and has no counter-response to the expose.

The scholarly and rational response to any assertion of criminal behaviors by a group is to analyze the evidence offered for the claim and to bring in additional evidence that may have been omitted. This is the only way to show that the claim may be or is incorrect.

I hardly discuss theories about Jewish behavior. I hardly bother with the Jewish Question. I discuss specific crimes and lies I believe to have been masterminded by Jews, such as the Obama birth certificate forgery, 9/11, 7/7, the Norway attack, etc. All these claims are based on evidence.

Lister must address the evidence to show one or more entities behind these crimes that either aren’t Jews or groups in addition to Jews that are involved at the highest levels, or he must show that some of these alleged crimes/lies aren’t so. If he does so in regard to multiple assertions of mine, he’s proven that too many of my beliefs are incorrect. But in order for him to extrapolate from these incorrect beliefs that I have some odd mental condition or world view, he must also show that a reasonable or rational or typical or normal person wouldn’t look at the same evidence that I have and come to the same conclusions. Then the nature, possible origins and implications of this odd mental condition can be discussed.

If Lister’s only able to show from an analysis of evidence that at most a few of my claims are incorrect, then he could make a case that I’m obsessed with Jews, but this has to be rationalized, which he can by showing that I’m capable of recognizing or discussing events of greater significance, but it’s only something like an obsession that makes me focus on the more trivial matters such as 9/11 and its implications, the money power, a mass media coordinating to push a birth certificate hoax down our throats, or Jewish interests in creating immigration problems.

This is how anyone needs to proceed if they wish to specifically address me in regard to any of Lister’s questions or contentions or else it’s slander and foul behavior that belongs in trash. If they can’t do this, they shouldn’t refer to me when discussing Lister’s questions or contentions.

I can tell you in advance that Lister isn’t capable of rational discussion on the topic he’s raised, which isn’t valid in the first place; the world view he talks of is non-existent. Notice his style: asking questions. He won’t answer questions asked him. If you reply to his questions, he’ll pick on gaps in your knowledge, not the essence of the answers. He won’t acknowledge answers I’ve given him, as in above. I repeatedly told him about falsifiability criteria months ago; he refused to acknowledge. He’s purely malicious. His rational responses or irrational responses unrelated to me can stay. But his slander and informal logical fallacies in response to me belong in trash.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 16:20 | #

Richards, why do you love God? Why do you need God? Answer those questions honestly with a view to their full implications and the dam will break and the water will flow.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 18:56 | #

Isn’t “Monocausal reasoning” just a special case of “oversimplification” so extreme that it is not actually observed in reality just as “genetic determinism” is not observed in reality but is used as an invective?

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:13 | #

J. Richards opined:

... I had no exchange with Dan Dare over his series on post-war immigration policy in the U.K. A quick glance and I knew what he was up to: an argumentum verbosium, full of details that didn’t go to the heart of the matter; the entire work an exercise in sending the reader into a futile goose chase, away from the Jews and bankers at the root of the problem. One could read 100,000 words on the topic by Dan Dare and not have any understanding of immigration policy in the U.K. Or one could read “The Nation Wreckers [ Jewish Influence in British Politics]” by Sandra Ross, 1975, and learn about the Jews responsible for immigration problems in Britain.

I have read ‘The Nation Wreckers’, in fact it is well-known and has been for many years. It’s available for download here.

However it hardly deals with immigration policy at all, its focus is on race relations legislation, a related but entirely separate matter.

In my series on The Crusade against Discrimination l gave proper billing to the Jewish actors who were instrumental in the creation of the suite of race relations legislation, of which you would have been aware if you had taken the trouble to read it.

The series on The Politics of Immigration is, as of yet, incomplete, only having reached, up to this point, the early sixties. I stand by the conclusion that Jews had little if anything to do with the formation of immigration policy during the forties, fifties and early sixties and, if you wish to dispute this conclusion, you need to present your evidence in the proper place.

I can tell you now that ‘The Nation Wreckers’ does not support your case.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:40 | #

PS I think what Graham may have had in mind is the chinwag between J Richards and myself, which took place here, with JR entering the lists at around #40.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:29 | #

@GW – I don’t know if my previously deleted comments have been resorted as I haven’t looked at all the “new” comments today. I hope that they have been.

@Dan Dare

Thanks for that supportive comment – Richards did indeed “pipe up” on one of your threads with his one and only trope. Deflect and deny are Mr. Richards standard tactic when caught out.

I don’t have the inclination to read his output but in that quote you reproduced Dan do we not observe the worst of his modus operandi? Outrageous confirmation bias/asymmetrical use of evidence. He mentions a single (and rather obscure) book which “supports” his monocausality hypothesis and wilfully ignores anything that might counter his view. No-one familiar with serious scholarship (at even its most basic level) thinks that complex intellectual matters or historical debates are definitively “solved” beyond all question by one book. Never trust anyone with just one book (as Billy Connelly once suggested in one of his very funny routines about Muslims).

The trouble for the monocausalists is that everything of any importance must come back to their favoured cause (it’s almost a parody of the simple-minded economic determinism of the vulgar Marxists). In contrast, history is inherently pluralist with a kaleidoscope of various phenomena (of variable importance over time and space) shaping history from the micro-scale of individuals right up to the marco-scale of impersonal structural forces.

So we return to the issue of falsification and what evidential standards are appropriate to historical hypotheses/models?

Now generally a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon etc., that can be tested by further investigation. A suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further investigation (a working hypothesis); an assumption used in an argument without its being endorsed. An “open to revision” supposition without the outcome (is it true or false?) being predetermined irrespective of how the evidence stacks up.

The pluralist is inherently much closer to such an ideal. History is the complex interactions of overlapping and sometimes interdependent phenomena such that factors A, B, C, D etc., might all be of some importance and working out the precise explanatory weight that should be placed on each factor is an open question. Indeed new factors can be brought into play – “what about Z?” - without the total collapse of the general model. But if previously it had been thought that factor A was generally the most important one but new evidence actually suggested in factor A was of minor import when compared with factor Z then a radical reinterpretation of historical explanation can take place without too many tears or tantrums. Thus the hypothesis of factor A as the major causal factor and factor Z as unimportant would have been falsified (or at least open to being strongly questioned).

The monocausalist is however in much deeper trouble. If everything of any importance is caused or explained by X and only X any serious inclusion of factor(s) A, B, C etc., is fatal to the model. Hence the fanatical confirmation bias and asymmetrical use of evidence we constantly witness. To save the monocausal hypothesis all manner of egregious intellectual sins must be committed. Psychologically this monocausal model is not a coolly held view which is open to serious revision or even anything approaching falsification under the illumination of judgemental rationality. No instead it is a closed world-view primarily held onto for dubious psychological reasons. No evidence could ever truly count against it (thus we are in the realm of theology or magical thinking).

But even if one rejects my characterisation of the monocausal case it still has an enormous disadvantage as an explanatory framework. Firstly it is enormously reductionist and deflationary – literally everything and anything of importance must be reduced to factor X. As a consequence of this radically reductionist move the monocausal view curiously is also explanatory inflationary to beyond breaking point. Again it must explain “everything” of any relevance otherwise it fails as a model. There is simply too much explanatory weight placed upon too thin a premise for it to stand even the most cursory examination.

So we have two basic starting points – the working hypothesis that the world of human affairs and history are heterogeneous, complex and multifaceted (pluralisms “brute” assumption) or the notion that human affairs and history are homogeneous, simple and one-dimensional.

Is anyone, that is not psychologically or intellectually impaired in some profound way, really a historical monocausalist? Is modernity really only shaped by one “all important” catch-all factor to the effective exclusion of all others?

History is a heterogeneous phenomenon that cannot be artificially reduced to a single diagnostic without the pro-active mindset in operation within the wilfully dishonest (or ignorant and stupid) and their self-constructed ideological blinkers being applied to their extremely restrictive view of the subject.

Really shouldn’t half-witted monocausalist thugs be a lot happier at their natural Stromfront-type cyberhomes? Meta-politics of even moderate analytical sophistication seems totally beyond their grasp. Kool-Aid is not (or rather should not be) on the menu - let alone be the only thing on offer! Rather a rich Smörgåsbord of offerings should be the menu.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:16 | #

Whatever the merits of the monocausalist case, Graham, at least we can all sleep a little more soundly in the knowledge that the Jewsmeller Pursuivant is once again in our midst. Just be sure to choose the dagger and not the matzo and all should be well!

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:52 | #

James,

I don’t think we need to deny belief in the Single Jewish Cause among a substantial number of WNs. For heavens sake, it’s not as though Jews don’t provide a basis in fact to tempt people to such a conclusion. They certainly do. But that doesn’t make the manifold other facts in our debilitation less salient or persuasive.

One interesting test of the utility of the SJC would be to ask those who advocate it what their politics are. I would expect that half would describe themselves as National Socialists and half would be liberals in the English sense.

That’s the problem with it.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:14 | #

And that is the importance of this story and why I put it in my book about human rights commissions. Beattie hadn’t done anything illegal. He was just a loser who believed in a discredited ideology. But the CJC wanted to bring in political censorship laws and I believe they needed to build up the threat to persuade Parliament to abridge Canada’s freedom of speech.

A prime example of monocausalism. The establishment of Canada’s section 319.2 of the Criminal Code was a direct result of the CJC’s false flag operation, the Canadian Nazi Party.

http://ezralevant.com/2009/04/why-did-the-jewish-congress-bu.html

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 02:24 | #

After all if “History is a heterogeneous phenomenon that cannot be artificially reduced to a single diagnostic without the pro-active mindset in operation within the wilfully dishonest (or ignorant and stupid) and their self-constructed ideological blinkers being applied to their extremely restrictive view of the subject"will the theory that NS is a Jewish ideology dressed up in fancy uniforms find a prominent place in the nearest dust bin? Isn’t mirror image monocausal?

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 05:15 | #

But we will never achieve that through protest alone. We will achieve it through philosophy.

Knocking down the current dominant culture just requires a consistent culture of critique. Replacing it with something else may require philosophy but that will be a lot easier with greater numbers (as those numbers should contain some philosophers also) and greater numbers should come from knocking down the current dominant culture - or at least denting it - so i both see the problem and don’t see it. It must be frustrating for people who have the philosopher bent but personally i’m happy trying to knock walls down.

I didn’t read what the other guy said. Is he still saying the identical mirror image of what he argues against is somehow different?

Posted by Mick Lately on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 09:22 | #

OT - and not addressed to anyone in particular - but regarding the following link:

Problem families have too many children

Was that an equal-opportunities warning from Louise Casey to a too-large number of too-large families?

Does she mean “problem families” of all races/ethnicities or just deracinated “chavs”?

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 09:55 | #

Lister@21

Very well and wisely stated! A real tip of my hat. I think you’ve elegantly captured what is so profoundly irritating about Richards, at least at the intellectual level (though let’s not forget - or allow too gentle GW to forget - the pragmatic issues of his being able to delete comments he doesn’t like, as well as his disproportionate hogging of an excessive amount of screen ‘real estate’ for his endless plethora of ideologically tendentious posts, all of which have as their ultimate objective the redirecting of the conversation to his favored topic(s), as well as the obvious promulgation and promotion of his own views on those topics: “MajorityRichards” truly is the end goal being pursued).

I’ve long had a kind of vague, arm’s length interest in conspiracy theory, even though I really haven’t made anything like a formal study of it (I mean as a sociological or psychological phenomenon, not in terms of its heterogeneous, if uniformly jejune, content). Back when I was a young and passionate radical conservative, particularly between college and professional school, and then for some time after graduation (so going well into the mid-90s), I was involved, regularly if tangentially, with the stalwarts of the John Birch Society. Recall that Southern CA, and Orange County in particular, were hotbeds of JBS activism back in the 50s-70s (my dad knew a lot of local JBS ‘heavies’ back in his day, even though he was never directly involved with them, either, other than as a sympathizer). The organization keeps declining (as might be expected, given that its alleged raison d’etre was to fight the International Communist Conspiracy - which, btw, really was a conspiracy, as we know even just from the still only partial opening of KGB files), but still exists, and was substantially bigger in the 80s and early 90s than today. I was attracted to it both by virtue of family attachments, as well as its outstanding, from my American conservative perspective, Hard Right ideological platform.

Anyway, what was off-putting about the org, however, was its fierce, if ideologically unnecessary, commitment to a really strong version of conspiracy theory. Instead of reveling in the Fall of the (Berlin) Wall and the obvious ideological defeat of at least the Soviet (militarist/expansionist/totalitarian) version of Marxism, these Bircher idiots - all very nice, productive, salt-of-the-Earth Middle American types, just like my family - were insistent that it was all a giant ruse the purpose of which was to cause the West to drop its guard, whereupon the Soviets would ‘pounce’, and at a minimum conquer Europe in a fell swoop, and then reignite the Cold War at a much higher level of intensity.

Moreover, they would engage in a kind of inquisitional and vicariously denunciatory politics, the purpose of which was to ferret out which conservatives were really Soviet secret agents (it was merely taken for granted that all liberals and Democrats were on Moscow’s payroll). I remember some of these chapter meetings going on for hours, with lots of weighing of ‘evidence’ (eg, a young Bill Clinton, during his time in Britain as a Rhodes scholar, which already virtually confirmed his complicity, had made a trip to Eastern Europe, so obviously he was ‘in’ on ‘it’), and sincere, epic debates about, eg, whether Reagan was an actual agent or mere dupe; whether Bush Sr or another party (Kissinger was a great favorite here) had been his ‘control’; what percentage of the Tories were either sellouts to the KGB, or worse, actual Russians smuggled into England; and so forth.

A few times I tepidly piped up with an objection or two, or perhaps only an inappropriate display of mirth, which did cause some consternation and a few inspectional ‘looks’ my way, though as some of the older gents had known my parents since before I’d been born, at least my non-Russian ancestry was vouched for (though on these occasions my Ivy League education was inevitably remembered and darkly commented upon). Invariably, I’d be told to read some book which boldly exposed the conspiracy, and the near-impossible odds against which we, the last patriots, were fighting.

Richards would have fit it very well with these guys, at least psychologically, if not necessarily substantively (and certainly not emotionally: their breathless musings and worries aside, these JBSers were actually pleasant and fun to be around, something I cannot imagine anyone ever saying about the peevish, monomaniacal, and domineering JRichards).

I may get a few books on this general subject, as all radical politics seems to attract its conspiracists. I think the answer to understanding the Richards approach or worldview really lay in psychology. The conspiracy monger seems to have a deep-seated need to assert control over the natural complexity and heterogeneity of existence, especially the human social variety. Indeed, the mere fact of intellectual monocausalism is actually less telling of the underlying psychological deformation than the accusatory anger directed towards those who reject the favored theory. We all have our preferred points of view, and may think those who disagree with us foolish or ignorant. But only a really warped psyche avers that all his forensic antagonists are actually animated by malice if not outright evil. With JRichards we are most certainly not dealing with a conventionally normal personality.

Time is a scarce resource, and not every claim about the world can be independently investigated. Some must be prima facie dismissed as implausible. As Einstein said sometime or other, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Part of being an effective, and even, perhaps, genuine, seeker after truth is the ability to recognize at the outset which empirical claims are worthy of further investigation, or even passing consideration. And part of making that determination is assessing the quality and credibility of the original claimants. It is one thing to assess the credibility of hypotheses advanced in The American Journal of Neurology, or The Review of Politics, or even - Darwin forbid! - The Thomist. But, as you might trenchantly put it, citing The Journal of Icke Studies just doesn’t get us across that prima facie threshold. Recognizing this, and understanding its provenance and reasonableness, is a necessary part of what separates a community of scholars from a ward of mental patients.

I prefer that MR aspire to being the former, and assume others do, too.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:09 | #

Just re-read my comment, made some mistakes with the italics in the last full paragraph.

“The Review of Politics” should be italicized.

The words “or even - Darwin forbid! - ” should not be.

Sorry.

Posted by Silver on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:28 | #

Off-topic

Time is a scarce resource, and not every claim about the world can be independently investigated. Some must be prima facie dismissed as implausible. As Einstein said sometime or other, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But sure not so scarce that a quick google for the source of a quotation is out of the question. Carl Sagan, not Einstein. (To me, “sometime or other” means you weren’t sure.)

Carry on.

Posted by daniel on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:37 | #

...
Majority Rights and this debate in particular is being featured by Linder over there at VNN.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=143817

He takes Graham’s side in the debate; however, by contrast in this interview with Carolyn Yeager (http://thewhitenetwork.com/2012/07/21/interview-with-alex-linder/), he provides one of the better counter-arguments (I’ve heard it from Metzger too) to the school of thought that it is primarily Whites own fault (where Graham’s argument seems to be leaning), that time and again, Jewish controlled law and courts (at least in The U.S.) overturn popular, democratic will of the (White) people.

While it is true to say that Whites have large responsibility for their own plight, inasmuch as this (the law, the courts), and similar kinds of Jewish activism effectively overturn the will of Whites, to say that Whites are doing this to themselves is on the whole, incorrect.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 12:10 | #

But sure not so scarce that a quick google for the source of a quotation is out of the question. Carl Sagan, not Einstein. (To me, “sometime or other” means you weren’t sure.)

Carry on. (Silver)

Touche´.

I thought Einstein had said something similar. A google search has revealed nothing, so I must have been wrong.

Note, please, that whatever references I make in my comments are based on sheer memory, as was expected of scholars for all of human history pre-freakin-internet.

What has been strange in my new experience in grad school this past year is persons doing google searches in class with their notebooks. When I was last in school, there were barely notebooks (and few had them - and man were they big and clunky!), and there was not much on the internet.

I’m not always the oldest student, but I’m the only one without a computer in class. I take down notes longhand (though I rarely do even that; I really didn’t need to this past year, as exams were all based on required reading, and I did virtually all of mine - I just then needed to write out the topics the profs emphasized in class). What amazes me is that the professors allow students in class to look things up online. What pleases me no end is being able to respond to general factual questions thrown around more rapidly than the douchebags with their cybercrutches.

I really think the younger generation is dumber than mine (among whites, too). I’m in a school only slightly less prestigious than my Ivy undergrad, but this is bloody doctoral work, so the students ought to be smarter, right? I did not attend Harvard, but one would expect that PhD students at, say, Cornell would be smarter than their modal undergrads, no? I think my college friends were/are smarter than my fellow doctoral students.

I wonder if this is genetic/dysgenic, or if the contemporary ubiquity of computers and the ‘net is dumbing people down.

Posted by John on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:06 | #

Monocausal? Certainly not. Sine qua non? Absolutely.

Posted by uh on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:06 | #

Western philosophy was and is nihilism. Why sniff up that rotten old tree?

Oh yes — the material preconditions of European society don’t exist in lalaland. Only Jews and the Enlightenment.

Posted by uh on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:07 | #

lozlzlz @ R-Bot’s strident notice to spammers

Posted by uh on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:11 | #

For whatever reason, the proprietor, GuessedWorker, is allowing a known crank running under the moniker J-Richards,

Sorry, is that the same Alex Linder who botched his website and handed the rump over to some ornery bot-like nobody conspiracy nut called “Socrates”?

He’s a good enough sophist to make a plausible case.

True that. Perfect word for the Bot. His rationalization hamster is like .... like the buff hamster in that episode of Family Guy.

Posted by uh on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:30 | #

Jews are absolutely inimical to goyish “normativity”, so much so they even coined a scare-word for it.

But the going idea is that universalism arose among whites, in particular northwest Europeans, along with the rise of mercantilism. Which only makes sense, doesn’t it. That’s the long debit side of the vaunted “European genius”: perpetual indebtedness to enfranchised aliens. Most of us ourselves number among the enfranchised.

A fact with which no one seems capable of reckoning. Why? ‘Cause it means arguing against the material comforts of modern life.

No nigga gon do dat!!! if he do HE CRAAAZY!!!LZOZOozoz

But being therial, philosophy’s bayid, mmkay. Bunch of childless cogitators gonna change things, eh? Yea, that’s happened before in history .... oh wait it did ..... you know where ... lzozozozlzozoz

Whatever though. Food courts & dividends. Very liquid, very safe. Smarmy puke Silver knows best! Blind leading the blind!

Posted by uh on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:44 | #

Anyway yea, it is true that Jews have constantly stood in the way of functionally pro-white legislation, wherever it occurs. Their reach is long, precise, and does not err. Rural white sensibility has tried numerous times to address aspects of the decline, but with two yids and a dyke latrina in SCOTUS, and a bunch of graybeard white slaves to the letter of the law, such things typically do not come to pass. So one is left with a basic opposition of the enfranchised aliens of the city (which is civilization) and country folk who don’t want or try to resist their “progressive” dictatorship. And my point is that what the marginals are doing (and country folk became marginal as the American people abandoned, or were forced to abandon, the traditional homestead) is irrelevant. It’s what those at the center of civilization are doing that matters for they set the tone and tariffs for all. Thus if what has occurred at the center of civilization is decadent, alienated, whatever you like, it bespeaks a flaw in the process of civilization and mercantilism themselves. If you want to be free of aliens, you need to be free of the civilization — that hoary “European genius” (in fact an unchecked rapine as unfortunate as NATIONAL SOCIALISM) — which brought them on as units of production.

No blacks without sugar.
No Mexicans without veggies.
No Jews without mercantilism.
No gays without urbanism.
No feminism without pampered women.
No pampered women without colonialism.

I know this is a little dada to grasp, broskis, and Silver the smarmy puke whom I am going to behead one day will chime in with some condescending pukey bullshit he oughta just swallow back down his guido gullet. But there it is.

Posted by Bacon on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:55 | #

I take the “Bowerian” view that endless verbal “debate” and arguments is worthless for discovering the truth.

The real world evidence is clear. Now what’s really needed here to discover the truth is experimentation, and experimentation requires experimental controls. Of course the opposition to such experimental controls - not just to the controls themselves but also to bringing them up, thinking about them, discussing them, etc. - exhibits certain patterns.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:21 | #

1) Most human groups evolved to be nationalist thriving under conditions of relative homogeneity on their own land with controlled borders.

2) Diaspora Jews evolved to be transnationalist.

Ergo Jews will instinctively try to adapt their environment i.e. the host nation and now globally, to suit Jewish transnationalism in the same way beavers build beaver dams.

The problem with that is, like beaver dams being good for the beavers and bad for other creatures in the river, transnationalism is good for the Jews and bad for everyone else…

(apart from other transnationalist populations like gypsies and those among the various national elites who become transnationalists themselves - who will be mostly sociopaths btw).

On right-leaning websites they dismiss this idea as ludicrous. Outside of right-leaning websites they boast about it.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Jewish-Century-Yuri-Slezkine/dp/0691119953

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:56 | #

My personal mono-cause it that through an accident of history northwest europeans outbred and out-breeding among a homogenous population up to an optimal point is spectacularly adaptive but beyond that point becomes maladaptive.

Original (White) liberalism is the political expression of out-breeding (imo).

Northwest euros went up to that optimal point - i’d say they hit the peak somewhere around 1910 - hence their spectacularly successful 500 years, and have moved past the optimal point since then.

If the research into the science of race hadn’t been stalled by Boas’ blank slate all this would probably have been figured out academically 50 years ago.

Combined with that Jews are a clannish transnationalist population who will instinctively try and adapt their environment to suit a clannish transnationalist population. Because they had excessively outbred euros as their host environment for a hundred years or so this has allowed them to mostly achieve their (extremely damaging) goal.

So in a way the anti-white monocausalists have a point. White people did it to themselves by changing to the point where they didn’t exclude transnationalist minority populations instinctively and the *cure* for White people (for this part of the problem) would be getting to the point where they exclude transnationalist minorites on scientific principle.

(Exclusion doesn’t require anything more than shunning btw - and shunning would include their banking system of course.)

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:00 | #

(oops didn’t check formatting. delete above if possible)

My personal mono-cause it that through an accident of history northwest europeans outbred and out-breeding among a homogenous population up to an optimal point is spectacularly adaptive but beyond that point becomes maladaptive.

Original (White) liberalism is the political expression of out-breeding (imo).

Northwest euros went up to that optimal point - i’d say they hit the peak somewhere around 1910 - hence their spectacularly successful 500 years, and have moved past the optimal point since then.

If the research into the science of race hadn’t been stalled by Boas’ blank slate all this would probably have been figured out academically 50 years ago.

Jews are a clannish transnationalist population who will instinctively try and adapt their environment to suit a clannish transnationalist population. As they have had excessively outbred euros as their host environment for a hundred years or so this has allowed them to mostly achieve their (extremely damaging) goal.

So in a way the anti-white monocausalists have a point. White people did it to themselves by changing to the point where they didn’t exclude transnationalist minority populations on principle and the *cure* for White people would be getting to the point where they do exclude transnationalist minorites on scientific principle.

(Exclusion doesn’t require anything more than shunning btw - and shunning includes their banking system of course.)

Posted by garth on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:12 | #

Most human groups evolved to be nationalist

Is this really true? Generating loyalty to a remote, centralized nation-state and suppressing local loyalties required a lot of violence and state force. For example, the French Revolution, the English Civil War, the American Civil War, etc. It could just be that wars for “unification” kill off those most likely to rebel and leave people more likely to submit to centralized power.

Posted by garth on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:20 | #

Of course killing off rebels and leaving those more likely to submit to centralized nation-states is an evolutionary process towards nationalism, but presumably that’s not really what you mean here.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:37 | #

You’re all missing the point here. Yes of course the Jews have been a substantial factor in white racial decline, though far more in the Anglophone world than on the Continent (which nevertheless exhibits the same general self-destructive behavior). And yes, we all know that whites are dangerously universalist not only in ethical outlook but in modal psychology, whilst Jews are the opposite (for the most part).

But the issue is twofold: first, the explanatory weight to be placed on “The Jews” as the factor in the West’s decline (as against one among several), and second, the extent to which we should accept that Jews control the monetary system, which is then understood to be the locus of their power (and an offshoot issue, with which I take particular exception, that the solution to this alleged problem is “debt-free” money instead of a return to a 100% commodity reserves money - gold standard).

JRichards adheres to a view of the extensiveness of Jewish power, influence and control which I find unpersuasive. “The Jews” does not explain the racial history of the West over the past century. Without any Jewish presence I suspect things would be substantially better for us - but we would still be on the same general path of universalist decline. We just would not have traveled as far down it by this point.

Jewish hostility to white EGI has been able to ‘achieve’ what it has only because of an underlying racial sickness or apathy in the modal white man. In our different ways, GW, Graham Lister and I all seek to uncover the intellectual errors that lay behind that apathy, and consider such philosophical unmasking to be a more fruitful way forward than simply pretending that some malign and all-powerful external agent is the source of our troubles. There is something almost ‘religious’ (in the bad sense) in that view.

One doesn’t have to be an intellectual to recognize that radical reductionism is rarely conducive to finding the best explanation, especially for historical and social processes.

[And let’s stop avoiding the ancillary issue, please: Richards’s unwarranted, abusive control over the administration of the site.]

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:50 | #

garth

Most human groups evolved to be nationalist

Is this really true?

You’re right. The standard scale is a homogenous clannish or tribalist population on their own controlled terriotory. “Nationalist” is a larger and unusual scale. I used it to counter-point transnationalist. There may be a better pair of words but i want them to work as a pair.

The key point is most human populations have evolved to live as mostly homogenous groups related by blood on their own terriotory with controlled borders. Jews and some other groups have evolved differently.

Posted by daniel on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 21:04 | #

A fact with which no one seems capable of reckoning. Why? ‘Cause it means arguing against the material comforts of modern life.

No blacks without sugar.
No Mexicans without veggies.
No Jews without mercantilism.
No gays without urbanism.
No feminism without pampered women.
No pampered women without colonialism.

I never said Jews were the only problem nor denied these matters of European responsibility. I am clear enough. I have said that these Western ways would leave us susceptible to these pestilence. Jews, however, are highly effective, the single most effective out group in taking advantage. Lets add business to the list, yes: business, banking, media, politics, academia, law/courts, religion….some of their ways clearly evolved prior to European mechanism.

Provocative to think that they co-evolved with corrupt ways of ours, therefore their nature partly our creation. But they are not without agency and a metabolism pre-existant of European ways - in being subject to this Jewish perspective on our incorrigible guilt (and your going along with this guilt trip - we just won’t be without the exploitation necessary for our luxury), we are to believe that we really deserve such abuse and exploitation. I think not.

I can argue against this list, incisive and provocative though it is, getting better as it goes on. I can imagine these groups co-evolving with these activities, yes. But it is not an irrefutable notion of necessity.

Speaking for myself, I can also imagine a civilization that does without these “services” - a group of people, native Europeans civilized in that they respect persuasion over force and maintain a self sufficient civilization through being largely cooperative.

Hence, Black aggression is not necessary to endure for sugar; Mexican breeding not necessary to endure for vegetable harvest; Jewish presence and systems of business exploitation are made illegal; gays not flamboyantly parading through the cities; there are institutions requiring women to be subject to more rigorous tests and moral standards, knowing that there can be a tendency to pander to them; in fact, pandering to women and exploitation of others on their behalf stigmatized, criminalized where appropriate.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:04 | #

Hello everyone!

Been rather busy with family matters today hence I have not had time to read too many comments.

Hopefully the grown-ups can start to have the space for a sensible discussion of various topics from a variety of perspectives. Anyway I’m attempting to put something together on Christopher Lasch. One of his concerns was the cultural growth of narcissism and its consequences.

Well I was looking for other books, articles etc., on the general topic and one of my first hits was this:

“Narcissism: Behind the Mask”

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1846245060/

The description is as follows:

Would you fall in love with someone who is arrogant, exhibitionistic, vain, manipulative, and greedy for admiration? Would you work under a boss who flies into uncontrollable rages, assassinates the character of anyone who gets in his way, and then projects his own paranoia on to you?

Sounds like a no-brainer…but many of us actually do! That makes us codependents and them power-hungry narcissists. As they trample over us in their quest for self-aggrandisement and we find ourselves dragged into an unhealthy parasitic relationship with them, our lives can become utterly miserable and feel out of control.

This book shines a light on the reasons why narcissists are like they are, and on the pain and suffering they inflict on the codependents around them - and, more importantly, it shows how both can move towards winning back control and regaining happiness in their lives.

Sound like anyone at MR?

And Leon H. thank you very much for the kind comments. We all have a duty to try and raise both the content and tone of the debates here (and yes I’m guilty of not always doing that). Really the aim of MR should be for something more than endless conspiracy theories which are so boring, of no real importance to any meta-political discussion and ultimately are a form of anti-political quietism (aka the tacit background assumption that “those people” are so powerful and they control everything, hence we can do nothing!).

Ultimately the paranoia and associated traits of those of a conspiratorial world-view would, I think, be grounded in psychological processes – an underlying feeling of total powerlessness, anxiety and confusion which gets inverted into a kind of psychologically defensive ‘hyper-rationalism’. The story told by these folk can be internally coherent yet rest upon the most flimsy of foundations. The absolute need for a simple and clear narrative about the world, free of ambiguities, nuance and uncertainty functions to reassert the believers cardinality in, at the very least, they “know” the big secret. Apparently behind all the messy realities of human affairs there actually is, at base, a very simple and straightforward ‘explanation’. This has more to do with the believers psychological needs than anything about the real and very complex human world. Apophenia is not a methodology.

This degraded form of gnosticism of course is vulnerable to different perspectives and interpretations of the world, hence the authoritarian display of anger at anyone not in agreement. Only the gnostic himself and like-minded enlightened souls have the truth. Anyone else is a dupe, acting in bad faith or worse still is “in on it”.

I suspect Richards comes out of an ultra-fundamentalist Protestant background which is driven by some of the same impulses – all the “inner light” stuff isn’t a million miles form the gnostic sensibility and indeed what is Biblical inerrancy other than a pathetic attempt at certitude and a radical reduction in ambiguity. Even then it doesn’t work – as if the Bible is not a document that can be interpreted in a multiplicity of ways. What precisely is the message of the Book of Job?

And of course the ‘land of free’ (to be a total dumb-ass under the pseudo-democratic notion that everyone’s opinions are all equally valid) has produced a culture in which almost anything goes in terms of belief. A study from the National Geographic Channel found that some 80 million Americans - or 36 per cent - are certain alien spaceship exist and visit the Earth on a regular basis. Of those who believe, 79 per cent are convinced the White House has kept information about other lifeforms a secret. And a fair percentage of Americans also claim to have enjoyed an alien probe or two! Such people are not fully formed adults – they are infantalised and live in a fantasy world.

On a more positive note I would recommend as an introductory background to several of the brief questions I posed some books by John Ralston Saul.

Wait hold there fella. . .oh he might be one of “those people” with a name like that. How very scary! Guess what I don’t care – if his ideas are wrong or misguided, one should be able to defeat them as ideas not with some all encompassing argumentum ad hominem. There might be many reasons not to take, for example, Wittgenstein’s philosophical oeuvre seriously but “he’s one of ‘those people’ and they have evil ‘mind control’ powers so ipso facto everything he has ever written is both wrong and dangerous with secret mind-altering Voodoo powers” isn’t one of them.

Of course I reserve the right to, more or less out of hand, dismiss 10th rate hacks like Ayn Rand but that is entirely fair. Anyone taking her ‘thought’ seriously is a cultural and philosophical philistine and an ignorant half-witted buffoon.

Anyway back to JRS (someone I’ve briefly mentioned at MR before).

Some of his books worth reading are:

“Voltaire’s Bastards”

“The Unconscious Civilization”

Themes tackled include how the ‘dictatorship of reason’ and associated phenomena such as a morally neutral ‘instrumental rationality’ now dominant the Western mind. He also argues that the rise of the ideology of individualism (with no regard for the role of society) has not created greater individual autonomy and self-determination, as was once hoped, but deep isolation and alienation. He calls for a pursuit of a more Aristotelian ideal in which reason is balanced with other human capacities such as common sense, ethics, intuition, creativity, and memory for the sake of the common good.

As with all such authors one must be able to sort the “wheat from the chaff” but there is much food for thought in those two works.

In “The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World” Saul writes about his view that globalisation is already in retreat. Following the economic collapse he had predicted, “The Collapse of Globalism” was re-issued in 2009 with a new epilogue that addressed issues in the current crisis from his perspective. I’m more sceptical about some of his ideas in this one but it’s still worth reading.

The good thing about these books is the are not too dry or academic yet are aimed at the intelligent and thoughtful general reader – hence I’d hope anyone at MR, who is also on the right side of sanity, could read them over a long weekend and get something out of them. Even if one disagrees with his analysis (in whole or in part) it’s still a useful exercise to work out why one disagrees (beyond banalities like “he is one of ‘those people’...etc.”).

And Uh as for all of Western philosophy being mere nihilism, well I think Aristotle and Aristotelians everywhere might disagree.

Posted by Aspadistra on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 02:31 | #

Someone made this comment on a blog about the killings in Colorado—US CIA has a major facility nearby in Colorado, and the possibility exists that Holmes was rewired by CIA to do his deeds.

The crazy thing about US media—controlled by zionists as it is—is its compulsion to brag. Yesterday, NPR interviewed a guy named Larry Weinstein, a psychiatrist, who wrote a book about his father having been subjected to medical experimentation in a psychiatric hospital at McGill University in Canada in the 1950s. Weinstein’s father entered the hospital a 49 year old suffering from depression; he returned a functional 3 year old, and never resumed normal life. http://books.google.com/books/about/Psychiatry_and_the_CIA.html?id=uknuAAAAMAAJ

Holmes was said to be a brilliant student in neuroscience at U of Colorado. His behavior—surrendering as he did, and telling police his apartment was wired—is not the behavior of a enraged killer; not like the behavior of the Columbine killers, for example.

If CIA did it to Weinstein’s father in 1950s, we know it is possible. That NPR chose to air a program about a book written in 1990 and an event that happened in 1950, you have to ask why. Why just now? Why, when strange killings are taking place? Are there zombie killers all over the world?

Did Israel also set in motion the bombing of a busload of Israeli kids in Bulgaria? Jews have done this before—killed their own in order to blame it on others: there is evidence zionists set off Kristallnacht, for one example. (see Francis Nicosia, “Zionism and Antisemitism in Nazi Germany;” http://www.amazon.com/Zionism-Anti-Semitism-Germany-Francis-Nicosia/dp/B007MXXXFM/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1343009877&sr=8-4&keywords=francis+nicosia : Mossad was active in Germany in 1938; their job was to move German Jews from Germany to Palestine, illegally breaking British barriers to Jewish entry. Gestapo was well aware of Mossad activities: Mossad office was across the street from German police. Why would Nazis deliberately start an anti-Jewish riot when Jews were aware of Gestapo activities, and Mossad was getting Jews out of Germany, which is what Germans wanted? German Jews were resisting leaving Germany for Palestine, so Mossad provoked the riots in order to frighten Jews into fleeing. USHMM says Nazis planned the riots “on the anniversary of Beer Hall putsch”—Jews have a thing for anniversaries—and if USHMM says it, you know it must be a fabrication.

Posted by J Richards on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 03:11 | #

@Daniel

That link to Linder’s comment is a gem. I don’t usually read VNN, and would’ve missed it.

Linder blatantly lies, distorts and endorses excerpts that are beneath his intelligence and education. Why? To make Jew excuses! This coming from Alex “exterminate the Jews” Linder… priceless!!!

You have no idea how priceless this is!

——-

I’ll get back to Lister and Dan Dare.

Posted by uh on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 04:38 | #

And Uh as for all of Western philosophy being mere nihilism, well I think Aristotle and Aristotelians everywhere might disagree.

I’m sure they’re all breeding away in ARISTOTELSTAN.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:06 | #

For the saner discussants:

If GW has now capitulated to a “revolution within the form”, transmuting MajorityRights into MajorityRichards, gold to lead as it were, is there another forum wherein the better sorts would be welcome to carry on the MR community? We’ve lost a lot of great people over the past couple of years since the reappearance of the ‘orrid Icke, I mean, JRichards. Trainspotter, Notus Wind, Dasein, Armor, Grimoire, the Scroob, Christian Miller, David Hamilton, and I’m sure others I cannot recall, or never really knew, like the fabled Wintermute. Perhaps we could encourage our own cyber-ingathering elsewhere, and attract back some of these strays? I come out of the conservative, Christian trad, and Austro-libertarian online worlds, and am just not that familiar with the WN web. Have some of our lost sheep found their way to counter-currents, VNN, Gates of Vienna, etc (I don’t really see them at AR)?

If Richards is now in the opening stages of reasserting and finalizing his control of MR, then I’m leaving. The ideal purpose of a metacritical, ideological site is to build a community of intellectuals whose discussions cumulatively strengthen the entire group’s understanding of the issues under consideration, and lead to some definite activism, either online or real world (such “activism” can be intellectual as well as political). One secret to Jewish power that I have seen, both up close and vicariously, is that Jews do NOT just endlessly cogitate, nor do most engage in intellectual pursuits merely out of an admirable Platonic search for Truth. When Jews invest even just their time, there is always an ulterior goal, whether to advance the tribe’s image, perfect a line of propaganda, prepare something for publication, gain professional notoriety, etc.

WNs need to start thinking along those lines. WN sites should not be mere ‘safety valves’ wherein disgruntled whites can rant, but ‘progressive’ or teleological entities. If we extract the best 50 or so commenters from MR’s past, a number which would obviously include GW himself, we have a pretty powerful intellectual nucleus which could, with commitment and discipline, become a minor, if probably indirect, force in world affairs. There are powerful ideas lurking about MR (and the broader WN movement), especially those implicating a fundamental (ontological) critique of hegemonic liberalism. I myself prefer the path of ethically critiquing the multikult from within American traditional conservatism (aka, Jeffersonian small government classical liberalism); that is, I hold that opposition to the immigration invasion and the Cult of Diversity can be dispositively justified without recourse to rejecting the basic principles of the Glorious Revolution, the American Constitution, and bourgeois capitalism - let alone Christianity! I’m therefore inclined to think of ontological nationalism as philosophical overkill. Nevertheless, that project does embody the kind of fundamental metapolitical thinking that we must do if we’re going to bring more of the white cognitive elite to our views, which, incidentally, ought to become easier as the scale of mulikult damage increases, and its noisomeness more difficult to avoid.

So MR is drifting into tendentious irrelevance, the MR community as constituted at its height has largely dissipated, but the potential value to be derived from reconstituting that community under serious auspices is large. But where can we go? Thoughts?

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:30 | #

Leon,

Unfortunately you are wasting your time if you think you can create bonds with atypical “White Nationalists”. I say that because most WNs, for whatever cockeyed reasons, are virulently anti-Christian / anti-capitalist. Moreover, many of those whom you might consider your allies will most certainly be your mortal enemies when the SHTF. I can’t help but conclude most whom inhabit the WN ranks (at least in the extreme quarters) are nothing more than atheist/Marxist/Occupy Wall Street types at their core. The only distinction or redeeming quality that sets leftist WNs apart from the frothing at the mouth demonic “anti-racist” anti-Christian Marxists is they try in vain to promote a pro-white agenda. The problem with their a pro-white agenda is they invariably employ a “cut off their own noses to spite their own faces” method…. IOW, their defeat is front-loaded….

HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF: THE VENDEE GENOCIDE
POSTED BY ANN BARNHARDT – JULY 18, AD 2012 10:20 AM MST

Here’s my latest video recorded by the good folks at FreedomTalkNetcast.com down in Pueblo, Colorado.

This presentation covers the almost unknown war and genocide against the people of the Vendee region of France during the proto-Marxist French Revolution. This genocide by the atheist, godless, totalitarian French Revolutionaries against the Church killed 450,000 people, and has served as a the tactical template for Marxist governments who have fomented statist schisms and then entered into open war against the Church over the last century, including the Soviets and Mexicans in the early 20th century, and the Red Chinese and Vietnamese, and Marxist Latin American regimes.

The Marxist Obama regime is following that same template to a terrifying, yet in no way surprising, degree.

The only question is, how will it end here? What is beyond question is the fact that we are now, in the United States, on the path to genocide.

In four parts, total time approximately one hour twenty minutes.

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/barnhardt-la-vendee/

Posted by Theusz Hamtaahk on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:14 | #

So MR is drifting into tendentious irrelevance, the MR community as constituted at its height has largely dissipated, but the potential value to be derived from reconstituting that community under serious auspices is large. But where can we go? Thoughts?

MR’s essential problem is that “EGI” is a stupid idea.

The site was in its prime when you guys thought that Salterism might pay dividends. Unfortunately for you, it hasn’t done - instead, Guessedworker and friends have retreated into their shell, because “EGI” must not be exposed to criticism of any greater calibre than 90Lew90, who doesn’t even know what the hell you are talking about.

What you ought to do is to give up peddling this utter shite - read my essay - take down the silly out-of-context Botticelli painting, and rename the site to “death by a billion immigrants” or something else that isn’t moralistic like “majority rights”. The content of this site should appeal to everyone - racialists or non-racialist immigration skeptics like myself - invite good manners, be open to criticism, and focus on:

1. History of government lies and incompetence surrounding immigration policy
2. Accurate accounting of immigration numbers
3. Truthful and detailed recording of the consequences of immigration

Dan Dare’s series on immigration and politics is an example of valuable research that would find a suitable home in deathbyimmigration.com.

This is your final warning, Earthlings.

Posted by ffss on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:02 | #

So big, yet so vacuous. A contrived quibble about the word “ultimate” and its gross impropriety. You should definitely receive more attention, and perhaps a headline alongside similar subjects such as the Digital Breivik Theory.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:55 | #

GW writes: “I don’t think we need to deny belief in the Single Jewish Cause among a substantial number of WNs.”

My objection is not to the criticism of the over-emphasis on Jewish influence. It is to the pedantically pretentious phrase “monocausal reasoning”.

As J Richards has pointed out, this is a neologism worthy of the Frankfurt School’s pathologization strategy.

If the phrase were “the single Jewish cause fallacy” rather than “monocausal reasoning” we could have a more reasonable dialogue that began with the definition, hence constraint of the scope of that fallacy. Outside of various conceptions of “God”, NO ONE and I mean NO ONE engages in “monocausal reasoning”. What they engage in is oversimplification or, as I have previously described it “Ockham’s Chainsaw Massacre”.

Moreover, if one wants to get pedantically pretentious one can always resort to “reductionism” as the culprit. Good grief, don’t we have enough conceptual confusion to deal with as it is?

Posted by daniel on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:18 | #

Jim, well said:

Single Jewish Cause would be more accurate and descriptive.

...“Ockham’s Chainsaw Massacre”, hysterical.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:12 | #

The trouble is parsimony is it’s not what it once was - it is possible to cut one’s own epistemological throat with Occam’s razor quite easily. After all the naively reductionist idea that everything is but mere physics and some frivolous stamp collecting (to keep everyone that isn’t a physicist busy with trivia) isn’t defended today by anyone other than imbeciles like E.O. Wilson and his embarrassingly bad book “Consilience”.

The notion of simple isn’t that clear either. And sometimes simple equals excruciatingly crude. After all a hypothesis has to account for all the relevant evidence, but how do we decide the boundary conditions on what counts as relevant evidence and what is allowed to hide behind the save all of ceteris paribus?

The cult of inappropriate reductionism is one that also plagues modern thought (see Roger Scruton on “nothing but” reductionism). Indeed liberalism has quite a lot of inappropriate reductionism within its confines. But such matters are for another day.

Posted by daniel on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:38 | #

I believe this is also known as “physics envy”

Posted by John on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:16 | #

James: “My objection is not to the criticism of the over-emphasis on Jewish influence. It is to the pedantically pretentious phrase “monocausal reasoning”.”

“Monocausal” is a particularly easy-to-knock-down straw man and often, I believe an attempt at discourse derailing. Most “monocausalist’s” real position is that the activities of Jews, while not the sole cause of the current state of affairs in our home and diaspora lands, have been indispensable to such.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:43 | #

John, more to the point I think is that the ratio of importance to “respectable” attention is so large as to dwarf almost any other subject. It exceeds race, which exceeds gender difference.

But I really must ask GL:

Under what circumstances is it wise to multiply entities beyond necessity?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:43 | #

A truly touching story about the Queen’s Jewry

Posted by daniel on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:26 | #

My experience tells me that one of the key and pernicious reasons that arguments tend to be multiplied beyond necessity is that doing so serves the big business of academia - which is selling talk.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:23 | #

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world He didn’t exist.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UiqTNCnFv8

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:29 | #

Sorry. I linked to the wrong video above. Here is the one that contains the quote about the Devils’ greatest trick:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xub-QFqgYik

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:44 | #

Posted by Jimmy Marr on July 24, 2012, 12:29 AM | #

Sorry. I linked to the wrong video above. Here is the one that contains the quote about the Devils’ greatest trick:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xub-QFqgYik

Not bad, Jimmy.

Now if only the folks could make the connection between the message in your vid and what’s conveyed in the following, then we might make some progress:

If I Were the Devil - by PAUL HARVEY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Az0okaHig&feature=youtu.be

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:00 | #

@James Bowery

I thought you were using Occam’s razor or parsimony as a synonym for what might be dubbed strict reductionism. Fair enough parsimony is actually a parallel concept which is OK in general terms, but even here what counts as an ‘entity’? Are they simple or complex - i.e. is it better to account for a phenomena with two simple entities or one complex or ‘bundled’ one? When does ceteris paribus become problematic - just how ‘complete’ is a complete explanation?

However most people in online debates etc., do typically use parsimony as short-hand for some form of strict reductionism. So I was mostly reacting to the ‘lurking’ strict reductionism not parsimony per se.

I have been putting together some long notes with regard to reductionism within political theory etc., and was going to post something this morning (taken from my notes) on the topic you raised, but then I word checked it and would have been a 2500+ word comment! So getting into various takes on precisely what reductionism means, non-reductionist or even anti-reductionist physicalisms is probably a bit off-topic. Then add in the anti-realist versus realistic debate and it’s a pretty involved subject.

How on E.O. Wilson and his warmed up logical positivism I will quote from one reviewer:

“. . . everything is physical perhaps, but surely there are many kinds of physical things. Some are protons; some are constellations; some are trees or cats; and some are butchers, bakers or candlesticks. For each kind of thing, there are the proprietary generalisations by which it is subsumed, and in terms of which its behaviour is to be explained. For each such generalisation there is the proprietary vocabulary that is required in order for our discourse to express it. Nothing can happen except what the laws of physics permit, of course; but much goes on that the laws of physics do not talk about.”

One does not start to look for an explanation of for example adaptive sex-ratio variation or indeed an explanation of the possible constraints upon such adaptive behaviour in the animal kingdom by consulting a physicist – even a very clever one as no theory in physics has anything to say on this matter – the phenomenon is simply ‘invisible’ from that ‘lower level’ view-point. It might also be claimed that there are in fact irreducibly biological properties or phenomena in the world. Perhaps also irreducibly social phenomena too, but that’s another debate again.

According to pragmatic anti-reductionism, properties of wholes may be determined by those of the parts, but this does not imply that they are necessarily derivable from them. If you want to understand the world then the only possible strategy is to investigate each phenomenon on its own terms rather than start from physics. In my experience the vast majority of scientists would agree with some form of pragmatic anti-reductionism. Methodological reductionism is of course everyone’s starting point but in this rather restrictive sense of operating at the appropriate level of resolution.

Well OK I better stop typing now or else I will go on and on.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:10 | #

GL, it looks like if you and I are to find tractable ground for communication on such universals it will be related to the paper by Marcus Hutter titled A Complete Theory of Everything (will be subjective).

To summarize, an “entity” not to be multiplied beyond necessity in Ockham’s terms, is in the dimension of information (a unit for which sometimes called a “bit”) and the grounding realization of how that information is derived is non-computable and its interpretation subjective, although we may try to approximate its derivation to arbitrary accuracy given sufficient resources (which, of course, may not be attainable for any given practical purpose). But we do what we can and sometimes we do muddle through with the help of various pragmatics like controlled experiments, etc.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:02 | #

Lourdes

Is this really true? Generating loyalty to a remote, centralized nation-state and suppressing local loyalties required a lot of violence and state force. For example, the French Revolution, the English Civil War, the American Civil War, etc. It could just be that wars for “unification” kill off those most likely to rebel and leave people more likely to submit to centralized power.

I partially answered this question above but there’s another aspect as well which you hit on. If part of a nation evolves to the point where they see “us” as a national unit while other parts are at the regional / tribalist stage e.g. the south and central English with a national identity vs the north and southwest England as regional only identities then yes the “nationalist” part will stomp the regionalist part until they get their way.

Either way though the norm for human populations is a group of people related by blood living in a terriotory with borders defended by force. Only the scale varies.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:07 | #

If part of a nation evolves to the point where they see “us” as a national unit while other parts are at the regional / tribalist stage e.g. the south and central English with a national identity vs the north and southwest England as regional only identities then yes the “nationalist” part will stomp the regionalist part until they get their way.

I left out the critical point - both the regionalists and the nationalists want a sealed in-group.

Posted by uh on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:05 | #

Either way though the norm for human populations is a group of people related by blood living in a terriotory with borders defended by force. Only the scale varies.

Norm. Norm. Norm. Norm. Norm.

Do you have the feeling certain of this company are over-complicating matters??

Well I am drunk, and cannot be trusted to produce rational ideas, but it is a fair question. I feel Grahamy-wammy is perpetually dragging shit down into Philo 102.

I think we should all just take James’ advice and read or reread The Extended Phenotype.

Sealed in-group = some degree of cousin-effing whitey won’t be comfortable with.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:45 | #

@James Bowery

And what is information? The opposite of surprise?

I’m enough of a somewhat intransigent physicalist, even of a non-reductive type, to be suspicious that the ghost of Plato still sadly haunts many.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:24 | #

Sealed in-group = some degree of cousin-effing whitey won’t be comfortable with.

Iceland / Denmark. Definitely fine. Possibly optimal.

Posted by IAE on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 18:59 | #

@ Dan Dare

“I stand by the conclusion that Jews had little if anything to do with the formation of immigration policy during the forties, fifties and early sixties”

Don’t most polices have their roots in non-sovereign organisation such as the Bilderberg group? Especially ones that get spread across the entire western world with such speed and efficiency it’s hard to declaim any centralised point.

I think its also fair to say that beyond these shadowy king-and-policy makers, we have the routine business of enforcing and maintaining such policies undertaken largely by Freemasonry: Police, CPS and judiciary being prevalent members.

Who finances the Bilderberg group, Dan? To whose goals does it operate? Same for the Freemasons ...

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 28 May 2022 16:16 | #

A belated but still critical answer to GL’s question “And what is information?”

For the “intransigent physicalist”, the best definition of information is Algorithmic Information as opposed to Shannon Information. The clarifying exemplar of the distinction is how one measures the number of bits it takes to represent pi. Shannon Information says it takes infinite bits. Algorithmic Information says it takes as many bits as the shortest algorithm that generates the digits of pi. It should be obvious why Algorithmic Information is avoided like the plague by the social pseudosciences in favor of Shannon Information in the form of “statistics” because the purpose served by the social pseudosciences is to render arguments over causation endless and unprincipled.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments