|
|
|
Hannah Arendt: Far From Innocent I did not expect to find it necessary to discuss Hannah Arendt at this point. However, from even a cursory inspection of theoretical and historical issues relevant to White separatism and nationalism, one finds her person and views interjected to influence pivotal turns. 1. She was a student and intimate of Heidegger, highly familiar with his concerns as they would bear upon White nationalism and separatism. 2. She was a prominent and articulate Jewess, providing keen insight into the formulation of views in advocacy of those antagonistic to White nationalism and separatism. For these two reasons, she is of high relevance theoretically. 3. She also managed to impose herself and her views concretely, at pivotal turns for White Nationalism: from her relationship with Heidegger and commentary on the Nazis to her other high profile commentary; on U.S. racial strife, particularly school desegregation, civil rights and her cause célèbre, anti-miscegenation laws – concrete issues which had the eyes of the world, including Marxist antagonists of American Whites, upon them.
Warning: this is a longish essay, 5,500 words. However, it is usefully read in 2 parts - the first part, dealing with theoretical background as it concerns White separatism, is about 2,600 words. The second part deals primarily with her application to issues of segregation as aroused by the Little Rock crisis; it contains some encouragement for the reader to contribute comments by way of their private taste and opinion: that is why I kept these parts together, because I would like the comments to be as one. Hannah Arendt: Far From Innocent
We have noted that anti-racism is Cartesian – that is an unreasonable, inhuman even, requirement to pursue pure transcendence of discriminatory, relational-perceptual organization. This purist requirement effects us in an immediate, (im)practical sense by “rationally blinding” us to our relationships, knower to known. More fully, what we mean by rational blindness is the conceptual separation of knower from the process, relational contributions and organized maintenance of knowing – a Cartesian separation from patterned, systemic connection which, while in fact impossible to be without, is theoretically required, institutionalized under the rubric of civil rights and anti-racism, mandating a blindness to the true nature of our developmental processes. Despite this absurdity and in fact wielding it, a way of life, liberalism, has become intransigent in correspondence with its institutionalization – in all likelihood for the facile utility of this Cartesian dodge in unburdening guilt and responsibility among naive believers and disingenuous practitioners alike. As a key component of the Enlightenment’s liberation project, this Cartesian technology imperviously reifies a false promise for a heady liberation from “the tyranny” of our biological patterns; but it has nevertheless had the ironic effect of creating a tyranny of pseudo-individualism in a pseudo-necessary pitting against group interests – White group interests anyway. Its liberal imperviousness has been bolstered by aspirations of democratic theory for increased participation – abstract participation where White interests might be concerned, concretely designated minority participation where White interests are not the concern. That goal of increased participation has also had utility to sheer mercantile interests, exacerbating their obliviousness to our survival as Whites on the whole, in discreet parts – nations, regions, communities – and as individuals. Moreover, this phoney, liberal individualist way of life has been made still more intransigent as it has been underwritten by the apparent horrors of Nazi and communist collectivism; in contrast with America’s success in World War II and the decades following; which has set in stone the ostensible validity of this Cartesian notion of Civil Rights already ensconced in The U.S. Constitution. This made sacrosanct the false notion of purely organized and independent action, imposing a rational blindness to our interactive, relational and developmental processes both of the life-span and of our deeper and in large part discreetly co-evolved human ecological systems. Through the rational blindness of this technology, we may theoretically and ultimately in fact, rupture our most profound biological patterns. At one with the Enlightenment’s project to promote liberation from social patterns by means of sheer empirical or transcendent theory, civil rights are a derivative, Cartesian, therefore impervious technology - calling upon us to mechanistically and objectively ignore our own subjective and relative/relational entry into inquiry along with the reflexive effects that entry may have – that is what we are calling “rational blindness”, viz. blindness to interactive involvement with the reflexively responding and conservatively balancing forces of ecology, human and otherwise. That blinding technology has indeed been seized upon by liberalizing forces who have no problem with, in fact may idealize, the rupture of our biological patterns. Anti-racism has been extrapolated to inculcate the quest for an impossible, inhuman, Cartesian concept of individual purity transcendent of natural and social processes – a purity beyond the delimitations of natural patterns and a radical skepticism of the social delimitations of consensus, those that are relatively transcendent of the moment and episode anyway – it wrongly requires a rational blindness to the patterns of necessary relations and leaves a gap to be bridged between knower and known.
1. She was a student and intimate of Heidegger, highly familiar with his concerns as they would bear upon White nationalism and separatism. 2. She was a prominent and articulate Jewess, providing keen insight into the formulation of views in advocacy of those antagonistic to White nationalism and separatism. For these two reasons, she is of high relevance theoretically. 3. She also managed to impose herself and her views concretely, at pivotal turns for White Nationalism: from her relationship with Heidegger and commentary on the Nazis to her other high profile commentary on U.S. racial strife, particularly school desegregation, civil rights and her cause célèbre, anti-miscegenation laws – concrete issues which had the eyes of the world, including Marxist antagonists of American Whites, upon them. Preliminary to expounding upon her concrete influences and purposes, lets set out a most concise overview of her analytical abstracts as she was to deploy them in practical theory in an effort to bridge this Cartesian gap between knower and known: Following Heidegger’s lead, she became attuned to the problem of Cartesianism and sought the means of reconciling its dualisms; as theory, this is particularly relevant to White Nationalists since at the basis of this problem is the acknowledgment of the legitimacy, in fact human necessity, of prejudice – at least in some cases, according to Arendt. She uses a trichotomy between the private and the social (where she holds it legitimate to discriminate) and the public (where she maintains it is not, except to protect the private and social right to discriminate). However, to resolve Cartesian duality, the operational requirement remained of overcoming the vestiges of what Aristotle called “techne” as misapplied to the social world. Techne are the rigid, mechanical means and technological ways for reaching and assimilating the aim of theory – “Theoria” - which is fixed, permanent, transcendent (“Cartesian”), of nature and its flux. The technical means and aims to pursue Theoria tended to have a separating, rupturing effect when misapplied to the social realm of “Praxis” – the less predictable mix and sundry responses of the social world which, not being transcendent, but interactive, require the feel of practical judgment according to Aristotle - practical judgment which he calls phronesis. However, Arendt does not go the route of developing phronesis to bridge the Cartesian gap of knower to known. Rather, she develops Kant’s notion of the value, albeit unfinished value, of individual aesthetic judgments and opinions. For Arendt, these were the means of overcoming the “working and laboring” mentality of misapplied techne to the social world, providing the individual with an immediate grasp of irreducible particulars, and a capacity to bring these, to deploy a mentality of immediate “action”, from the individual into the social and public space - which she deemed absolutely necessary to evaluate these judgments against those of others. She is bearing acutely upon theoretical concerns that set out from and are ultimately to be applied in direct, radical concern of White/European nationalists. Arendt becomes relevant to White Nationalism in its critique of “anti-racism” as one of two influential (Jewish) students of Heidegger and his anti-Cartesian project in service of the German species of White Nationalism - which is analogous enough to the concerns of all White/European Nationalisms. The other prominent Jewish student of Heidegger being Gadamer, who, so far as I know, coined the phrase “the prejudice against prejudice” in incisive criticism of the Enlightenment’s liberation project. Arendt made the somewhat more modest charge that the Enlightenment project was “far from innocent”, but she was no less aware of the necessity of prejudice and the inhumanness of its prohibition. Hence, she is wrestling with theoretical concerns that bear directly upon White Nationalism. She, like Gadamer and others influenced by Heidegger, is trying to work out ways to redress the relation of knower to known, not only describing how it does work when it works, but trying to prescribe constituents of its better functioning. In other words as it concerns White Nationalists, how we might address the Cartesian fallacy of anti-racism and bring our own efforts of building White consciousness, community and nations to full effect in reality. The Cartesian misappropriation should be dealt with as it points toward a pure theoretical (non) relation of knower to known regarding natural and social processes – blindering classificatory genus and species of relational processes which, in honest description, would be necessary to both maintenance and growing development of the knower; their requisite, practical realization of discernment by including the most relevant, relational patterns of connection while delimiting systemic debasement. Cartesianism’s conceptual detachment from these patterns of connection and debasement is part and parcel of the Enlightenment project’s lack of post modern sophistication as it sought sheer liberation from custom, habit, tradition, class rule, lets add co-evolution, over individuals; rather than the necessity for their reconstructive properties, in balance; the knower has been institutionalized as sacrosanct, independent by liberalism in the form of civil rights - separate from anything like co-evolution, natural community, wielding an impervious technology against evolutionary context and ecological process. When scratching our heads and wondering how previous generations could have been quite so in remiss in failing so badly to see our necessary relations, including our group defense as Whites/Europeans, it is necessary to take into account the lofty feeling of power and innocence in these liberation narratives and in our position – we, the apparent forces of objective reason and democracy, had won the war against tyrannical social patterns and the forces of might makes right. Jewish interests, their wiles and erudition, were on our side. Actually, maybe we did win the war over might makes right. But did we win the war against the cunning? That, of course, is where we must look now, in overcoming our rational blindness. Weren’t Jewish interests quite so transparent as to be evidently serving their own and not the interests of objectivity? Not quite so. In the likes and person of Hannah Arendt, they were quite adept at flattering our sill in tact wish to believe in our triumph as necessarily corresponding to the triumph of objectivity and sheer rationale. This was disingenuous on Arendt’s part. She knew what she was doing. While we may have been rationally blind to our group interests, she and hers were not. She was aware not only of the mechanical fallacy of John Locke’s notion of Civil Rights but that the whole Enlightenment project was “far from innocent.”
Nevertheless, it is not sufficient to merely put her aside as a cunning Jewess who, at 18, greedily accepted Heidegger’s Nazi spunk into her mouth, nor that she would later just crassly go about the popularization of the righteously unpopular, overturning tens of thousands of years of the most sublime evolution, in advocating black intermarriage with humans - although she did do that. To dismiss her summarily is to do injustice to understanding of theoretical matters that are of crucial importance to us and, at the same time, particular applications that are highly relevant to us. That emotive out of our system, lets get on with it: Her theoretical concerns are bourn into the realm of high concrete relevance at pivotal turns for White separatists. Regarding the first matter, as a student of Heidegger, she became a critic of Cartesianism, recognizing that it broached delimitations of prejudice and discrimination that were necessary to the human condition. Wielding articulate theory upon this, she makes some arguments that can appear radically conservative, perfectly in line with the most radical White separatism. In fact, her statement that the Enlightenment project was “far from innocent” along with fellow Heideggarian student Gadamer’s chiding of its “prejudice against prejudice” provide radical clues and confidence for the legitimacy of White advocacy. It is not really ironic that they were both Jewish and advocating the legitimacy of group prejudice, as (MacDonald well chronicles) Jews were not blind to their group interests. Where they loom disingenuous, however, initiating a deep cutting edge of liberalism, is in the area of analytical distinctions and syntheses proposed to bridge the Cartesian gap between knower and known. While bridging that gap is imperative for White separatists as well, it is important from a perspective of White separatists to understand Arendt’s theoretical parsing of the matters, where they might be going wrong (or right), and also where she may have misapplied her theoretical distinctions to pivotal matters, to large, pejorative influence. Both her theory and application would surely have influenced the mindset of liberal millions. ………………….
Perhaps interestingly, surprisingly, she did not look toward further integration of Aristotle’s praxis as the key conceptual tool to bridge this gap. Rather she looked upon Kant’s notion of aesthetic judgment from his Critique of Judgment for a notion of aesthetic judgments as the means by which valid but as yet unwritten private musings are initiated, rendered, then tested and consummated in the public realm. She argues that the private individual necessarily captures irreducible qualities through opinion and taste but that these judgments are neither relative nor objective, rather they require communal intersubjectivity – they implicitly appeal to and are assessed by the judgment of others. This is not a function of universal principles, but of particular humans among a plurality of others – she sees differences between individuals as imperative to this process. In summation of Arendt’s relevance then, it is so, as she occupies a high profile being a prominent Jewish voice, while partaking of Heidegger’s theoretical concerns and also differencing from them as they pertain to White Nationalism. In abstract terms she is relevant through her concern to redress the Cartesian dichotomy, bridging realms private and social, where she holds discrimination to be more than valid, sacrosanct in fact; to the public, where she holds discrimination to be invalid; it is rather the place to uphold social and private choice - to negotiate these realms she would utilize the aesthetics of private judgment as proffered by Kant, with a special notion of activity that renders the pubic space sacrosanct for the evaluation and consummation of judgment; finally, she deploys these theoretical distinctions of the private, the social and the public upon the republic to concrete concerns of White nationalism. She applies these theoretical matters, with their deceptively conducive /inconducive parsing to bear on the most acute, concrete issues not only of The Third Reich, but on White nationalism more broadly. She was integral in representing and bringing key issues of race relations in The U.S., its Civil Rights disputes, to fulmination in the eyes of the world. Paying attention were both those with kindly disposition to White Americans and those not - such as Marxist Jews, who antagonistically sought to pressure and to destabilize White America. Thus, her efforts are not only useful to look at as considerably backed theory with sympathetic and antagonistic rendering for White nationalism and separatism, but because upon arrival in The U.S. in the wake of World War II, under the hallowed leverage of Jewish victimhood, she was able impose her views – with what was, coming from her, a curious veneer of conservatism and newly adopted constitutional patriotism; regarding the most acute issues of race relations, when and where not only the eyes of Americans, but of the world, friend and foe, were looking: to issues of school desegregation, civil rights and her priority cause, what she proposed as the pre-eminent right to miscegenation. ……… Part 2 ……… It is the practical application in her “Reflections on Little Rock” that we will be concerned to examine.
Have we now come to the point where it is the children who are being asked to change or improve the world? And do we intend to have our political battles fought in the school yards?” - Arendt Just as it is surprising to learn that Arendt recognized the legitimacy of prejudice, so too it is surprising to learn that she explicitly recognized its application, including some lip service to States rights, with particular attention to freedom of/from association in what she called social and private realms (in contrast to public/political realms). Arendt’s application of her trichotomy is seductive, coming across as more conservative than conservative, in a way that could have been somewhat disarming even to K.K.K., segregationists, Confederate State secessionists and staunch Constitutionalists. In application of her trichotomy she held that Brown vs. Board of Education was the wrong place to spearhead Civil Rights activism as it put children, who are neither mature enough for such confrontation nor accorded the full rights of citizenship, on the front of a civil rights battle; in fact, she held that children and their education ought to be private and social matters of families - matters which should be allowed a large amount of discrimination. Similarly, regarding social matters, such as a summer camp for Jews, or camps for those who would not like to come together with Jews socially, the right to discriminate should be retained. Regarding the attendance of places such as a movie theater or a restaurant, however, citizens should not be discriminated against because the reasons for going there are not primarily social. Furthermore, she maintained that miscegenation was a right that the public concerns of law ought to guarantee as it was a private choice for adult citizens to decide and a prerogative for the pubic to uphold; so fundamental, it was the place where civil rights activism ought to begin. In that regard, she sounds merely as a principled constitutionalist - a “conservative” of sorts.
It all sounds fairly reasonable if you ignore the obvious, that she considers it unthinkable that blacks and Whites should not necessarily be included in the same republic; and that she is seeking to rend the most precious of social capital, the culmination of our 41,000 years of co-evolution, beyond social concern and objection with her (private, social, group interested) assertion that laws against miscegenation are the most unconscionable violation of civil rights of all – the place to spear-head the attack on behalf of civil rights. Arendt ascends into her newly found commitment to American civil rights to maintain the eminent domain of the knower and the social contra the public; but she is guilty of retaining a Cartesian, a-historical maneuver at the same time since she ignores matters of co-evolution; which were of course, evident even then, as highly contrasting ways of life, including means to sexual consummation and maturity that would evidently entail much unnecessary wreckage if defiantly brought together as sacrosanct. The blindering to this was bound to work against the historically conscientious and favor the crassly opportunistic; as she exploited a singular, universalizing distinction between adult citizenship and childhood dependence, while ignoring differences in any other protracted time span of natural unfolding, whether evolutionary consideration or natural sublimation in the life-span, in her commentary on Little Rock. The only relevant time pattern she recognizes as requisite to enfranchisement to the Republic is the lifespan distinction between child and adult; which she forefronts to underscore restraint, her concern that children not be put at the front of racial lines. While activism ought to proceed by adults in pursuit of miscegenation, contexting an automatic presumption not only of the validity of the different races being members of the same “Republic”, but beyond any question, their prerogative to intermarry unopposed by majority judgment, irrespective of differences (differences which she herself underscores) of apparent co-evolution - time factors (within and beyond the life-span) relevant to the appropriateness of hazarding interface, with an ultimate gravity on par with her universalized life-span distinction of adult and child. Despite the conservative abstracts which she forefronts, the sharp lines that she would draw between the social, the private and the public, and in the sanctimony that she accords the latter two, disingenuously, on the basis of sheer civil rights in her musings on Little Rock, we see the germination of what would become the tyranny and double standards of the politically correct - apparently through falsely set parameters of “activism and restraint”: we can begin to perceive crystallizing the horrors of forced integration; with very clever but false analytical parsing, liberal differentiation from social connection which would magically lead one astray from concerns and products of vast biological evolution; we will see the beginnings of the self righteousness of miscegenators; of the liberal pattern of making the “prerogatives” of the freakish exception sacrosanct, while ignoring the profound pattern; the value of “diversity” ad absurdum as it is supposed to be not only necessary for debate but also correction in the public space, thus the democratic republic’s most sacred duty to protect; and taking for granted legitimate membership in “the Republic” of those who are and have been thrown together through interests of an exploitative few, with reckless, shortsighted, perhaps even malevolent calculation; irrespective of how obviously their interaction might negatively impact profound biological differences. This stealth was perhaps eased of Arendt with the additional halo of innocence in abstraction; her abstraction of the problem and abstraction of the public took advantage of whatever wishes that they may have had to be unburdened in objective purity in their need to participate over the Cartesian divide; that was to be done with the aesthetics of judgment as it may overcome the impervious and inhumane imposition of techne on the social, public and private spheres. Techne was the mechanical means of realizing theoria, and was misapplied to the social world, praxis. She believed the plodding of technology infused people with a dangerously inhumane working and laboring mentality that removed them from the natural, human form of knowing, and required a remedial transformation to a mentality of action. There probably is a large abstract truth to that. It may not be exactly wrong to facilitate the bringing of voices to the public with a similar enough population genetically and sufficient controls placed on significant variables; but for her it meant rather the institutionalization of ongoing rhetorical testing in the public sphere, one abstract, deracinated individual’s prerogative weighing equally to another’s, irrespective of co-evolutionary differences and consideration (in fact, requiring that those differences, that “diversity” be brought together in the public). Bowery would object that she took the valuation of rhetorical debate way too far and he would be right. Dr. Lister may suggest that she proposed the institutionalized, ongoing breach of social capital and he would be right. If they were both to say what she proposed was evil, they would both be right. She did fashion sharp analytic tools to overcome the gap between objectivism and relativism. We may re-assess these analytic distinctions as they predictably went too far, as wont of Jewish academics: as she placed false distinctions on the social, with a very clever but false analytical parsing, that engendered liberal distinctions from social connection, rather than taking rhetoric as a co-evolutionary tool in the systemic maintenance and furtherance of our deep, biological evolution. In what would be reinforced exponentially by the big business of higher education – which is, in large part, selling talk - she centralized what is our poison, centralized evil in fact: pitting the liberalism of ongoing debate, challenge and transformation of existing orders, as activated by discreet individuals in revolutionary spirit, in an incessant test of the public space – that being her primarily asserted value, over and against our biological difference and its truth; not only blind to the profundity of evolutionary differences but drowning-out, if not silencing, any questioning of the wisdom of placing markedly different peoples under the same rubric; which she did, disingenuously, under the rubric of The American Republic and its civil rights, totally ignoring biological proclivities such as relative fecundity - particularly relevant in democracy as it impacts numerical balance of voting blocks. Perhaps this calls upon Majority Rights to question its own limiting claims on the social, for much of what we see is the product of our White social construction, thus could be subsumed under an expanded notion of the social - therefore discriminatory claim as rightfully, exclusively ours; even things which Arendt would ascribe to the generic public right or private prerogative (more arbitrarily than she had lead on). Is there also a place for group aesthetics which Majority Rights may adjudge as especially significant, as semiotic of biological patterns, the protracted form of which calls for protection from the opportunism built into Arendt’s structure? An aesthetic apprehension by the public allowing people to act immediately, without the cumbrous and impractical apparatus of science? Obviously science can and should contribute crucially to opinions and aesthetic judgments. However, there is apparent merit in Kant’s Judgment of individual aesthetic assessment as providing an immediate, particular grasp of irreducible qualities as well as the means to bridge the Cartesian gap, knower to known; as it contains incipient expectation of public opinion as the necessary realm of re-evaluation and realization, as significant. The valuation of work and labor can be (probably is) over-valued, perhaps disingenuously so, interrupting an organic formation of the republic, but a move to action as Arendt conceives it is to bypass the careful digestion, reflection, measuring, assessment and designated protection of pre-existent biological structures, recklessly subjecting them instead to the prospect of continual transformation. This was a shift too far in favor of mere rhetoric. And of course, no small measure of hypocrisy has come with that notion, as opinions and tastes for White separatism do not have representative access to the public sphere: the WN voice is precluded from the public sphere by the likes of Popper and Marcuse’s proviso to “not tolerate intolerance”, as it itself will not allow for their differences (amen). Of course her key move was to use these abstractions to obfuscate and blithely take for granted black and other non-White enfranchisement in the nation, in the Republic, in the public, moving it beyond contention. Knowing what she knew of the Enlightenment project, her placing the mechanism of civil rights as pivotal arbiter of the nation’s demographics does appear disingenuous. Blacks and Whites were not initially brought together by natural social consensus or choice into “the Republic.” There are obvious biological differences and ways of life that do not take a scientist to posit as dubious to bring together; even at first blush, to put at ongoing risk in public interface. Because Arendt prompts the journey of confidence in departure from the Enlightenment, it is ironic to find that she argued fervently not only on behalf of civil rights, but also subtly, on behalf of freedom of/from association. In merging these disparate projects, she spoke eloquently on behalf of social segregation as being perfectly legitimate in some places - a position that appears quite conservative. At the same time, she – one who recognized the Enlightenment texts as “far from innocent” - placed herself at the center not only of the American civil rights issue but also at what she held to be the pre-eminent civil right of miscegenation: a supposed right beyond ancient bio-evolutionary group patterns – contesting them at a time, in the late 1950’s, when interracial marriage was more than 90% rejected. “Most white Americans in the 1950s were opposed to interracial marriage and did not see laws banning interracial marriage as an affront to the principles of American democracy. A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 96 percent of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage.” Despite the clear distinction of the black and White races that Arendt acknowledges, she nevertheless calls for their enfranchisement, prima facie into common public rights, but especially seeing miscegenation as the most important social right, a cause célèbre.
Not Funny. And he has already had wives and children.
Whereas our aesthetic concern may be shifted to the public space; noting with the benefit of hindsight in particular, that the public taste regarding interracial relationships was experientially measured, careful, sound. Discrimination on racial grounds is one of the clearest ways for the more sublime kinds and patterns to protect themselves from the opportunism and rashness of the crass. As her essay reveals from its onset, not even black leaders were interested in redressing miscegenation laws.
What does her notion of being somehow “disadvantaged and unfairly discriminated against” take into account of African evolution? “I should like to make it clear that as a Jew, I take my sympathy for the cause of the Negroes as for all oppressed or underprivileged peoples and should appreciate it if the reader did likewise.” - Arendt * We might shift further to the topic of aesthetic judgment but there is still another matter to address regarding the necessity of aesthetic judgment to redress “pure” technological application - viz., the technology of forced interaction lingering in Arendt’s program. We can see the leverage she may have contributed to the idea of forced integration – through her notion of the inviolability of the private and public realm as germinating and testing ground: for a test or an experiment can always be excused as a lesson and motion toward alchemical purification of a renewed form. Its eminent promotion on her part was a modern idea, not a post modern one. While science has its concerns for control variables, aesthetcs may also be geared more to the celebration and enshrinement of the deep and the already existent. On the other hand, while sanctimony of the private individual taste and the public correspondence sounds reasonable as she presents it, by separating out the social aspect of all things to us as Whites, in violating those patterns, putting them at continual risk of breach, in fact mandating it, she is setting in motion the horrors of forced integration that we’ve experienced – with the “sacrosanct inviolability” of individual and social prerogative and “requiring” that a diversity of opinions be brought together, mandated there in the public protection of these preferences, she is not only taking for granted, but promoting an ultimate value in the mutual franchising of diverse peoples; and setting in motion the slavery of being prohibited from doing anything to prevent the destruction of our co-evolution.
The charge of hypocrisy is too often wielded in a sophomorish sense, ignoring Augustine’s distinction between the truth as relational versus the truth as relative. Hannah Arendt took for granted her advocacy of biological groups of people as disadvantaged and oppressed, and she was able to take that view, perhaps a bit naively but more probably disingenuously, by ignoring the possibility of important biological, evolutionary differences – differences which should not have been put at risk to the concept of civil rights, the Enlightenment origins of which she was well aware – she was far from innocent, she was an egregious hypocrite; these differences should not have been taken into ongoing individual debate for the purpose of revolutionizing, transforming the common make-up of the Republic – which was her aim, and especially ruthless; biological differences are not recognized in the Constitution or in her concept of public rights; the augury of vast evolutionary destruction was evident in bringing together black and White numerical and biological differences, of people who did not and would not find themselves together in anticipation of a shared Republic. The rhetorical coercion by Jewish interests went on to pervert the form of the technology of rights to fantastic unilateral distortion, wielded as a weapon against the throats of Whites, as a coup de grace to White organization and defense. That was the thanks White Americans and British got for coming to the aid of her people.
.............
I would imagine aesthetics could encompass the qualia of beauty as apprehended by the concerned parties on balance, of balance and harmony as it represents the full pattern of the populace, its hidden values - extending beyond momentary and episodic representation - lurking in aesthetics of the not-so-beautiful as well. Aesthetic apprehension, matters of taste as approved in a true market place would circumscribe the outline of race as profound in a political sense, would be warranted, not only in a social sense – i.e., not to be intervened with by law or some notion of mere, private taste; in terms of action, quite the contrary - action would be taken to protect the majority aesthetic.. And, of course, the ontology project will establish (even more precise) scientific parameters of how Europeans and their different kinds come to count.
.................... * Would she consider that females, long co-evolved in mono-racial situation, may have over-evolved a rebellion against any sort of constraint as in the homeostasis of European evolution there was no need for ultimate constraint (they could basically only rebel to other Whites). Therefore, this sort of rebellion could not be so strong as to be destructive to her own basic evolutionary parameters, it only tended to force the strengthening of those within. That’s a question for scientists, and another attribute for eugenecists to ponder. Clearly liberalism serves the narrow interests of puerile females, and can be successfully pandered to, but.. Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:19 | # It was a litmus test. You failed. Should have kept reading. 3
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:35 | # Of course I deliberated over whether to put that remark in there, but then, when taking into account the resulting context of her politics, the kinds of obscenity and kindred remarks that our people are subject to as a result of her kind of politics*, and in some ways quite directly from her, it struck me as a well deserved reminder of what she was implicating.
Try an unfolding of her core considerations and the relevance of their contexts, not all of which most people are very familiar with. P.S. I wasn’t aware that you were so sensitive. Or are you jaded? Isn’t the Nazi spunk in her mouth nothing more than the verve of Heidegger’s ideas? 4
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:55 | # Although your comment did help to clarify something for me. It had been many years since a pejorative slant on the word intellectual appealed to me. Due to circumstances, I had to be averse to truck driver types who flouted any idea beyond mere pragmatic function. Now I see “intellectual” as a devotion to the pursuit of mere ideas (or moving them aside to make away for more mere pursuit of ideas). By mere, I mean frivolous as opposed to being focused on some important function.
5
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:58 | # I set out to present these ideas to the extent that White Nationalists/Separatists may need to know them. I may have made the essay a bit shorter, particularly in the second half, as this is, after all, fundamentally a discussion board; therefore it’s a good idea to leave things somewhat open ended. But in going back to my original purpose, to provide that audience with what it needs to know basically to discuss this matter, some repetition and banter recommended itself to ease of understanding. Now then, since Dr. Lister is so concerned with communitarianism, perhaps he might like to share with us the personality traits that go into making for community, the cooperative, helpful, encouraging, fostering mentality, the deep sense of loyalty and kindredness…always looking for the good in participants, some helpful pointers of the good as well as specifically pointing some potential trouble spots with kind, respectful, teacherly advice, and the way to part amicably with those of incommensurate purpose. Or is Dr. Lister illustrating why the idealization of community and communitarian projects is highly dubious, since when you deliberately try to build too close a community, you are invariably going to interface with impossible, abrasive characteristics and personalities, looking for the bad in you, looking to make matters difficult when confronted by the most friendly intentions and potentially useful resource. It seems to me that no matter how aligned I might be with Dr. Lister’s anti-liberalism, his skepticism of individualism, no matter how heartfelt my wish for him to preserve European heritages and community; no matter how much I appreciate the necessity even, of being critical of America, or Americans, if I dare to proceed where Americans don’t conform to a stereotype in total, and presume that they perhaps should not feel obliged to integrate with non-Whites, or die on the basis of the media depictions, which apparently some Europeans uncritically consume, if I notice that Dr. Lister is maybe taking his dislike of America and Americans beyond the point of utility, or if I do something worse, like showing some empathy and appreciation for Bowery and his projects, as they pertain largely to a very different context of requirements (it is a difficult balancing act as you guys are pretty mean to each other, so any gesture of kindness to either of you inadvertently endorses meanness to the other, which might not be meant at all, is in fact, not) then a whole potentially important discussion is going to get a sign hung on it - Not worthwhile, says Dr. Lister. It can be an unfortunately effective thing to do, especially coming from such an intelligent, learned man. In days prior to the Internet, the pervasive charge of Nazism and supremacism hung-on all White separatism caused me to shy-away. I am concerned that this kind of summary dismissal may cause people to shy-away from useful considerations. I couldn’t require people to agree with everything nor genuflect to my presentation even if I wanted to, now could I? But it is the stuff that I care about - the relevant content. One of the better things about discussion format is the potential for correction of ideas, because these are such important matters - I don’t want an idea of mine to stand just because it is mine; but because it is the kind of thing that we need to know. This happened with my very first post too. There were what I know to be important points regarding de Beauvoir, Friedan and even Maslow in that post, and a means to transform their pejorative, but influential, matters into a way conducive for Whites. You posted first, a rather lengthy comment on the theme of how we cannot go back. This was a bit frustrating as it had nothing to do with the points and was distracting from important points - in fact, that this was a motion forward; but you kindly agreed with a few points and concluded apologetically that you were tired; so, whatever, maybe the relevance was outside the usual scope of your expertise and purview. We’re humans here, no biggie. Still, a few questions as to relevance may be better than plowing in there with full throttle skepticism that there might be any value in a post I don’t doubt your abilities nor the quanta of your erudition. But I do wonder where your judgment of relevance is at. These are big league concerns we are dealing with: the most important concerns of all. Hence, I can accept your hardball as having place. But if you would cause people to disregard things that are important to them, I will accept it as a duty to note that might not be right. You might be mistaken. It almost seems that no matter how much people may want Scotland and other European countries to retain their native population, boundaries and ways, to help in that cause however they might, White Americans are supposed to drop dead or become integrated with non-Whites because they don’t see the inherent value of John Coltrane’s Americannes, because some Whites are religious freaks, not erudite, phoney and greedy individualist pigs? There is nothing stopping you from saying maybe x and x is important and you may have made a point here, missed a point there, but I’d like to see some of these matters covered from a different angle and with a deepening on some points. I will post in a week or two to my satisfaction. - that may not be the elaborative address of particularly significant points that I might hope, for but fine. I am not jealous when people well analyze and think about the social problems confronting people of native European extraction. For me, the challenge is for victorious ideas, not contestants. You contribute importantly to that end, and that is why I am eager for your continued participation at MR. If you think an idea should be better, by all means. I always read and look forward to your comments - that says something. Your cartoons are funny and throw some light, as cartoons have a way of capturing essences, but you make many good serious points as well - important, non-trivial. It is appreciated. 6
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:22 | # Some trivial points. I wonder if others ever notice that Jewish women can sometimes be moderately attractive when young, yet they age so poorly. My mother is probably around the age of Arendt in the final photo, but she looks at least 20 years younger (never any surgery or Botox, either). I’ve noticed this with other Jews, including from my own past social acquaintance. There may be a few exceptions, like Goldie Hawn (only 1/2 Jewish, however), but as a general rule, I think Jewish females are among the very worst ‘agers’ in the world. That blonde with Eddie Murphy is really hot. Reminds me of a girl I saw just last week in a theater. I was with my own gf, but could barely stop staring. She was a gorgeous blonde, probably naturally so, as well as very nicely attired (ie, not an obvious skank). She was with what was certainly her boyfriend, a rather well (and unusually conservatively) dressed black who, however, seemed really ugly to me (I asked my gf what she thought - her first words “I knew you were going to say something!” ... heehee ... and she said he was “gross”), as well as incredibly stupid looking. Tall and kind of lanky/skinny. Definitely not one of those super-steroidal black athletes. Why would such a beautiful white girl date some ugly/dumb/unfamous black? This girl could have had her pick of rich white guys! Oh well, carry on. 7
Posted by Mick Lately on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:39 | #
The pseudo-academic style of the foregoing paragraph founders on:
It’s jarring to say the least and I don’t think Graham Lister’s “risible” was unwarranted. But I kept reading to get to the JQ meat. I don’t feel it was a waste of my time. @ Leon Haller #6
I’m one of those others.
8
Posted by vo on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:57 | # Coincidentally, there was a New York Times article on Arendt recently. It’s hinged on a new movie about Arendt, and written by the academic director of the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and the Humanities. 9
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 00:03 | # Oh dear seems I’ve touched a nerve or two. Sorry if I find the precise sexual habits/acts of people is of very minor intellectual interest or importance in my take on the history of ideas. I thought this essay was an attempt at a serious intellectual and political analysis? Now imagine presenting this at a university seminar (at a serious university that at least pays lip-service to intellectual rigour) - would chit-chat about the sexual history of Heidegger or an quick quip about ‘Nazi spunk’ really be appropriate in such a context? Very obviously not. Now if it’s a knock-about, relaxed, playful effort then it might (emphasis on the word might) be humourous. And I’m happy to admit that I do use humour, piss-taking, and mockery in some of my own comments. But it’s a very jarring and incongruous presence in what is apparently a sober and ‘serious piece’. And again it’s not part of my ‘anti-Americanism’ to find the prose of the writer to be very poor and badly constructed - that would my view regardless of the nationality of the author of such a mangled effort. I did have some difficulty understanding what many of the sentences were attempting to convey - and I don’t think that’s because I’m a thicko or that the subject matter dealt with here is simply too complex for the general reader to grasp. Good writing is a skill and art that requires genuine effort. On other matters there was this in ‘The Guardian’ the other day: Why is Italy still so racist? http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/jul/30/italy-racism-cecile-kyenge-esterofilia And people still have the cheek to question why I love Italy and loathe the USA? Strange that Italy has escaped the all-powerful grasp of the ‘NWO’ until recently - more mysteries upon mysteries. When will David Icke and Alex Jones et al., finally and fully reveal the truth of it all! 10
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 07:18 | # I don’ think god is necessary to explain why we are here nor why we should be moral but I do see that god can be an excuse as to why we should not be here and why we need not be moral. The universe does not have a godly way about it. It has a accidental way about it, that includes, among those accidents, the capacity for people to shape matters more to their liking - that is a moral issue which means not being preoccupied with what god might think, because by all evidence, a prime creator does not care, while the accidents and patterns of nature, along with the priorities of people, do have to be taken into account. 11
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:41 | # My last comment disappeared and I am going to have to write it all over again. Ok then:
Oh dear seems I’ve touched a nerve or two. Sorry if I find the precise sexual habits/acts of people is of very minor intellectual interest or importance in my take on the history of ideas. I thought this essay was an attempt at a serious intellectual and political analysis? Yes, it’s serious. Now imagine presenting this at a university seminar (at a serious university that at least pays lip-service to intellectual rigour) - would chit-chat about the sexual history of Heidegger or an quick quip about ‘Nazi spunk’ really be appropriate in such a context? Very obviously not. In that context yes, but this is not the university, this is the real world.
When considering the implications and very real effects of MS Arendt’s work, the “jarring” remark was deliberate as a high context signal of that real world impact. I realize that you are still in the habit of looking negatively upon the word “post modern” and that we should perhaps remain helplessly bound to the modern notion of coherence (and register) even where horrific, pornographic effects have emanated from a subject’s politics. But in the post modern, we may make use of an ironic aside to make a point, in this case of just how foul the implications of her promotion of the continued transformation of the public and public space by “private” prerogative have been. And then resume formal, traditional register for the serious matter it is. I am not one who normally enjoys lewd humor, but in this case, I don’t regret it. I am not one who normally likes lewd humor but I have not regretted this remark - it is well deserved. I have not laughed so much since Soren Renner banned me from his Google chat for insulting his parrot. Seriously, I have been chuckling right along. You find that offensive and not Eddie Murphy? Moreover, again, maybe it is your dirty mind, as I deliberately used the word “spunk” which means a kind of upstart verve, does it not? a confidence in her own voice to which Heidegger contributed.
It is my purpose to circumscribe the matters and their connections fully. That is what predominates the determination of what is “my style” - that is, I am focused on content, not style That is why I did not respond to Mick Lately’s remark about my “pseudo academic style”, because I know that is not my purpose. I was satisfied with his remark that it was not a waste of his time. That was more the point. Stylistic choices occurred rarely, usually over a word which could be more casual or of a formal register - I preferred the formal register in order to signal that this is subject matter (to be) taken seriously.
Thank you for your kindly remarks. I will try to go back in now and make things more clear. I estimated that the important content was there and fully enough to put the essay on line. I don’t have the luxury of a proofreader, so things can happen: I did not see for two days that I had written that the essay was 5,500 worlds, instead of 5,500 words. There are liable to be still more minor changes in punctuation and arrangement that can help the reader’s understanding. I proofread papers for graduate and PhD students, and I know how easy it can be in early drafts for a writer to psychologically fill in what he knows and not realize that it is not apparent to the reader.
12
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:00 | # Again, you’ve made that sort of remark before (that what I was saying was so confused and so on, when I knew exactly where I was going, and could explain any turn or part)
Thus, I am not paying lip service to intellectual rigor, I basically know what I am talking about in setting-out the relevant parameters of her analysis, applications and implications. The intellectual rigor is for the discussion board.
2. Her analytical divisions of “The Private, The Public and The Social” along with her applications of that trichotomy. 3. Her somewhat surprising appropriation of private aesthetic and opinion from Kant’s Critique of Judgment as the means to bridge that gap of knower to known, to mediate private and public; it is probably not a bad idea but a means that can be refined and and used more favorably for European interests. 13
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:35 | # Note, the accidental repeating of this sentence: “I am not one who normally enjoys lewd humor, but in this case,”.. contributes to a confident appearance of anger and cynicism that I do not actually feel. It is more a reflection of my frustration over having to re-write the comment after having carefully drafted it and then submitting it to no avail.
14
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:21 | #
I’ve noted the same thing in the past, inquiring as to Daniel’s native tongue. Polish or English? However, in fairness, isn’t much that gets written here nearly incomprehensible? I certainly find it to be so. Sometimes it’s due to an unwarranted assumption of over-familiarity on the part of readers with arcane terminology. GW and James Bowery have demonstrated their abilities to write perfectly comprehensible English, as when discussing quotidian matters like political news. But when they veer off into their respective Heideggerian and scientistic musings, they become unintelligible, at least to the ‘uninitiated’ (ie, to those unfamiliar with the often individualistic ways in which these gentlemen employ words). This has nothing to do with the soundness of their doctrines, it should be noted. But most bad writing here is not a striving for effect (or merely a slothful unwillingness to proofread, as with Lister). It’s just poor prose. 15
Posted by Silver on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 17:35 | #
You’re a thicko for even going to the bother of reading it. You’ve tried it once, twice, ten times—when are you going to learn that there’s nothing to be learned from this guy? Makes you long for the days of J.Richards, doesn’t it? At least he occasionally dug up interesting tidbits, even if his overall thesis was wide of the mark. Proves once again the profundity of that adage “be careful what you wish for…”
16
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 18:57 | # Nothing at all could ever make me wish for ‘Majority Richards’ to be resorted. Look I appreciate Danny does put in some time and effort into his front page items. My own gut instinct is this: that the real issue is an underlying conceptual confusion(s). I know from my own real-world life that people tend to write badly if they are uncertain or don’t have a clear grasp of the issues they are writing about. However, the same people (when they have actually done the background work etc.,) can also write very well. Right now I’m working with a colleague and his first language is not English. He’s written a paper in English (the language of academia, certainly in the sciences) and in turn my re-write of it is quite involved. Most of the issues are just linguistic and only a few are conceptual. The point being that when a person has to read a lot of material (of a relatively demanding type) one develops something of a ‘sixth sense’ for when difficulties are just those of a poor writer and when they are the product of a more fundamental confusion over the ideas/issues at hand. Look one good tip for better writing is this. Work on something until you’re happy with it. Print it up and put it away for at least a week. Take it out after that period and read it again with ‘fresh eyes’. Does it seem quite so good on the second read through? Can you make your points more clearly, does it flow in a logical manner, is it coherent etc.? Basic stuff but doing that ‘fresh eyes’ test can improve an essay etc., immensely. 17
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 20:18 | # ................ Am I dong this to hear Silver’s crap? Certainly not. Nevertheless: The intellectual rigor is for the discussion board.
2. Her analytical divisions of “The Private, The Public and The Social” along with her problematic applications of that trichotomy. 3. Her somewhat surprising appropriation of Kant’s notion (from Critique of Judgment) of private aesthetics and opinions formed with the incipient expectation of public judgment, thus necessarily brought to bear on the public as the means to bridge that gap of knower to known, to mediate private and public. This is probably not a bad idea but might be refined and used more favorably for European interests. Is that clear enough Graham? Maybe you are confused by an ambiguity in the knower in relation to social and non-social facts; for me, there is an interesting fusion and teasing apart that bears discussion. Your thesis that I am confused is wrong. I posted where my understanding had reached a gestalt and I recognized there was a healthy degree of ambiguity that might be cleared-up in discussion. As far as I’m concerned what you are doing is a kind of ad hominum. There are important matters to discuss. I mean, would you rather go along with Silver’s idiotic attempts at diversion? This guy wishes to portray race as a “numbers game” - I suppose so that when there are enough fellow octoroons in England or wherever he is, that he will not be so conspicuous and can more easily play a role in human trafficking or some other opportunistic middle-man game. That, as opposed to returning to Cyprus or wherever he should. Leon’s remarks are half true. There is some material here at MR that is hard to understand. That is part of why I indulge in some more ambitious language and form at times. With that, if the language of some post is turgid and the content apparently un-worth-while to me, I just move on. I don’t speak von Mises and Catholicism, and tend to move beyond that language. Speaking of moving on - Silver, why don’t you? Your mom or your dad (I’ve forgotten who the quadroon is), will be happy to take you back. 18
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 20:45 | # Another matter of confusion is part of my point: you cannot draw such clean lines between private, social and public as she would propose. Trying to rigorously follow these (seductive) distinctions can lead to confusion and/or disingenuous application - and has. 19
Posted by Silver on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 20:58 | #
My gut instinct is that it’s conceptual “overreach” (rather than mere confusion), stemming from his racial pain. Whites being wiped out is diabolical and this surely requires an elaborate, diabolical connivance and DanielS has set out to uncover it. The reality is much simpler. Unless policies are explicitly pro-white, they are, at least with respect to long-term effects, functionally anti-white; whether they’re intentionally or “innocently” anti-white is of secondary importance. Hannah Arendt wasn’t explicitly pro-white so she was functionally anti-white. So too were intellectuals like John Rawls and a thousand others. It hardly seems fair to impute to them an active desire to see whites wiped out but the policies they advocated necessarily promoted that eventuality, and on occasion hastened it. Ultimately, racial reality doesn’t weigh racial intentions, only racial effects.
20
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 21:21 | # Posted by Silver on August 01, 2013, 03:58 PM | # My own gut instinct is this: that the real issue is an underlying conceptual confusion(s). My gut instinct is that it’s conceptual “overreach” (rather than mere confusion), stemming from his racial pain. Whites being wiped out is diabolical and this surely requires an elaborate, diabolical connivance and DanielS has set out to uncover it. White genocide is a part of your “numbers game”, Silver. I am motivated from the get-go by the qualitative interests of Whites. The reality is much simpler. Unless policies are explicitly pro-white, they are, at least with respect to long-term effects, functionally anti-white; whether they’re intentionally or “innocently” anti-white is of secondary importance. Hannah Arendt wasn’t explicitly pro-white so she was functionally anti-white. She was explicitly pro-minority and pro Jewish. She was explicit in her dislike of Southern Whites for their ways. So too were intellectuals like John Rawls and a thousand others. It hardly seems fair to impute to them an active desire to see whites wiped out I did not impute an intentional desire to genocide.
Both, her intentions and her effects were pernicious. Silver, really, you’d be quite comfortable on Crete. Nobody would notice the pubic hair on your head or the stuff coming from your fat lips.
21
Posted by Silver on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 21:44 | # Daniel, I know it’s “your thread,” but I wasn’t actually addressing you. I’d be quite happy if you were to not address me either. (“Live and let live” you could almost call it.) That way you’ll save yourself embarrassment from the inanities you’re clearly in the habit of uttering. But I must say, I’m amused to see I’ve been transformed from “Jew” to “nigger” in your wild imagination (and indeed from octroon to seemingly the full-blooded product in the space of just one post). 22
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 02 Aug 2013 03:45 | # . Daniel, I know it’s “your thread,” but I wasn’t actually addressing you. It’s not my thread, Silver. It may seem that way since many long standing commentators have apparently moved on to some other cyberspace, that is, one’s who insisted that Hitler and the Third Reich were/should be, fully representative of White Nationalism; that they really were perfectly reasonable and the sheer victims in all these affairs. You are one of the few lingerers from that camp. So, it may seem to you like “my thread” because I am not going to stop contributing because you are one of the few remaining Adolf fans. Yes, I do think one of the reasons that you take such a position, i.e. one so destructive, deliberately or uncaringly, is because you are uncaring - not White: you don’t have a vested interest here and that is why I do not appreciate your comments. It is clear that you don’t care.
I’m not embarrassed Silver.. don’t worry.. let’s find a place for you.. But I must say, I’m amused to see I’ve been transformed from “Jew” to “nigger” in your wild imagination (and indeed from octroon to seemingly the full-blooded product in the space of just one post). it’s hard to ignore someone who is lost and in distress as you are…someone clearly not in the right place.. .. trying to get a sense of a place where you might be happy…hmmmm let’s see. I’m the one with the “wild imagination”, huh? I have not suggested you might be a full blooded Jewish troll since you finally fessed up that you don’t know what sort of mystery meat that you are, but “would not be surprised if you had some Jewish admixture”... with you and your dad (I think it was) being “clearly not White”...and, having the “affinity for Anatolia and the Levant” that you do, I am just trying to approximate the place where you might be happy….let’s add the proper means to that place too….since your “revelation” was that Hitler was so clearly right and that nobody should have defied him, how about we make your dreams come true and allow you to assimilate the experience of how he might have done unopposed. We’ll put you on a box car with a coffee can that you may relieve yourself in. We’ll have that box car leave you off among…how about the Palastinians or Israelis or Turks?..after your long hot journey, we’ll arrange for you to have a shower…make sure to get rid of any lice…and no, it will not be a gas chamber, you’ll be cleaned-up and there among your fellow Anatolian/Levantines, for whom you have genuine affinity. 23
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 02 Aug 2013 05:56 | # ........... http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/08/why-we-should-save-christianity/
That one not besmirch Uncle Adolf, his plans and implementations That one not question the native Europeanness and corresponding motives of a writer/contributor as that would, according to its Editor in Chief, be to commit the banishable transgression of considering oneself, “Whiter than Thou”
Many of the articles are well-written and organized, you’ve got Matt talking about the Christian stuff that you tend to think is more important than some of the priorities that others here at MR have, while nobody will question the fact that you are not especially White. Although the homosexuality of the site is a drawback, neither it, not the wedding of Hitler and Jesus that the right cannot shake themselves of without going on binge of Darwinism (after which relapse they return to Hitler and Jesus), destroys the value of some of the articles and audio there. 24
Posted by Silver on Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:17 | # I’m really beginning to think you have some sort of weird mental condition that causes you to so badly misconstrue my statements that it becomes possible for you to write this type of nonsense. The only alternative, as far as I can see, is that you’re a flatout liar. Either way, you are very tiresome and very childish. Obviously I’m far from the only person who feels this way about you. Maybe it was some of your personal qualities rather than the quality of your arguments that caused your father to dismiss you with the words, “Nobody agree with you.” 25
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:50 | # Posted by Silver on August 02, 2013, 02:17 AM | # I’m really beginning to think you have some sort of weird mental condition You would try to resort to psychologisms. that causes you to so badly misconstrue my statements that it becomes possible for you to write this type of nonsense. And That is a projection. Your latest misconstruance - that I accused you of being a full blood negro, when I repeatedly suggested that you are probably something on the order of an octoroon. The only alternative, as far as I can see, Not far Well, I guess that is where one might attempt to take the smear campaign you would like, but that won’t work very well. Either way, you are very tiresome and very childish.
Obviously I’m far from the only person who feels this way about you. You can’t please everybody. Maybe it was some of your personal qualities rather than the quality of your arguments that caused your father to dismiss you with the words, “Nobody agree with you.” LOL. My father was a truck driver. He was smart in some practical ways, but rather a brute pragmatist, not well educated, a chronic TV and newspaper consumer, prone to manipulation. He had it suggested to him by the women in his life and some Jews, to pass on the Jewish line that “nobody agrees with ‘racism”
26
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:00 | # But she wants her mulatto kids to go to a White school because… http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10889047 27
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:56 | # I’d like to add another remark with regard to comments about writing. I can understand someone commenting that, “I don’t like this kind of writing for x and x reasons but, skimming through and based on what I know about Hannah Arendt, x and x are important matters to take under consideration.” Or, “x and x as put forth by Hannah Arendt’s are important to take into consideration…. though I did not care for the writing” etc. Either that, or move on as one who has no concern whatsoever for the subject matter (although you should). To give a lecture and critique based solely on writing as a singular concern is ridiculous. 29
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 19:15 | # Makes you long for the days of J.Richards, doesn’t it? At least he occasionally dug up interesting tidbits, even if his overall thesis was wide of the mark. Proves once again the profundity of that adage “be careful what you wish for…” Or at least Captain Chaos! 30
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 19:52 | # Classic Sparkle sounds like a name chosen by a greaser type, one who admires the sheen on his freshly simonized car and oiled hair. Both matters toiled over endlessly, never really caring to valence something socially productive. Rather, like a belligerent greaser, fighting for the sheer sadistic enjoyment of fighting, of Schadenfreude. That you would reference a diversion from the non-White Silver confirms the thesis that this coincides with the wails of the puerile Hitler club, longing for daddy (and the false premise that he really did encompass the interests of all Whites): as that, and glib snipes are about the common ground of Silver and Captain Chaos - but at least CC would present challenges on the grounds of content, rather than sheer, snobbish bullshit or worse - diversionary motives in Silver’s case. 31
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 20:19 | # All I hear is the teacher in Charlie Brown. At least Silver is a consistent mamonite. At least Lister is predictably anti-American in his typical fucking bag-o-dirt Englishman way that believes he is pulling civilizational “rank” on an upstart. You’re just fucking boring and you destroyed Majority Rights. Well done. Classic Sparkle sounds like a name chosen by a greaser type, one who admires the sheen on his freshly simonized car and oiled hair. Both matters toiled over endlessly, never really caring to valence something socially productive. Only Europeans do that shit. We drive pick up trucks in the mud and get dirt on our hands at our jobs. You know what that is right? Full time is 60 hours a week here bud.
32
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 20:24 | # That you would reference a diversion from the non-White Silver confirms the thesis that this coincides with the wails of the puerile Hitler club, longing for daddy (and the false premise that he really did encompass the interests of all Whites): as that, and glib snipes are about the common ground of Silver and Captain Chaos - but at least CC would present challenges on the grounds of content, rather than sheer, snobbish bullshit or worse - diversionary motives in Silver’s case. The internet is one big giant diversion dude! I’m well past my Hitler worship phase brah. I could care less about some dust up between some Continental and The East India Tea Company. Neither Churchill or Hitler or Stalin. None of them were looking out for “us” bud. In fact, you don’t even really believe in “us”. Neither do most of the people that comment here. Greg Johnson believes in a very expansive “us” and I tend to align with him on the issue. He doesn’t gloss over our differences as most everybody in WN circles tend to accuse him of doing. And you, Daniel my brother, you don’t really believe in or stand up for “Whites” either. I’m not even sure you could outline what that would mean. 33
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 21:05 | # Posted by Classic Sparkle on August 04, 2013, 03:19 PM | # All I hear is the teacher in Charlie Brown. At least Silver is a consistent mamonite. Silver isn’t worth a damn. He doesn’t care about Whites, it’s clear. That motivational fact overrides any hand of restraint he brings here, as that may simply coincide with his wish to protect his marginal niche. At least Lister is predictably anti-American in his typical fucking bag-o-dirt Englishman If you think the content of what is being discussed here, e.g. on this post, is boring, then you just don’t care about Whites. and you destroyed Majority Rights. Well done Yeah, right. I’ve alienated the pro-Hitler crowd and few high-yella trolls perhaps. That’s not ruining Majority Rights. It’s clearing the way to give it a possibility to be genuinely productive. Moreover, my power is limited here. I’ve posted a couple times a month. I have no editorial capacity with regard to the comments, not do I seek it. I make no determination over who the other posters are. Classic Sparkle sounds like a name chosen by a greaser type, one who admires the sheen on his freshly simonized car and oiled hair. Both matters toiled over endlessly, never really caring to valence something socially productive. Only Europeans do that shit. Well no. I don’t think they do that much at all, though a certain kind of American does. We drive pick up trucks Stupidly, massive, gas guzzling vehicles (covered with American flags after 9-11), driven by people who don’t even need their utility in the mud and get dirt on our hands at our jobs. You know what that is right? Full time is 60 hours a week here bud. That’s why you haven’t had time to straighten things out in your head. I don’t know why you would be ashamed of that, but whatever. I don’t have a problem with any European DNA, except for that which might betray its people (if that bit could be identified).
That you would reference a diversion from the non-White Silver confirms the thesis that this coincides with the wails of the puerile Hitler club, longing for daddy (and the false premise that he really did encompass the interests of all Whites): as that, and glib snipes are about the common ground of Silver and Captain Chaos - but at least CC would present challenges on the grounds of content, rather than sheer, snobbish bullshit or worse - diversionary motives in Silver’s case. The internet is one big giant diversion dude! If you want it to be. But I am not going to stand-by here and just let Silver go into this bullshit about how nothing important is being discussed here and we should just relax and let the numbers game take their toll, while the camouflage for his octoroonness increases. I’m well past my Hitler worship phase brah. I could care less about some dust up between some Continental and The East India Tea Company. Ok. I find that uninteresting myself. Except the challenge of getting people to move on, as you have to important, unifying efforts.
There may have been some overlapping motive, but basically, I can agree with that.
Yes I do.
There may be a great deal of truth to that. Greg Johnson believes in a very expansive “us” and I tend to align with him on the issue. I can agree with that too.
Maybe he doesn’t but I have never accused him of that. Speaking for myself, I am not guilt of that either. I don’t usually go long before calling upon the importance of maintaining differences among Europeans.
Yes, I do. I’m not even sure you could outline what that would mean. I guess I could. But I won’t outline it, I will just put it in pithy form: Defense of people of native European descent (as genetically demonstrable*); along with defense of their discreet categories, nations, regions and cultures. That defense includes not only those in Europe but anywhere in the world, universe.. * And no, that would not exclude people who are 1/16th American Indian. Though it may advise against impacting say, a pure Swedish stock or something like that, if it was at all feasible to avoid.
34
Posted by Nocturna on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 21:18 | # DanielS, While you made some interesting points, we can do without the vile references. Dumbass. 35
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 04 Aug 2013 21:36 | # Stupidly, massive, gas guzzling vehicles (covered with American flags after 9-11), driven by people who don’t even need their utility Sounds like Lister. This is the Frankfurter School for Stuck-up White Europeans. They are our people. In fact. They are their own people. We don’t fit in with them. They live in self-contained suburbs and they talk, vote, dress, look, and act the same. They are a real community and we are an imagined, digital simulacrum. They aren’t going to change anyway so we better adapt to them. I’m really not sure that burning gasoline is that big of a deal anyway. I don’t know if it is abiotic or not and I don’t know where I stand on anthropogenic global warming. If you want it to be. But I am not going to stand-by here and just let Silver go into this bullshit about how nothing important is being discussed here and we should just relax and let the numbers game take their toll, while the camouflage for his octoroonness increases. It isn’t important to him. It is important to about a few thousand people and they visit a few blogs and meet in secret conferences that are invariably ruined by a few teenagers in black hoodies. Nobody fucking cares. They care about softball, high-school football, fishing, going to Vegas, and gas guzzling 4wd’s man! 36
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 05 Aug 2013 05:29 | # This is the Frankfurter School for Stuck-up White Europeans. The Frankfurt School all but denies the real in favor of the ideal. I am ever vigilant against that. The Frankfurt School does not advocate Whites; nor underscore the legitimacy of discriminating against Jews and other non-Whites. etc. etc regarding the Frankfurt School I’ve continually distinguished between White objectivist/relativist traitors (with which the corporations are rife), duplicitous types who would make horrific problems for us even if there were no Jews around whatsoever; as opposed to those who seek a righteous and well balanced White life. I have continually argued against the more cruel forms of eugenecism and the ultimate value of corresponding measurement models, in favor of the value of ecological balance and flexibility: thus, the contention that I am a snob, rather, being grouped along with snobbery does not hold water. Rather, it goes to show contentious bad-will of your ad hominum attacks. I have continually argued that White Americans or Whites anywhere not be thrown under the bus, as I have known many many very good people there. However, I did notice an absurd trend of Americans driving new trucks (with American flags on them) after 9-11. Even middle-class women who had no need whatsoever for a truck. I do not think we should adjust to defiantly piggish consumerism with regard to car technology, rather we should make car technology adjust. 37
Posted by Robb on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 01:33 | # DanielS, Ignore Classic Sparkle. He had a kid with a Filipino girl. 38
Posted by Silver on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 02:10 | #
Oh yes, the Mighty Cap’n. Whatever became of him? Two scenarios I can think of, one more preferable than the other. I’d like to think that my advice to him that the kind of all-encompassing racial intensity he was nurturing could not be maintained indefinitely - certainly not in this environment - eventually sank in and he decided to make more productive use of his time. Quite possibly though he was outed. I received some weird spam from his email address about, hmm, late last year I think. It included a whole bunch of email contacts, many of which had university addresses. I googled them up and they were professors in the social sciences. It’s fair to guess they were in some sort of correspondence with him, though I don’t know whether they were sympathetic or whether CC had “assaulted” them as part of his activist activity. 39
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 09:13 | # The theory being that private aesthetic judgment is particularly valuable as means to apprehend qualia for their irreducible particularity - something for which technical apprehension and regimentation of public order is not well suited. However, individual taste always bears an incipient relation to the social and public sphere, and therefore implies the necessity of its being brought to bear and completed in its evaluation by sundry other private judgments in the public space. 40
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 10:19 | # That should bring significant co-evolutionary differences, qualitative judgments of Europeans to bear upon the public space. 41
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 10:27 | # GW, Surely you can employ a more authoritarian management style at MR. It would be better to have fewer comments and posts, but the ones permitted to be of a more rigorous mien. 42
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:50 | # There are two relevant types of rigor to be discussed in communications models. One is the transmissions model, which derives of the modernist - Cartesian relation of knower to known: it treats information as a package of ideas unfolded by person A and then transmitted to person B.
I thought about going back in* and simplifying, re-ordering and correcting, but I have been both busy and uninspired by the feedback. Nevertheless, I probably still will go in there. Leon, I know there is worthwhile material here even if you don’t care to acknowledge it. We know you like to hear yourself lecture so, why don’t you just post one of your long soliloquys - but in the next thread, please. 43
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:06 | # In other words, give rigorous consideration prior to commenting. Weigh for yourself, what is important to discuss of a post and what is not - oh, in your case that’s pre-figured: Catholicism, von Mises and “White Zion” to include your Jewish friends and the Pews. Never mind. 44
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Wed, 07 Aug 2013 23:44 | # DanielS, Wow. Got me there! Then i woke up. Gave him up for adoption to the step father, had two White babies, a miscarriage, and hopefully a third soon.
45
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Wed, 07 Aug 2013 23:45 | # And she was half German by way. Looked like every Mexican i grew up around. Some of us were not born with swastika tattoos. 47
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 01:25 | # Fuck you too Robb. Daniel J/Classic Sparkle, in my mind, has always been da bomb. Top shelf vis-a-vis pro WN. DanielS too! 48
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 02:15 | # wuvz you too Thorn! of course Robb has no children. and in the eyes of the Puritans of WN, there is never an excuse for not being a WN. so even though i was subject to public school, racial mixing presented as incredibly cool and normal, all the jewish propaganda, non-denominational churches that promoted mixing and judeophilia i’m still guilty. no converts to WN screams the idiot robb! we aren’t proselytizing! we die, we don’t multiply! and i bet i’m more european than robb too. i’ll post my 23andme results. 0.00% kike. 50
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:53 | # Ok: I’ve finally made the time to go in there and correct the typos. And that is what they were - typos, basically mere oversights. True, it was fraught with them such that I can understand irritation on the part of readers. I’ve ascertained that these mistakes stem from a sense of hurry that I must do better to overcome. Though some people will still not like some of the style, the basic errors have been cleared away. Silver is not only a s**t-skin, but a s**t-head and that only became more clear in going over this essay again. In Haller’s question as to whether Polish or English is my first language, bad will is evident for the fact that anyone the least well disposed could see that these were typographical oversights. Though there were too many of them, it is ridiculous to suppose that I might not know better. That would go for Graham’s discussion of writing craft as well. However, besides typos, there were a few loose, badly construed sentences thrown in at the end - for those who scrolled to the bottom and read only those, it could have given the impression that I was confused. Having gone over the essay again, confusion was not a problem, though typographical oversights were rife. Apologies for the haste - got to do something about that. 51
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:53 | # Adding block quote: “Indeed, with respect to unconstitutional legislation, the Civil Rights bill did not go far enough, for it left untouched the most outrageous law of Southern states – the law which makes mixed marriage a criminal offense. The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which “the right to attend an integrated school, the right sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go 52
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 21:08 | # This is not Graham but he just loves this speech, crying, “Free, White and American!”
People, something happened today. Ten Negroes went into the Texton Highschool and sat with the White children there. Nobody stopped them, nobody turned them out. And do you know what they’re saying that means? They’re saying that you-all don’t give a darn whether the Whites mix with the blacks because you didn’t fight against it! But I say, how can somebody fight what he doesn’t see? They’ve kept the facts away from you. They’ve cheated and deceived everyone of you. They filled your heads with filthy lies and kept you in the dark. So that when you finally do wake up, why we’re sorry, but it’s just too late. Now, I’m associated with the Patrick Henry Society which is an organization dedicated to giving people the truth. And what I’m going to tell you is going to make your blood boil… You all know that there was peace and quiet in the South before The N.A.A.C.P. started stirring-up trouble; but what you don’t know is that this so-called advancement of colored people is now and has always been nothing but a communist front headed by a Jew who hates America and doesn’t make any bones about it either. Well, the commies didn’t waste a second. They knew only too well that the quickest way to cripple a country is to mongrelize it..so they poured all the million dollars the Jews could get for them into this one thing - desegregation. They went to the courts. Now judge Silver who is a Jew and is known to have leftist leanings ....[who says so? The records say so. look it up].. Abraham Silver for one thing belongs to the Quill and Pen Society which receives its funds directly from Moscow. So what did the judge do? He went right ahead to order integration for the Texton High School. You Mayor! and the Governor! could have stopped it, but they didn’t have the guts! Alright. You may think the problem is simply whether we are going to allow ten Negroes to go to our schools. ...that’s only a small part of it. I’m in a position to know because The Patrick Henry Society has studied the whole thing….the real problem, whether you like it or not, is whether you are going to sit back and let desegregation spread throughout the entire South and its an indisputable fact that there could be no other result! ...Do you people want N ers taking over? And are you willing to fight this thing down to the last ditch and keep fighting until it’s over? Then I’m willing to fight with you! Why Mr. Kramer? Why? .......Because I’m an American sir and I love my country, and I am willing to give my life! if that be necessary! To see that my country stays FREE! WHITE! AND AMERICAN!!!!!”
53
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 12 Aug 2013 02:45 | # Sure you do silly faggot. I’m real and open. I’ve done shit for my people. You’re an anonymous troll. 54
Posted by uh on Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:37 | # <quote> eventually sank in and he decided to make more productive use of his time</quote> CaptainChaos: 1, Silver: 0. 55
Posted by uh on Mon, 12 Aug 2013 20:53 | # It’s a good thing the premise of white nationalism - false by the way - is after all incompatible with Darwinian theory (you know - a gazelle is fast because it aids the gazelle, not gazelles), for in a short and strict reckoning, Classic Sparkle exhibits greater fitness on two counts: 1. Numerous offspring Now I wonder: Am I a bad white nationalist because I’ve slept with numerous non-white women, and many more white women of very dubious quality, or because I deny - but can’t be bothered again to refute - the premise of white nationalism? As everyone knows, it doesn’t matter. Nattering is all this ever was. No one is listening. There is no one to convince. 56
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 13 Aug 2013 01:28 | # Good points uh but then again gazelles dont have a media or politics or language or society. They dont have any other gazelles telling them they ought to try catching fish instead of eating grass (or whatever it is gazelles eat) or perhaps telling them they should experiment with being carnivores. Or telling them its better if they dont have baby gazelles or to adopt baby wildebeest instead because its better or more moral. They are free to just get on with being gazelless, for humans its a bit more complicated. We dont just exist as lone gazelles unmoored from wider society. 57
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Tue, 13 Aug 2013 05:09 | # There is more competition between Whites than between Whites and Jews. A man’s enemies are the enemies of his own house… 58
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:17 | # Perhaps phronesis still has an “out-there-ness” that the social incipience of individual aesthetic judgment and opinion does not. 59
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:14 | # [I have no children, but if I did they would be white (unless with my current GF), and they would likely have fairly high IQs. They might also inherit money, and would certainly have the requisite “social capital” drilled into them from a young age. I think they’d do OK. ] I’d like to know exactly what is “the premise of white nationalism”. I think the basic premise is that races exist; they tend to conflict over resources when trying to coexist within the same ecological niche; Jews are a unique nonwhite group with a very developed sense of collective EGI (and high modal IQ), which either must or often pragmatically does conflict with white GI; and that, shifting to normative concerns, whites ought to organize themselves collectively so as to practice a racial politics in defense of our own interests, considered both as individuals and as a collectivity which abides through time (a nod to The Dude in The Big Lebowski). I’m not saying that is the best rendition of the core of WN, nor that I necessarily agree with all of it, but I think it’s a start. I believe I have called at other times for some group work towards developing a more precise definition of our cause and its politics, but was ignored. For me WN is simply the politics of “anti-diversity”. “Diversity” is a new kind of cult, which increasingly infects every aspect of modern Western life. Its premise seems to be that, although “races” are thought to be without biological foundation (an easily disproven and therefore laughable proposition), what are sociologically referred to or thought of as races represent not biological but cultural identities, which are all of equal moral, intellectual, and aesthetic worth (except, in a curious contradiction, Western identity, which is seen as uniquely undesirable), and that the maximum geographical mixing of these identities (“integration”) is either desirable in itself, or at least not something that should be coercively prevented. WN does not, per se, have anything necessarily to say about social morality, crime control, environmental issues, foreign policy, economic systems or governmental structures and procedures, although it analyzes each of these concerns through the lens of how different policy options affect white genetic interests. Loosely speaking, I am a white nationalist because I oppose coercive ‘diversification’, and wish for the option of living in an exclusively white territory as well as racially self-governing polity. I say “loosely” because I think of myself merely as a “racial [really, “true”] conservative”, but there are so few of us left anymore, and anyway, on the all-important race questions we overlap quite a bit with all but the most extreme (neo-nazi) WNs. I’m not sure that I would agree that all society should be organized around the racial survival issue, but, given that racial purity and perpetuity is the first and ultimate (but not at all only) thing to be conserved by “conservatives”, I may be wrong here. I haven’t thought this out as fully as I need to. My main concern is that whites are being assaulted - the victims of a new form of imperialism - and I want that assault (ie, coercive, totalitarian diversification) terminated. If the assault could be stopped and then its recent effects reversed, I’m not sure that I would continue to be a WN “after diversity”. I think I would become again a “Whiggish Conservative” in the tradition of Burke, or most of the American Founders. 60
Posted by Silver on Wed, 14 Aug 2013 04:28 | #
Well that’s understandable: you’ve only been in the game some twenty years. You don’t want to rush these things. Give yourself some time. 61
Posted by uh on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:34 | #
The fundamental problem, as exemplified by the breathless exposé above, is that white nationalism insists on imagining European civilization as proceeding from a pristine starting-point in which Jews maliciously inserted themselves und ihre totalen Sabotage begann. That isn’t how civilization functions. And because European civilization, so-called, has gone global, it follows that everything that happens is a symptom of the process itself - including the downfall (i.e. more acute stratification) of the white races. A better thought experiment would be to imagine asking gazelles to abjure the very conditions of their success insomuch as those conditions might, at a certain time & place, presuppose eventual overgrazing or over-predation, both results of runaway ‘fitness’. In any case, it isn’t a proposition but a non-negotiable state of affairs expressed as a proposition, so the will of the parties concerned is irrelevant. Maybe Heidegger had something to say about such bare-bones calculations, but I doubt it, so I dunno how him boning a Jewess makes any difference to you, me, the Filipino Fucker, or the state of affairs. 62
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 14:41 | # . Good points uh but then again gazelles dont have a media or politics or language or society. The fundamental problem, as exemplified by the breathless exposé above, is that white nationalism insists on imagining European civilization as proceeding from a pristine starting-point
I make no insistence that there was a pristine starting point to White Nationalism. I do, however, recognize that there must have been and that there is still, an endogenous concern somewhere among people of native European extraction. An endogenous concern is vastly different from a pristine, exogenous form. in which Jews maliciously inserted themselves und ihre totalen Sabotage begann. It is clear that Jews have been in an antagonistic (malicious) relation to Whites for centuries, that Jews have inserted themselves, and that the aim or happenstance of uncaring destruction is complete enough so that the extent of their restraint is a quibble along that end. We don’t have to blame all Jews for all of our problems: that’s a trivial point. However, that we have to become aware of our own part - that’s quite the point of this essay. That’s a straw man argument, already addressed.
A straw-man argument because I have continually portrayed (as I do in this essay) the downfall of European collective interests as two fold: The first part being susceptibility to self destruction, self dissolution of European EGI through self denial in the “rational blindness” - denial of our subjective and relative group interested participation in favor of in universal objectivism.
It is somewhat debatable how much Jewish interests have exaggerated White objectivism, distorted and perverted it against them, but..my thesis in this essay suggest pretty much the same thing, and what you are saying that I did not say here: that we must overcome our rational blindness and all that follows. A better thought experiment would be to imagine asking gazelles to abjure the very conditions of their success insomuch as those conditions might, at a certain time & place, presuppose eventual overgrazing or over-predation, both results of runaway ‘fitness’. In any case, it isn’t a proposition but a non-negotiable state of affairs expressed as a proposition, so the will of the parties concerned is irrelevant. It is not a good idea to presuppose that the will of Jews nor even the malevolent or uncaring will of certain Whites is irrelevant. For example, it is obvious enough from Arendt herself that there is a will to certain outcomes involved. And can you imagine her thesis, in turn, influencing the motives of college students? Of course, it could. Anyway, to suppose that there are not bare, blind proclivities to take into account instead of interests is a false either or, and one this essay is not guilty of.
He would have some things to say about bare-bones calculations. He had his Heideggarian way of referring to the causal world, he did not deny it, but he distinguished it from the world of human agency - a distinction that I did not lose site of. The impact of his boning a Jewess or rather how that may have impacted historical developments is something that could have appeared exaggerated in my phrasing (I was concerned about that): i.e. it may seem as if I am suggesting Arendt had a big influence on Heidegger whereas I doubt that. However, in the context of that intimate relationship (no pun intended) and post WWII, she would have been significantly influential with a form of his concerns - of which she was enamored enough to begin with to get that close to him (and giving her particular cred) - concerns which she transformed to her Jewish interested perspective (Jewish interested by her own admission) to influence American/Western academia and popular culture. 63
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:53 | # Whites are dying out because of a) excessive individualism, the flip side of which is total lack of concern for collective entities, like nation, civilization, and especially race, and b) ethical confusion on the part of a majority of that subset of whites who do wish to preserve these collectivities about the morality of using force to ensure white survival. In other words, the overwhelming majority of whites (99%+?) either don’t care about racial survival (presumably as long as the race’s demise doesn’t negatively impact them personally), or regret that it’s happening and fear the future because of it, but think that to do anything to stop it would be ‘racist’ and therefore immoral. WPs either reach and convert (and empower) that second group (the first one being mostly hopeless), or the race dies. This really isn’t that complicated, certainly not so much as to require enormously sophisticated (and therefore likely dubious) ‘grand’ philosophical, historical and evolutionary theories. People just need to be reassured that it’s ok to be white, and that secure borders make for better countries, at least in the West. 64
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:48 | # Could Russia be the White Zion we’ve been looking for? — 65
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:28 | # Leon, comment # 63 was lame. It is as if to say the post is speaking in irrelevancies.
66
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:05 | # Sometimes a sense for drama is disservice to ready apprehension.
Following Heidegger’s lead, she became attuned to the problem of Cartesianism and sought the means of reconciling its dualisms; as theory, this is particularly relevant to White Nationalists since at the basis of this problem is the acknowledgment of the legitimacy, in fact human necessity, of prejudice – at least in some cases, according to Arendt. She uses a trichotomy between the private and the social (where she holds it legitimate to discriminate) and the public (where she maintains it is not, except to protect the private and social right to discriminate). However, the operational requirement remained of overcoming the vestiges of what Aristotle called “techne” as misapplied to the social world. Techne are the rigid, mechanical means and technological ways for reaching and assimilating the aim of theory – “Theoria”, which is fixed, permanent, (“Cartesian”), transcendent of nature and its flux. The technical means and aims to pursue Theoria tended to have a separating, rupturing effect when misapplied to the social realm of “Praxis” – the less predictable mix and sundry responses of the social world which, not being transcendent, but interactive, require the feel of practical judgment according to Aristotle - practical judgment which he calls phronesis. However, Arendt does not go the route of developing phronesis to bridge the Cartesian gap of knower to known. Rather, she develops Kant’s notion of the value, albeit unfinished value, of individual aesthetic judgments and opinions. For Arendt, these were the means of overcoming the “working and laboring” mentality of misapplied techne to the social world, providing the individual with an immediate grasp of irreducible particulars, and a capacity to bring these, to deploy a mentality of immediate “action”, from the individual into the social and public space - which she deemed absolutely necessary to evaluate these judgments against those of others.
Phony / corrected Phoney 67
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:25 | # However, to resolve Cartesian duality, the operational requirement remained of overcoming the vestiges of what Aristotle called “techne” as misapplied to the social world. 68
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 24 Aug 2013 15:30 | # That’s a question for scientists, and another attribute for eugenecists to ponder: The push and requirement for liberalism is understandable as a motive among young women, as it gives them more power, control and choice. However, it is reasonable to suppose that not only does their proclivity to require liberalism exist, but that it has been too powerful - destructive. What corrective measures to consider? 69
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 24 Aug 2013 15:34 | # Regarding the attendance of places such as a movie theater or a restaurant, however, citizens should not be discriminated against because the reasons for going there are not primarily social.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/freedom-struggle-2.html 70
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:21 | # .......................... http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/9/17/feminism-is-about-respect
It may not be true that they are controlled opposition and it may not be true that they are lifting from my work but: Because this particular article of theirs is being run on Alternative Right, and it has 212 comments at the time of this writing, it bears attention that it might. The article says: Got that? They are blaming rigid adherence to the Enlightenment strictly, not coupling its flaws with farther distortion by Jewish power and influence. The essay by “Amos and Gromar” goes on to say.. “They see sexual double standards (which are justified, by the way) and find them to be patently unjustified because of the Original Enlightenment Premise of Sameness.” This remark on double standards is something that I have been saying for decades and I can document having said it for years in WN essays. Not that it is an observation that others could not make. However, the emphasis on Sameness as opposed to equality - even the form of the word, Sameness, and the style of the word, very much like my form and style when you add the arbitrary (according to traditional grammatical rules) capitalization - Sameness (which I use to emphasize the important qualitative distinction from non-equality) gives a clue that they are trying to co-opt some of my considerations of feminism: overload them and direct them away from Jewish responsibility. It seems that the entire essay may in fact, be based on my previous call for platforms critical of the White female perspective, as they conclude in the bottom line- “Feminism: the ultimate get-out-of-criticism-free card.” In this example and other examples, including the MSM opening-up about black on White crime, there does seem to be a renewed campaign of co-option underway. 71
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:59 | # .. First, here: “of apparent co-evolution - time factors (within and beyond the life-span) relevant to the appropriateness of hazarding interface, with an ultimate gravity on par with a universalized life-span distinction of adult and child.” To say that co-evolution is ultimately on par with a universalized adult child distinction is better grounded than the somewhat overstated premise that I previously used in saying it was no less relevant.
Hence, I have changed this passage: “but for her it meant rather the institutionalization of ongoing rhetorical testing in the public sphere, one abstract, deracinated individual’s prerogative weighing equally to another’s, irrespective of co-evolutionary differences (in fact, requiring that those differences, that “diversity”, be brought together in the public) and consideration.” And this passage: “On the other hand, while sanctimony of the private individual and the public sounds reasonable as she presents it, by separating out the social aspect of all things to us as Whites, in violating those patterns, putting them at continual risk of breach, in fact mandating it, she is setting in motion the horrors of forced integration that we’ve experienced – the “sacrosanct inviolability” of individual and social prerogative, “requiring” that a diversity of opinions be brought together, and mandated there in the public protection of these preferences - 72
Posted by Brown vs the White race on Sun, 17 May 2015 04:13 | # Keith Alexander underscoring the significance of the Brown decision: 73
Posted by On Arendt, Heidegger and his other students on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 17:40 | # Bernstein on his relationship with Arendt, Arendt’s reltionship with Heidegger, his admiration for Heidegger as a teacher, having produced a number of prolific scholars of his students. 74
Posted by Rights without a state: Spencer's free speech, UF on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:08 | # I (DanielS) am loathe to quote Hannah Arendt but she does provide a good and ironically relevant response to Richard Spencer’s recent call for the “Faustian idea” to reconceptualize rights - viz. the right of free speech - as coming out of power, or nature…. ..rather, she proffered that “only a member of a state has rights”... “The stateless person quickly loses their rights, their rights quickly devolve into the mud.” I concur. Richard Spencer’s full speech at the University of Florida: Post a comment:
Next entry: Cyprus: Not Quite a Citizen’s Dividend…
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:30 | #
I quote:
“Nevertheless, it is not sufficient to merely put her aside as a cunning Jewess who, at 18, greedily accepted Heidegger’s Nazi spunk into her mouth. . .”
OK I stopped reading this tortuous and maladroit attempt at intellectual history at that point.
Really is this the best MR can do?
Risible isn’t it?