Heidegger: The West Texas Translation

Posted by Notus Wind on Monday, 27 September 2010 12:12.

This entry is meant to be a humorous break from my more ponderous contributions.

There’s been some interesting discussion at MR as of late concerning Heidegger’s ontological account of being and what he calls Dasein.  And although I know precious little about the man and his thought it’s not hard to see the natural attraction he has on far right types given his politics and the promise of esoterica that comes with engaging such a formidable work as Being and Time, which some would say is the most significant Germanic contribution to philosophy in the 20th century.

But, in all seriousness, who can find the time to properly engage this material?  So like any degenerate American I started searching the web for an account of Heidegger’s thought that distills as much as possible in as little time as possible.

And boy did I hit pay dirt with a forty-five minute lecture given by Rick Roderick, which is part of a series of lectures that he delivered for the Teaching Company called, “Self Under Siege - Philosophy in the 20th Century”.  A word of caution, Mr. Roderick is obviously a leftist of some sort and doesn’t hide his unease with Heidegger’s politics, so be prepared.  However, I felt like he succeeded at taking some of Heidegger’s ideas and bringing them down to earth in the kind of colloquial and humorous way that everyone can appreciate.

The reader has my word that most anyone who watches this lecture in full will find it amusing, if for no other reason than Mr. Roderick’s West Texas accent.  The lecture starts to get good somewhere in the vicinity of the third video, so don’t give up on it too easily.



Comments:


1

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:29 | #

Thanks Notus.

Roderick’s accent brings back a mixed lot of memories from my undergraduate days at U.T. El Paso.


2

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:45 | #

You’re welcome Jimmy.

Roderick’s accent brings back a mixed lot of memories from my undergraduate days at U.T. El Paso.

His accent brings back memories for me as well.  Clearly, he was a product of an era where America was a lot less homogenized than it is today.


3

Posted by JImmy Marr on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:52 | #

His accent brings back memories for me as well.  Clearly, he was a product of an era where America was a lot less homogenized than it is today.

Yes. The significance of that homogeneity, and its impending disappearance was lost on me at the time. But in looking back, I see things differently.

In my junior year, (1975), I had a very minor, (mostly symbolic), altercation with a very rude staff member who was egregiously disrespectful to me when I sought his assistance during registration for classes.

I was very surprised when I learned that he was the newly appointed Dean of Students, Jose Avilla, and that I was being permanently expelled for having offended his dignity. I hadn’t the slightest inkling that I had been involved in any kind of racially influenced scenario.

Looking back now, I suspect that he was an affirmative action hire, and that his disrespectful behavior may have been a reflection of a his well informed sense of unbelonging.

I haven’t excused myself for my actions of that time, but I have come to realize that the atmosphere in they took place was likely conducive to them.


4

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:03 | #

Notus,

Thank you for posting those videos.

Likeable guy, some annoying enslavements, some weak premises - none more so than the usual failure to appropriately distinguish acquisition from inherence, to coin a word, with all the implications that carries for any discussion of self-hood.  In that he is true to Heidegger, of course.  He was not true to Heidegger in his completely direct conflation of Dasein with self.  Dasein is not the subject but a state of witness - only my view but I think most people acquainted with early H would want the non-subjectivity of Dasein clarified even to an audience like this one, recipients of a bargain-basement and back-of-a-fag-packet but nonetheless entertaining account.


5

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:27 | #

GW,

He was not true to Heidegger in his completely direct conflation of Dasein with self.

I suspected as much.  Another problem is that his presentation seemed completely devoid of any discussion of ontology, it was only a rough outline of Heidegger’s account of Dasein in the world minus ontology.

Still, the lecture was very much tongue-in-cheek with Roderick acknowledging at the outset that it’s impossible to present Being and Time in so few minutes.

...but nonetheless entertaining account.

Wasn’t it though.

I really appreciated his earthy style and ability to translate some of this high theory into everyday language and even make it applicable to our society’s present condition.  His analysis of our society’s obsession with youth and health as being a reflection of its inability to confront anxiety about death seemed spot on to me.


6

Posted by danielj on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:32 | #

none more so than the usual failure to appropriately distinguish acquisition from inherence, to coin a word

Isn’t there a word-coining moratorium going on at MR right now?


7

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:04 | #

Having seen “Dasein” so many times in print, without ever having heard it spoken, I was pleased to finally hear someone say it. But coming, as it did, from a speaker with such a strong accent, I’m not sure how much confidence to put in his pronunciation.


8

Posted by GrahamLister on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:03 | #

That was great. Very witty and interesting talk and a good starting point for us non-philosophers. The speaker is right about just how much trivial utterly banal nonsense passes for culture today. I believe there is a Jonathan Bowden MP3 about Heidegger on the internet. Also if you search on Google video there is a interesting talk by Chris Hedges on his thoughts on the banality of American culture; especially celeb culture.

One example is Michael Jackson; the fact that some 30 million people watched this mediocre pop singers wake is a sign of a very shallow cultural pool/frame of mind. However, we in the UK are not much better as that whole Diana hysteria was so ghastly and awful it made me ashamed of our nation.

Finally on the topic of the self/Being Roger Scruton’s Gifford lectures from St. Andrew’s University are on their website; worth a listen to I think.


9

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:14 | #

Graham,

I’ve listened to the Bowden lecture on Heidegger a couple of times without ever finding it very satisfying.  The first part of it is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwwxKL4Cylw


10

Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:07 | #

GW: I’ve listened to the Bowden lecture on Heidegger a couple of times without ever finding it very satisfying.

I felt the same way.  Bowden spends a great deal of his time talking about the cultural and historical context of Heidegger and how the contemporary liberal world can’t fully digest the essentialist nature of his ideas.  But he never actually gets into the meat of Heidegger’s ideas!  In a way, his lecture treated Heidegger more as a political figure than as a philosopher.


11

Posted by Rusty on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:11 | #

Thank you, NW, good find.


12

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:39 | #

Okay, one more time for the record, what is the distinction between Dasein and Being?


13

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:42 | #

The difference between music (Being) and playing music (Dasein).


14

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:54 | #

2:49…5/5…“The theory of evolution may not work in the case of Dasein…other creatures not headed in the “right” direction…LOL

1:10…4/5…If being free from “they” is a problem for most folks, then why would they attempt? In Holland, in the middle ages, merchants invoke the morality of Roman law, to be free from the Christian moral restriction and subsequent humiliation, over commercial issues of “just” price and bankruptcy. Roman law declared permissible commercial behavior that was violently denounced by the Christian tradition.

Northern Italian cities had a special rock, prominently located, against which bankrupt debtors were obliged to bang their buttocks before a jeering crowd, after first displaying themselves in some state of undress, or simply nude. In the city of Padua, for example, the rock of shame stood in the middle of the vast Paduan Palace of Justice, where it can still be visited.(116) (The Paduan Palace of Justice, incidentally, was decorated with now-lost frescoes by Giotto;(117) it is startling to imagine these barbaric procedures taking place under yards of painting by the most glorious and moving of Western artists. After this frightening and humiliating ceremony, Paduan bankrupts, like bankrupts in some other parts of Italy, would be sent into banishment.(118) French cities, for their part, sometimes had other medieval shaming customs, including most famously the wearing of the bonnet vert, the green cap.(119) As for the English, they rejected cessio bonorum entirely; Blackstone still viewed cessio bonorum as a pernicious Roman institution, “fertile of perjury, injustice and absurdity.”(120) Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning the parallel shame sanctions imposed there; English bankrupts faced not only imprisonment, but also in some cases the shame sanctions of pillory and the loss of an ear.(121)

This is the world into which merchants of the middle ages were thrown. A world that placed the well being of your fellow citizen far above your own self-interest (the pursuit of capital) and enforced it by serious humiliation, incarceration and in some cases mutilation. The only conclusion is that the attempt to escape “they” is fundamentally, which was enormously difficult, especially in the Middle Ages, a desire to further self-interest.

Escaping “they”, the alleged Marxist/Liberalism of our time, needs to be predicated upon self-interest and an additional moral authority that will mitigate the shame (racist) of doing so. For if the moral default position was predicated upon the well-being of the group, and the pursuit of group interests are adaptive or organic, if you wish, then why did these people and eventually all of Christendom adopt a moral stance that was vehemently denounced by Christian morality? Why the desire to tear out the collective moral heart of Europe’s Societas Christiana?


15

Posted by GrahamLister on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:26 | #

GW Yes I checked out that Bowden talk - he didn’t really get to the heart of the matter. Anyone know of a good introduction to Heidegger? I’m interested in philosophy but all of my academic life (up to PhD) has been in science. And ontology seems like a very difficult topic.


16

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:05 | #

Desmond,

“They” is not a group of persons or even a specific politics in that direct sense.  “They” is the psychological impact of the world at large on us, creating a “they-self” which infects and dis-authenticates Dasein.

This is the nearest Heidegger comes to discovering absence and mechanicity in that he doesn’t understand the “they-self” (or acquired personality) as the direct product of these things, or as enabled by them.  He does very clearly see that it is not of us, not our truth.  But without the placement of absence and mechanicity there is no definitive method for change via presence and consciousness.

Escaping “they”, the alleged Marxist/Liberalism of our time

So this statement becomes problematic in that it is both true and unworkably crude.  It is a collective movement away from absence and towards presence which is required - not a direct attempt to escape any particular element, but the binds of absence as a whole, which binds tie us to all mechanically-acquired thinking, ideas, attitudes, values - everything that is not of us.

A developed onto-nationalism would endeavour to leave Marxist/Liberalism on the floor, and much else beside, all of it like tattered clothes that have been discarded.  So this isn’t simply about Marxism/Liberalism or even politics.  It is about good.  It is about truth.  It is about sovereignty.  It is a good thing in its own right.


17

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:02 | #

Any west Texan who can talk about being toward death without talking about man-to-man single combat to the death as the ingredient missing from our culture in the unification of sex and death, is a mere mockery of a west Texan.


18

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:11 | #

A developed onto-nationalism would endeavour to leave Marxist/Liberalism on the floor, and much else beside, all of it like tattered clothes that have been discarded.

Oh ye of shallow Authenticity!

Heidegger meticulously devotes an entire section of Being and Time to the role of Care as the Being of Dassein.

A nationalism so sloppy as to leave its clothing scattered about on the floor is complete heresy.


19

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:41 | #

Ah, Meister Marr, tell me, what property towards the world has a state of zen?  Is it care or no-care?  Can it exist in care, or can care only exist with itself?


20

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:51 | #

Any west Texan who can talk about being toward death without talking about man-to-man single combat to the death…is a mere mockery of a west Texan.

I had a very minor, (mostly symbolic), altercation with…disrespectful…Affirmative Action…Dean of Students.

My anecdote from UTEP perfectly depicts what you describe.

This punk of an administrator actually had the audacity to wad up my registration paperwork and throw it across the room at a wastepaper basket. (Bear in mind that the only criterion allowing me to register in the first place was my recently acquired veteran status and entitlement to GI Bill).

I instinctively pulled him very close to my face, by the lapels of his jacket, and asked him “who do you think you’re dealing with?”. The clearly implied question was “Are you willing to die over this, because I am?”

His reaction was to begin sreaming “Police, police, police!”, (more state monopoly on violence), which makes for a very inauthentic society.


21

Posted by PF on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:58 | #

Care as the Being of Dassein.

Jimmy is bringing up a good point, GW.

“Care” was Heidegger’s word by which, I think, he meant to signalize what we call ‘attention’ and ‘intention’ - these are the human tools for interfacing with any moment of life experience.


22

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:34 | #

Jimmy, the UTEP anecdote also depicts perfectly what Jews like about the “higher learning” environment they’ve created for us, and why we consider it a (relative) “blessing” to hear from such an inauthenthentic west Texan about Heidegger.


23

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:38 | #

GW,

I’ve been trying to avoid mentioning this topic, but James’ comment now prompts me:

Some months ago I challenged you to single combat if Trainspotter wasn’t allowed to publish a series of essays outlining a nationalist political platform on this website.

Unlike Notus, I wish to avoid hacking in unworldly forests.

Please tell me we don’t need to arrange an Authentic encounter?


24

Posted by JImmy Marr on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:58 | #

James,

This crisis of inauthenticity in “higher learning” has apparently extended itself to Truth or Consequences.


25

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:56 | #

PF,

From what I can see “care” is a form of considering, as a characteristic of Dasein’s “being-in-the-world.  I rather think that this is a party to H’s erroneous belief that thinking can penetrate to the meaning of being.  It can only model meaning.  Accordingly, he is structuring mental activity to that end - as perhaps he is bound to do when his method is philosophical and not directly experiential.

It is stillness that actualises authentic Dasein.  Is this recognised anywhere in B&T?


26

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:29 | #

The Heideggerian concept of Gestell, or of framing/modeling things so that they can be understood and experienced as existing in the world, is to Heidegger a mode of human existence.  This is how Heidegger explains Man’s fundamental relationship to technology.  It certainly to my eye carries the connotation of being inherently estranging from Self, Dasein, authenticity, or however one wishes to put it.  Given that, what degree or quality of Dasein can be expected to be imbued in x number of White people to the effect that they exert adaptive effort towards their reproductive and inclusive fitness to a greater degree than they do now free of state propaganda?


27

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:56 | #

It would seem, assuming a Heideggerian understanding of the White man, that not only is his death within him, but also his penchant for estrangement from Self due to his will to Gestell (this can also be expanded to encompass the White man’s tendency for universalist modeling and projection in that vein).  A concern then should be to prevent a visceral awareness of his own eventual death from cycling into a Gestellian means of preventing his own death, e.g., transhumanism and religious escapism.


28

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:30 | #

man-to-man single combat to the death as the ingredient missing from our culture in the unification of sex and death,

These are not things which can be entwined as the leitmotif of social organization in the context of civilization without engendering a rising climate of barbarism.  And the emphasis on the individual, his ability to deal out deadly violence, as the determinant of his position of authority would tend to diminish the ability of government apparatuses to administer collective goods.  The people, most of whom would not be among the elite in inflicting deadly violence and thereby gaining positions of authority, much less be willing to give up governmentally administered collective goods, would not be willing to submit to such an arrangement.  In fact, were ability to inflict deadly violence enthroned as a principle of social organization and status, they would much more likely side with fascism as then they would at least get to keep their governmentally administered collective goods.


29

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:02 | #

Escaping “they”, the alleged Marxist/Liberalism of our time, needs to be predicated upon self-interest and an additional moral authority that will mitigate the shame (racist) of doing so.

This is why I say “worse is better” and a alternative Weltanschauung is needed.  Pretty obviously, things will need to get much worse, self-interest being increasingly impossible to pursue under the dispensation of anti-racism, and hence its legitimacy and power to shame being substantially diminished, before individuals will be willing to consider a alternative moral world view in which there is no shame in pursuing self-interest in the context of racial particularity.  As stands, Brits will not even pull the lever for the BNP in substantial numbers within the privacy of the voting booth.  Btw, shame is a factor, but so too in estrangement from their true interests (self-interest cannot said to be directly because it is a secret ballot). 

It is a collective movement away from absence and towards presence which is required - not a direct attempt to escape any particular element, but the binds of absence as a whole, which binds tie us to all mechanically-acquired thinking, ideas, attitudes, values - everything that is not of us.

How many individuals are actually capable of this kind of Dasein that could not be more readily and effectively fulfilled with a alternative Weltanschauung towards effecting the preservation of the race?  It seems to me a Weltanschauung which has the decisive impact of leading the people away from estrangement to the degree this is possible would be a intelligent compromise.  Still some estrangement, then, but less than before.


30

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:49 | #

CC writes: “In fact, were ability to inflict deadly violence enthroned as a principle of social organization and status...”

As it is among virtually all sexual beings called males in nature?

The concept of “collective social goods” means the loss of life’s meaning if it entails becoming the castrati Jews prefer us to be.

Hence the Jewish horror at a man like Jimmy having full social approval to enter into single mortal combat in the State of Nature with the Hispanic who threw Jimmy’s college class application in the garbage.

Any so-called “philosophy” that fails to address sexual Being—including what it means to Be a fully sexual male—as just as foundational to Dasein as is life, force, space and time, is just as ridiculous as is a “racialist” who thinks that mass warfare as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing is anything but dysgenic.


31

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:29 | #

Bowery,

Sexual Being is addressed by giving White men the opportunity to select a mate of their choice and reproduce with her in a racially homogeneous context.  We already have the former, though this is increasingly truncated for the reasons you go into with incite and detail; it is a matter of delivering the latter.  And if it can at all be helped, I wish to preserve or recreate a congenial civilization in which White women and children will be comfortable.

Fascism has never been an end unto itself for me, only a means.

enter into single mortal combat in the State of Nature with the Hispanic

In the state of nature as it actually existed our Nordic ancestors would have dispatched with racial aliens en masse.  Single combat, if indeed this existed historically, was, more or less, a means of increasing one’s status on the sexual market place within the group.  We cannot expect racial aliens to honor our ingroup rules for establishing sexual status.  And the means for forcing them to respect that would be by doing so collectively.  Besides, we do not (at least I do not) recognize the right of racial aliens to compete for sexual status with White women at all in the form of their having access to White women.  Or do you wish to give racial aliens access to White women?

But if single combat is what it takes to preserve the race, then we should implement it.  Or fascism, if that be the case.


32

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:52 | #

CC writes: “But if single combat is what it takes to preserve the race, then we should implement it.

At least we can agree on that much.

The ball is in my court to make that case.


33

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:55 | #

James,

man-to-man single combat to the death as the ingredient missing from our culture in the unification of sex and death,

How does sport figure into your thinking?  For example, would you discourage more team-oriented sports in favor of solitary ones.

Another question, how would you address the most obvious deficiency of man-to-man single combat to the death?  I mean, surely you don’t believe that the best man in combat is always the best man, as scallywags can also be good at such things (although perhaps not Jewish ones).

CC,

Sexual Being is addressed by giving White men the opportunity to select a mate of their choice and reproduce with her in a racially homogeneous context.

What if multiple White men choose the same mate?  Do they all have it out to the death for her?


34

Posted by PF on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:07 | #

Bowery wrote:

As it is among virtually all sexual beings called males in nature?

I quite like and am fascinated by the implications of this idea of trial by combat. What animal societies are you reaching back to here?

Social insects and social primates seem best to me - as far as models go - and to my knowledge, both of these operate on the basis of group fighting.

CC wrote:

A concern then should be to prevent a visceral awareness of his own eventual death from cycling into a Gestellian means of preventing his own death, e.g., transhumanism and religious escapism.

Good point, among the other interesting things you’ve said on this thread.

Another way to say this is that man encounters a reality that is essentially primal - meaning we have the circuitry to deal with it emotionally and viscerally - and he runs away into his mind.

It is this “fog of mentation” that prevents liberals, IMO, from seeing that the reality-on-the-street of diversity is just old school ethnic cleansing/tribal warfare. It is an ancient, absolutely ancient reality - fear, anger, retribution, clannishness, and violence (not advocating BTW!) are the natural response to it.

But it is layered over in a pastiche of so many symbols, imputed moral meanings, historical interpretations, that they can’t see the depth of it. There is such an ornate mask placed over it, and constantly referenced. The parsimonious thought-model is “we are at war” and embracing racialism is having the guts to accept this simpler thought model, as opposed to: “These people are reacting to generations of oppression symbolified by myself, a white man. I have complex blueprints about how this can all be worked out to achieve social peace.” Unparsimonious - in some places untestable - and where tested, evidently failing.

One reason why James’ idea appeals to me is a remembrance of two times in my life when I was punched in the gut and slapped in the face for saying something. It shocked me out of my regularly scheduled program - and I reviewed the incidents with a seriousness many many times greater than what would normally have been the case if I had been answered with a verbal retort: “This person actually cared enough about this to *hit* me!”.


35

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:07 | #

Moreover, the prospect of having his father cut the throat of a member of his racial community, or his father having his throat cut by same, is not something a five year old boy needs to be thinking about.  To kill a man, to kill an animal, even to endure the loss of a beloved pet, comes at great psychic cost to any who is not a psychopath.  Which is why I steadfastly affirm the collective heroism, unsurpassed in all our history, of those German men that laid down their lives in saving Europe from Jewish-Bolshevik annihilation.  If theirs was not heroism than it does not exist.  They fought for Europe, that is what they believed - correctly.


36

Posted by PF on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:13 | #

GW wrote:

It is stillness that actualises authentic Dasein.  Is this recognised anywhere in B&T;?

Not that I have read.


37

Posted by PF on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:32 | #

CC wrote:

Which is why I steadfastly affirm the collective heroism, unsurpassed in all our history, of those German men that laid down their lives in saving Europe from Jewish-Bolshevik annihilation.

Heroism is an analysis of the deed that ennobles the doer - we are certainly in agreement that heroism would be a good thing, right?

Interestingly, though, here the deed and its motivation are viewed as receiving ennoblement on the basis of their cause. In other words, the Germans fought heroically, because they fought for Europe.

Is it possible to fight heroically in the service of a poor cause? How does the cause one fights for - which, as far as I can tell, is formulated by the leading clique of a nation and groggily understood by those working under them - how does the cause change the psychological character of the deed?

Its interesting because, according to this analysis, a white man from Arkansas who goes to fight the Neocons war in Iraq - even if he does it ever so steadfastly, ever so seriously, with ever so much remembrance of his beloved family and nation in his heart - would be denied the heroic laurel, because it could be shown in retrospect that he had fought for a cause that didn’t align with his self-interest?

And what if some germans acted cowardly, abandoning their posts and fellows to death, deserting and giving up - as must have been the case since my grandpops received the surrender of large numbers of germans - are they more or less heroic than the Japanese who would rather die than surrender? Yet the Japanese of course, could not fight for Europe - are they equally ennobled fighting for their motherland?

You see, I think the Japs were ‘heroic’ in this way because they were afraid of losing face. They are status-scared, afraid of being labelled a coward. I don’t know of any old-school East Asians who could deal with this sort of thing impinging their ‘honor’ (read: social status). So can heroism result from a fear of reprimand at the hands of your own people?

What a bunch of riddles to riddle over. Sitting up late at night perhaps.


38

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:33 | #

I was punched in the gut and slapped in the face for saying something.

Speak circumspectly around those you perceive in reading their body language and facial expressions are prone to violence.  Phenotypic ques, such as the fact that your potential antagonist is a nigger, should be heeded.  Even if you have the sense you can whip them, chances are you will care more about the consequences of having done as such than they would were the situation reversed.  What’s another trip to the county hotel mean to them?  Lots of niggers and trash there.


39

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 02:10 | #

CC writes: “Speak circumspectly around those you perceive in reading their body language and facial expressions are prone to violence.  Phenotypic ques, such as the fact that your potential antagonist is a nigger, should be heeded.

Let me translate:

Speak circumspectly around bait of a group entity intent on drawing you into its maw.  Phenotypic cues, such as your potential antagonist being anything of human form other than a white heterosexual male, should be heeded.  Resist ye not the group entity’s bait, but whatsoever bait shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to it the other also and whatsoever bait taketh away thy coat, give it thy cloak.  There is no more dishonor in such submission than in running from a category 5 hurricane’s inner vortex.


40

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 02:48 | #

PF: Compare the cohesion of any troop of over-social primates or any hive of bees to the cohesion of the cells of your body, and you’ll see that whatever can be accomplished by that direction of evolution has already been accomplished in the multicellular sexual organism to a vastly more sophisticated degree.  The point of Being Toward Death in the multicellular sexual organism is the recognition that the will to power is subordinate to creation.  The dwarf may reach for the Rhinegold in search of power and immortality but, in so doing, it foreswears the love married to death that is sex.


41

Posted by PF on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 03:00 | #

James

I liked this comment quite a bit:

Speak circumspectly around bait of a group entity intent on drawing you into its maw.  Phenotypic cues, such as your potential antagonist being anything of human form other than a white heterosexual male, should be heeded.  Resist ye not the group entity’s bait, but whatsoever bait shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to it the other also and whatsoever bait taketh away thy coat, give it thy cloak.  There is no more dishonor in such submission than in running from a category 5 hurricane’s inner vortex.

Fascinating. That you frame individual mash-ups as group entity’s ‘drawing you into its maw’.

I actually think thats very true. Everybody who considers the consequences of their actions knows that that consideration predominates in any conflict that has a racial dimension. In other words, you versus a black person is profoundly *not* two men physically exchanging blows. The whole apparatus that empowers him will be trained on you afterwards, even if his ‘boys’ dont show. You really would be doing battle with all those ideologically sworn to protect his rights.

As to your last comment, I’ll have to study it, its meaning isnt immediately clear to me.


42

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 06:25 | #

According to the Good Book, Luke 6:29, you best hand over your loot.  That is unless ya gots scatter-blast and Johnny Cochran in your corner.  Nom sayin’.  De’troit fo real.


43

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:02 | #

PF: Not that I have read.

Quite.  So the actualising characteristic for Dasein militates against the theoretical character of Dasein’s Being.

Now we have a choice.  If Being is “ground” in the classical metaphysical sense, the character of Dasein’s Being is receptivity.  But if Being is “relation” (or, as I have argued elsewhere, product), the character of Dasein’s Being is creativity.

Perhaps.


44

Posted by Rusty on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:11 | #

Dasein oder Nichtdasein, das ist die Frage ...

At least a few modern Germans pronounce Dasein with the accent on the first syllable, and with not nearly as much flair as our west Texas philosopher.  The definition is the same, though:
http://www.dict.cc/?s=dasein


45

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:26 | #

Ah, Meister Marr, tell me, what property towards the world has a state of zen?  Is it care or no-care?  Can it exist in care, or can care only exist with itself?

Yes.


46

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:44 | #

Now we have a choice.  If Being is “ground” in the classical metaphysical sense, the character of Dasein’s Being is receptivity.  But if Being is “relation” (or, as I have argued elsewhere, product), the character of Dasein’s Being is creativity.

Yes.


47

Posted by PF on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:27 | #

CC wrote:

According to the Good Book, Luke 6:29, you best hand over your loot.  That is unless ya gots scatter-blast and Johnny Cochran in your corner.  Nom sayin’.  De’troit fo real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrpMKKO2e6E&feature=related

The song even contains a lecture on hood ornithology:

“Where the bird go? - That shit flew south for the winter.”

See? So much can be learned from hip-hop lyrics.


48

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:54 | #

self-interest being increasingly impossible to pursue under the dispensation of anti-racism,

No. This is where I have a problem. Self-interest is the constant, regardless. It probably frames the current Weltanschauung. In fact JB’s warning should be taken further. If the WHM is the West Texan, an extended phenotype, the end result is still the same. 

Capital eschewed collective Christendom in pursuit of self-interest. Capital embraced the racial collective in South Africa, because it feared trade unionism. Capital forsook the racial collective in post war North America because it desired cheap labor using anti-discrimination as a moral authority. If you watch Glen Beck, he is trying to juxtapose the morality of anti-discrimination and socialism/communism. It appears he is trying to frighten capital by raising the communist bogeyman and connecting it with the third world.

“Hey white people, capital right now is allying with the commies because it serves their interest. However, capital should be very afraid because once socialists take power, they will confiscate the wealth.”

The problem is how is the ebb and flow of self-interest curtailed? Christendom curtailed self-interest through coercion and shame etc., however, even that was not sustainable. Liberalism attempted (J.S. Mill) to unshackle it, but only in a homogeneous polity and only to those who were capable (i.e. civilized). Otherwise, it was Charlemagne or Akbar, if they were lucky. However, that was also unsustainable.

Whether it’s a threat to the salmon, (individual) or the bee hive (kin) adaptive behavior occurs on this level. However, if there is a threat to the collective salmon population or the collective bee population, the individual salmon or the bee hive will not change its behavior to resist extirpation. It does not necessarily mean the salmon and bees will become extinct in the short term, it’s simply that they show no adaptive response on the group (beyond immediate family) level.


49

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:13 | #

This is where I have a problem. Self-interest is the constant, regardless.

I meant in the sense that for the great mass of Whites the realization of concrete goals associated with their reproductive fitness, such as safe neighborhoods, decent paying jobs, morally and emotionally stable mates, access to quality education, services from non-corrupt and competent public institutions, will be increasingly hard to come by.  Given that, you cannot tell me self-interest will not be a harder road to hoe for them.  Once they suffer enough, perhaps then they will listen.

Capital eschewed collective Christendom in pursuit of self-interest. Capital embraced the racial collective in South Africa, because it feared trade unionism. Capital forsook the racial collective in post war North America because it desired cheap labor using anti-discrimination as a moral authority.

The trend you describe, with some fits and starts, is clearly that of the expansion of the sphere of operation of capital at the hands of elites.  Endogamous groups were correspondingly amalgamated into ethnies at the level of the nation state and now beyond.  The ability to realize self-interest in the form of concrete goals of the vast majority of individuals is only increased up to a point by the enlargement of their group.  After a certain point, the group is so enlarged that effective group strategizing to enhance collective self-interest is a diminishing return.

the individual salmon or the bee hive will not change its behavior to resist extirpation.

We are not salmon or bees but people capable of flexible strategy at the group level.  The Krauts did it and in the modern era so we know it can be done - however much that may offend the English.


50

Posted by SMC on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 03:54 | #

That was horrible. Waste of my dasein.

The comments were better.

Learn cause and effect determinism (not philosophers’ “philosophies”). Don’t waste time with the inventing-vocabulary-words to say nothing endeavors.

If Heidegger is interesting for his fascism “solution” to the modern human condition, I would have much rather heard about that: Its genesis in his head and his specific solutions(or embracing of same) and definition of “fascism”. Was he a Wagnerian et al romantic (eg Scott) pining for the passing of the heroic age, believing that a little more mano a mano would right the rudder (affording him a better life)? Did he have a bad life, deemed by him to be caused by modernism? (Similar to Hitler.) Etc.

____
———-
James Bowery has been pushing this “mano a mano” solution for a few years. (I haven’t been here for a while.) He is very correct. But it will never happen. Capt.caveman is correct. (! ?? !!)

How satisfying it would be to smack a “male”—scoundrel, runt, conspirator and liar, bully in is own right—across his face an say “you sir are an ass” and then take him outside and kill him.

It aint gonna happen though.

Why?...

I was a child alpha male. Ie I led the class in early kid hood and I do everything better than everybody (starting line-up this that and the other and artist, “great-thinker” and composer/musician too). And I am still afraid of what you’re saying. (“Thrusting swords at dawn.”)

If mankind was comfortable with that olde system we would still be there. No?

But again you’re right. Our main enemies abhor that “rugged” system because they are lilliputian runts who grab our wrists. They trick “us”(not me) with ‘law’ and etc BS the way shepherds geld the males, bell the females, follow them around and fleece and eat their children. It has been going on for about 5 thousand years! (It is called civilization itself; brought to us by their diaspora-s.) It would be very satisfying to gore one of them.


51

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 05:20 | #

Desmond,

How does this suzereignty of individualistically-strategized self-interest explain us?  How does it explain the vast discontent with race-replacement immigration that exists “out there”, even without our case being allowed into public discourse, and with us being dehumanised at every step?

Obviously, self-interest isn’t exclusively individualistic.  Obviously, individualism isn’t solely countered by memes of heroic rebirth, since we are not motivated by same, and neither are the millions of low-level discontents who don’t want immigration.

CC,

The Krauts did it and in the modern era

I don’t think they did.  I don’t think the strength of their group-centred commitment was greater than that of the Russians at Stalingrad or the British in the skies over southern England.  I don’t think the young men of Bomber Command or the USAAF 8th Air Force were less committed than the airmen they faced in the skies over Germany and occupied Europe.  I don’t believe the ordinary seamen of the merchant marine, who suffered enormous casualties and were not even servicemen, were less committed than the U-boat crews that hunted them.

This idea that fascism is relevant to our need is a fallacy often of deepest interest to Jewish Single Issue proponents and, where they are different, to Germans everywhere who want to recover the reputation of their forefathers.  For the rest of us, though, fascism is at best a way to counter the moral degradation of the people.  On the existential struggle it is silent.

We do well to remember the vast force that has to be arrayed against the natural interests and instincts of Europeans, which force is itself an expression not only several congruent elite interests but of the bastardised form of an individualist philosophy, itself secularised from a universalised Judaism, from which those interests draw their life.


52

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:09 | #

GW,

Your examples of group centered commitment in WWII, along with PF’s earlier analysis of heroism helps me to see things in a broader way.

We would be wise to resist the temptation to judge the motives of WWII, (or any other), combatants in light of subsequent experience which was wholly unavailable to them.

Despite the alphabetic proximities of letters composing “Limey” and “Kikey”, your words simultaneously evoke and assuage my Celtic magnanimosity toward the English.


53

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:47 | #

Jimmy,

I am very pleased you decided to stop by here, whenever that was, and found enough fun on tap to think it worth staying.

The lesson on group-centred behaviour, which I have been trying to flog for the last ten thousand years it sometimes seems, with ne’er a buyer in sight, is that “the existential” calls forth all our powers.  Absolutely nothing is left in reserve.  We fight til we drop because life is our highest interest, higher by far than being the great hero with the laurel wreath and the shining reputation - an estate rooted psychologically only in male mate fitness.

The one question that needs to be answered in respect of National Socialism, I feel, is whether it might be uniquely appropriate to a people who self-identify as “the victim”, as the Germans did after Versailles.  The consanguinities between NS and Judaism include victimology, so there is something special going on there. Of course, the gene-coded conviction of Jewish supremacism has no more basis in reality that the National Socialist’s assumption of Aryan supremacism.  They are both fantasies, though in the Jewish case it does have the Jewish verbal IQ to commend it - the result of selection for an unusual evolutionary niche, namely parasitism.  But they also have their paranoia, one concrete result of which is psycho-analysis, and another the Holocaust narrative.

As regards your Celtic charity, my friend, a thousand years of local gene selection separated our forebears, but that does not make you are a Celt - another fantasy, this time of the 19th century.  You are a northern European exactly like me.  Your forebears just got across the North Sea before mine, and the rest is a stubborn insistence on the Scottish droit de seigneur.


54

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:15 | #

Most of what you have said, I understand and appreciate. The first paragraph will require a calling forth of all my cognitive powers, but I will work on it.

Meanwhile, I’m still congratulating myself of the discovery/invention of “magnanimosity”. It’s much more, and yet much less than “charity”. It’s self-antonymonous.

We Celts are so frickin’ verbalextrous, it’s a shame we aren’t parasitical. No wonder we feel shor-changed.

More fun on tap!


55

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:23 | #

A more precise location for fun on tap.


56

Posted by PF on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:15 | #

Jimmy wrote:

We Celts are so frickin’ verbalextrous,

Its so truereal, Jimmy. That word you just coined is excruciatingly beautiful.

Thanks for the links re tapped fun.


57

Posted by jimmy Marr on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:00 | #

Thank you, PF.

GW,

Your questioning of the concept of Being seems to have extended itself onto the existence of us Celts.

I seem to remember you acknowledging, on MR Radio, that you suffer from a paucity of logic, so let me help you out:

If we Celts are non-existent, from whence do the Leprechauns derive?

Celtic logic is tricky at first, but practice makes perfect. The next time you encounter a militant vegan, try this question:

If God had not intended animals to be eaten, why did He make them out of meat?

Rising against the enemies of God can be easy once you get the knack of it. Think of it as logic on tap.


58

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:07 | #

We are not salmon or bees but people capable of flexible strategy at the group level.

It may very well be true that we are capable of this flexible strategy, but where is the evidence of its existence? If there is this “vast discontent with race-replacement immigration ” where is the adaptive response at a group level? It does nor appear to exist. White flight may look like a group response, but it’s not conducted as a wholesale shifting of neighborhoods to flee the encroaching other, but a piecemeal exit by individuals and their families, who are displaying an adaptive response. It’s also present in Asians. Why do Koreans largely not adopt other orphaned Korean children? They maintain a commitment to the ‘purity’ of their family bloodline.

Korean traditional society places significant weight on paternal family ties, bloodlines, and purity of ‘race’. Children of mixed race or those without fathers are not easily accepted in Korean society (Jang, 1998). Many families would go through excessive and expensive procedures such as surrogacy or in vitro fertilization to ensure that their offspring are at least related than to accept a child of a complete stranger into their family. Indeed, it was the case until recently that Korean citizenship was directly tied to family bloodline. Children not a part of a Korean family (i.e., orphans) were not legal citizens of Korea.

What appears to be an adaptive response at the group level, is really more like the response of a bee hive. The adaptive response is at the kinship level. The hive will die stinging because the genetic relationship between sister bees is so pronounced, however, there will be no adaptive response if the ‘race of bees’ if you will, is threatened by extirpation.

The other problem is that the pursuit of self-interest appears to be adaptive. n/a posted the Forbes 400 recently. NW European billionaires average over three children each. The effect is seen even at lower levels of wealth. Anglo-European millionaires also average ~three children each, which is almost double the average white birth rate. It appears then that the evidence of an adaptive collective group response is significantly missing.


59

Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:19 | #

Captainchaos,

Did you ever look at the Wehrmacht propaganda I uploaded?


60

Posted by Wanderer on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:21 | #

n/a posted the Forbes 400 recently

Forbes 400 by Ethnic Origins (2010)

More Statistics on Forbes 400


61

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:03 | #

Desmond,

where is the adaptive response at a group level?

Lost to self-estrangement.

The other problem is that the pursuit of self-interest appears to be adaptive.

Not for those who can’t afford to live as it is.  Finance Capitalists are, in any case, overwhelmingly parasites, impoverishing rather than enriching the people.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/19/forbes-400-introduction-lists-richlist07-cx_mm_0920richintro.html

The Forbes 400

One billion dollars is no longer enough. The price of admission to this, the 25th anniversary edition of the Forbes 400, is $1.3 billion, up $300 million from last year. The collective net worth of the nation’s mightiest plutocrats rose $290 billion to $1.54 trillion.

Wall Street led the charge, despite this summer’s market jitters. Nearly half of the 45 new members made their fortunes in hedge funds and private equity. Money manager John Paulson joins the list after pocketing more than $1 billion short-selling subprime credit this summer.

Leveraged buyout titans David Bonderman and James Coulter of Texas Pacific Group make their first appearance on the list, along with William Conway, Daniel D’Aniello and David Rubenstein of the Carlyle Group. Blackstone billionaires Peter Peterson and Hamilton “Tony” James also join the Forbes 400 for the first time.

Other new members of the list include oilman Harold Hamm, who landed on our ranking after taking his Continental Resources (nyse: CLR - news - people ) oil and gas operation public in May. Brothers Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta scratched and clawed their way onto the list with their Ultimate Fighting Championship pay-per-view fight fest. The Fertitta brothers also recently took their Station Casinos (nyse: STN - news - people ) gambling company private with Forbes 400 member Tom Barrack for $9 billion in cash and assumed debt.

Twelve people returned to the list, including computer memory mavens David Sun and John Tu, and John Catsimatidis, who made his fortune buying and holding an oil refinery and New York City real estate through his holding company Red Apple Group.

The youngest member of the Forbes 400 this year is 33-year-old John Arnold, a former Enron trader who now runs hedge fund Centaurus Energy and has amassed a $1.5 billion fortune. The oldest member of the list is potato king John Simplot, who is 98 years old and worth $3.6 billion.

The biggest gainer this year was Kirk Kerkorian, who padded his fortune by $9 billion as shares of his MGM Mirage (nyse: MGM - news - people ) casino outfit rose 135% over the past year. Kerkorian enters the top 10 along with Google (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people ) billionaires Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who are up $4.4 billion and $4.5 billion, respectively; and brothers Charles and David Koch, who added $5 billion apiece to their fortunes on surging energy and commodities prices. They replace Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) co-founder Paul Allen and four members of the Walton family ...

The reason parasites prosper is because the meta-politics of our age grant them that opportunity.  All this must be torn down.  It is obscene and anti-human.  Do American WNs, beyond those who visit this site, really understand that ... really understand how radical nationalism is meant to be?

Desmond, this is an ontological route out of “fundamentals” that might help to describe how a reconnection to healthy thinking and a reconnection to a self that is not fundamentally lost go together:

Nature vs Time/Entropy ? Genotype/Phenotype ? Evolution ? Adaptiveness, Maladaptiveness and Genetic Interest ? Sociobiology ? Mind ? Consciousness (Presence)/Mechanicity (Absence) ? Authenticity/Inauthenticity ? Self-Discovery and Habitation ? Will


62

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:29 | #

It is obscene and anti-human.  Do American WNs, beyond those who visit this site, really understand that ...

I doubt it. I’ll try to get the word out: Not a Celt on the list!


63

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:35 | #

Guessedworker,

The Koreans are estranged? It makes no sense.

Supported by governments, business, the media, and the churches, the Italians, Greeks, Poles, Croatians, Jews, and so on met with some resentment but little in the way of open, much less violent, resistance.

Lost to estrangement pre-war as well? Where is the adaptive response at the group level? Lincoln’s Electric Cord speech, where was the adaptive response at the group level? The founding American were driven out of Boston and New York by the famine Irish. Were they estranged as well? Where was the adaptive response at the group level?

Not for those who can’t afford to live as it is.

That’s the whole point. For instance, Greg Clark’s study showed a reproductive differential based upon individual competition and thus in pre-industrial Britain the wealthy replaced the poor.

Yes group selection theoretically make sense, but there is a significant paucity of evidence in support the theory.


64

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:43 | #

Desmond,

What Koreans do or don’t do has no bearing on us.  They are different to us.  I am not a Korean.  I do not have a Korean sociobiology, and neither do you.

in pre-industrial Britain the wealthy replaced the poor.

So what?  I don’t see anything but nihilism in your thought.  Further, your presumption appears to be that neoliberalism is a constant rather than something we want to address.


65

Posted by expat on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:00 | #

The Koreans are estranged? It makes no sense.

They may very well be estranged.  From a blog run by someone named “Nathan Schwartzmann”:

“Korean Human Rights Commission investigates internet racism”

http://asiancorrespondent.com/korea-beat/korean-human-rights-commission-investigates-internet-racism

“Those people smell just like armpits.” “Those people commit a lot of rape, don’t they?” “There’s no way to know who’s an illegal.”

A picture of black people taking food after a flood was titled “looting?” while a photo of white people doing the same was titled “stockpiling food”.

The National Human Rights Commission (???????) announced on October 1 that these are examples of racial discrimination.

The Commission announced that in September it had a team of university students monitor the internet for instances of racial discrimination, defined as expressions of contempt, hatred, or persecution on the basis of race, skin color, and country of origin, in photos, videos, comments, and blog posts.

The monitoring team consisted of 10 university and graduate students familiar with the use of the internet, who each found 20 instances of discrimination published in their report.

This is the first attempt by a government agency to keep track of the level of racial discrimination and monitor racism.

The monitoring was carried out to survey the situation of racism in Korean society, which is preparing for multiculturalism, and investigate ways to systematically ameliorate the stuation.

The Commission also investigated instances on the internet of people insulting immigrant wives, Korean women who marry foreign men, and foreign laborers.

The report did not include messages delivered through instant messaging, where an e-mail address is unknown.

The Commission plans to investigate whether some of the expressions may have violated the law.

An official with the Commission said, “we plan to investigate whether systematic reforms are necessary after grasping the situation in cyberspace of expressions of racism that violate human rights, how serious they are, and their relationship to current law.”


66

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:41 | #

Ahso. Very estrange.


67

Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 01:08 | #

From raindrops on roses to whiskers on kittens, these are some of my favorite Korean things.


68

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 07:10 | #

The founding American were driven out of Boston and New York by the famine Irish. Were they estranged as well? Where was the adaptive response at the group level?

The Klan and America First Committee were such group responses.  That they were driven by elites makes them no less a group response and tells us only that leadership is needed to enable effective group cohesion and strategizing.


69

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 11:06 | #

That they were driven by elites makes them no less a group response and tells us only that leadership is needed to enable effective group cohesion and strategizing.

The “group response” quality of the examples I cited is found in the resonance with the rank-and-file followers of these movements.  That resonance is a product of those followers identifying as members of the group for whose interests those movements were intended to advance.  Likewise, the leaders of those movements, functioning as catalysts and shapers of the latent group feeling, did as they did out of concern for the group which they too identified as members of.  One cannot say the actions of the leaders of those movements could be expected by them to inevitably enhance their self-interest.  Lindbergh certainly suffered as a result.  It is more apt to say that the genes which code for the ethnically-particular self-sacrificing altruism such leaders carry would be the beneficiary in the instance of a successful movement in that such individuals’ reproductive fitness could be expected to benefit.  These leaders, great men, or heroes, whatever one wishes to call them, are a essential part of a effective group response.  Odin help us all if naught but “queers” and “misfits” flock to their banners.


70

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 11:39 | #

From raindrops on roses to whiskers on kittens, these are some of my favorite Korean things.

The point of at least affecting “meta-babble”, Grimoire, is that this is the language the Good and the Great understand for it is the one they speak.  Moreover, it is the only one they will listen to for it is the one they attach status, and therefore perceived legitimacy of their interlocutor, to.  They unconsciously associate the high status they ascribe to the verbiage of their particular meta-narrative with their own self-perceived high status.  Competent usage of their preferred verbiage, and the resultant recognition of you by them as also high status (because if you are then not then they also are not), is at least in part an exercise in narcissism.  This is eternally a backdrop to the discussion of the actual merits of whatever.  This is perhaps, at least in part, the function some wish to fulfill in couching EGI in high-sounding Heideggerisms, in addition to pitching EGI to our emotional and sensory systems via the intellect - these systems being for most unaffected by mere gene accountancy.  What those like you, and Gorboduc, are really asking for, and complaining about, is that your preferred spiritual verbiage is not being used.  The sensible approach, as least to me, would seem to be to toss faithists a bone now and then instead of threatening their progeny with spiritual castration: “breeding out the faith gene”.


71

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 14:42 | #

I attempted to post this comment at Occidental Dissent, the person quoted is Jack Ryan:

“We encourage readers to submit comments that specifically address the topic of the post.”

Does commentary of a satirical bent get in under the wire?  Let us be as Nietzsche would have us, cheerfully serious, and not morbidly pretentious.

“We want to educate and train activists to be more focused on what the people around you are talking about.”

Greg Johnson couldn’t, er, could, have said it better.  And did.  Good advice all the same.  There are other sites (Counter-Currents) which focus on creating a counter superstructure (noble lies) to the existing liberal one and foisting it to preeminence is Gramscian style as opposed to maximizing the mainstream palinability (palatability) of White advocacy.  Then there are those (Majority Rights) which can only be concerned with arriving at the truth of the matter, and nothing but, in endlessly excruciating, eggheaded fashion.

Looks like a division of labor that cannot speak its name

.

Oh, and I also posted this masterpiece of scholarly incite in the same thread:

Rich Sanchez sayz he ain’t White, but Hispanic. LOL! Looks like a cracker to me. What is he going for, an unWhite skin privilege? Listen up ladies, this fall, brown is the new white.

All here, or at least is was at the time:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/10/02/jewish-media-power-gets-cnn-white-hispanic-sanchez-fired/comment-page-1/#comment-86316


72

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:31 | #

Interesting CC. I just went over there and posted a humor test. So far, it’s standing.


73

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:51 | #

Wow! Dem some tight-assed white boys. The link is gone.


74

Posted by PF on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 19:31 | #

CC wrote:

Moreover, it is the only one they will listen to for it is the one they attach status, and therefore perceived legitimacy of their interlocutor, toThey unconsciously associate the high status they ascribe to the verbiage of their particular meta-narrative with their own self-perceived high status. Competent usage of their preferred verbiage, and the resultant recognition of you by them as also high status (because if you are then not then they also are not), is at least in part an exercise in narcissism.  This is eternally a backdrop to the discussion of the actual merits of whatever.  This is perhaps, at least in part, the function some wish to fulfill in couching EGI in high-sounding Heideggerisms,

You don’t understand and your exposition of motive - while interesting insofar as it shows you are developing your thinking in pertinent new directions - doesnt stick.

To understand this, think about the last time that you talked to a dull person about a topic that was important to you, and that you had spent many years studying. You invariably must have felt that you could scarcely even articulate yourself adequately, you simply had to nod at his ground-floor truisms, and occasionally hint at epiphanies which would only be available to him with years of remedial thinking.
If you then say something arcane and unintelligible to the dull person, using a bit of one’s own ‘verbiage’ as it were - the man will not understand you. He will probably deem it irrelevant to the object of his focus, even though the connection is obvious to you. He may even think you are simply showing off.

High-sounding Heideggerisms are the truth - or close - as revealed to those who take the time to bother with them. Thats why they bother with them - not to impress a nonexistent audience. If you have ever seen a truth of yours bastardized, you will know how stupid people are constantly proclaiming the irrelevance of all thinking that occurs at a higher level than their own. This is essentially what you are doing. Its a defensive posture motivated by the desire not to appear not to know something significant, that is its status-signaling component, and the genuine component - which I am arguing for the resuscitation of in your analysis of motive with respect to our own writing - the genuine component consists in this admission:

I have not yet been able to realize the problematic aspects of my thought models which makes your advanced models necessary, I therefore see no justification for them and would proclaim them a superfluity. I am not aware of the contradictions inherent in my own thinking and way of interfacing with the world.

The cement is mixed to patch holes in the dike which others have not realized to be there. The man who is unaware points to the cement and says: “What a waste of time and resources!” or alternatively, “You’re just doing that to show off!”


75

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 02:26 | #

CptChaos:
              What those like you, and Gorboduc, are really asking for, and complaining about, is that your preferred spiritual verbiage is not being used.  The sensible approach, as least to me, would seem to be to toss faithists a bone now and then instead of threatening their progeny with spiritual castration: “breeding out the faith gene”.

  Wrong.  I could care less about ‘tossed bones’ from the perpetually narrow and preconditioned for failure. I’m not pushing Religion or Spirituality at all.  You assume I am… because you are all conceptually unable to imagine a non-partisan perspective that takes things as they are, instead of what is conducive to the Rube Goldberg ideology ‘yoo-awl’  has fried up and is trying to sneak past the collective bullshit metre. Far fatter chance sneaking a donut past a Krispy Kreme Calender Girl. What I care about is this ‘intellectual’  sounding dog’s breakfast.. in fact sounds like a claque of jive-idiots.
  This daring attempt at a intellectual exercise in legitimation, completely divorced from scholarship and historical and textual fact ... does not stand a chance in hell in provoking more than a snicker fest. It may stump the WN idiocracy for a few seconds before they fall to sleep….but the real world is just going to hand you some rope,,,,confident that in a short moment they will return to find you’ve all either hung yourself, or tied yourself in so many knots only a Gworkian pretense of deeper wellsprings of insight can strike back by turning the joke from hilarious to sad. Take that smirk off their faces and replace it with pity….not a good strategy for survival. 

  I realize it is impossible to convince you that you would be already a league ahead if you would just return to the path of honesty, sincerity, morality (in terms of the ideals of our forefathers) but above all, realism.  It is these qualities that create men of substance and authority that will not bend nor break, and will convince others that one is capable of truth, and therefore leadership.


76

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 04:00 | #

Gmoire,

That is certainly a impressive list of scathing and colloquial rebukes.  But you are less than honest if you say you yourself are not pushing something.  Namely, transcendent values and ideals you associate with our race which you clearly believe enjoy a metaphysical and eternal validity.  Is it not so?  You should understand, there are some who may well be constitutionally incapable of believing as you believe.  (I am not one of them, by the way, I occupy a middle ground - my commentary reflects that fact.  “God” or whatever one wishes to call or imagine it as, may well exist.  I do not firmly believe that, nor do I wholly reject the possibility.)  Yet that does not mean they do not steadfastly adhere to a set of moral standards they associate with the European baseline for optimal adaptedness.  That is largely the point of this “ontology” business they are so fond of: to find a means of preserving the race within the context and to the furtherance of those moral principles which eschews the heavy and brutal hand of authoritarian coercion.  I do not take for granted the possibility that Gworker is not merely rationalizing this essentially teleological pursuit of his cherished morality handed down to him by his immediate forebears in a way that does not also offend the intellectual conscience handed down to him by same.  In other words, what absolute guarantee or rock-solid evidence do we have that his nascent “philosophy” can actually deliver racial preservation sans authoritarianism?  None palpable that I can see.  Still, I do not fault him for trying, and in fact hope he succeeds.  His morality is also the morality handed down to me by my forebears and I think it good.  Still, my scepticism persists.  And why should it not, good evidence for the validity of his approach not yet forthcoming?  You are sceptical, to put it mildly, as well; yet not sceptical in the least of your own cherished notions.


77

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:17 | #

C-chaos:

But you are less than honest if you say you yourself are not pushing something. Namely, transcendent values and ideals you associate with our race which you clearly believe enjoy a metaphysical and eternal validity.  Is it not so? 

To your mind. Your statement above make it clear you do not understand what I am trying to say.

You should understand, there are some who may well be constitutionally incapable of believing as you believe.


Number One: I don’t believe anything. Number Two: these constitutionally ‘incapable of believing’ are not else but frantics shoring up their desperate need for beliefs. This infantile ‘Darwinism’ and bullshit about ‘genes’ are but substitutes for angels and unicorns

(I am not one of them, by the way, I occupy a middle ground - my commentary reflects that fact.  “God” or whatever one wishes to call or imagine it as, may well exist.  I do not firmly believe that, nor do I wholly reject the possibility.)

Captain…..., God, St Ignatius and the Virgin are all busy and cannot return your calls. Dawkins and his sort are available 24/7. The task at hand however, is really not part of their conversation. ..however Dawkins is flattered you think such.

That is largely the point of this “ontology” business they are so fond of: to find a means of preserving the race within the context and to the furtherance of those moral principles which eschews the heavy and brutal hand of authoritarian coercion.  I do not take for granted the possibility that Gworker is not merely rationalizing this essentially teleological pursuit of his cherished morality handed down to him by his immediate forebears in a way that does not also offend the intellectual conscience handed down to him by same.  In other words, what absolute guarantee or rock-solid evidence do we have that his nascent “philosophy” can actually deliver racial preservation sans authoritarianism?  None palpable that I can see.  Still, I do not fault him for trying, and in fact hope he succeeds.


To begin, the philosophy of Ontology requires a grasp of phenomenological reality. Not the map of a lab rats’ labyrinth.  I wish him the best of luck on his hunt for the super cheese, Where it not this ensures that only those who understand Fascism outside of the Anglo-American abmoral phantasy will be the only effective actors. And there is almost a guarantee they will not be on our side.

You are sceptical, to put it mildly, as well; yet not sceptical in the least of your own cherished notions.


It is unfortunate to see that you CC, have not yet learned how to think outside of the box. I’m not in your rat’s maze. I have no map to an alternate super cheese. My council to stand on two feet and be men, instead of lab rats.


78

Posted by PF on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 17:11 | #

I love it when an online convo devolves into hysterics.

Personally I think certain lines should be bolded and capitalized for emphasis:

I’M NOT IN YOUR RATS MAZE. I HAVE NO MAP TO AN ALTERNATIVE SUPER CHEESE.

As with many a metaphor, after your brain is done parsing its imagery you are left asking: what the fuck were we talking about again? Oh, right, supercheese.

Gadzookes he really isn’t in the maze after all!! Hey GW - forget about what I said to you in my last email, we are not going to succeed in trapping Grim in the maze, because he isnt in our rat’s maze at all. All those intricate three-way emails between you, me and Notus about how to trap him and it turns out he isnt even there at all.

Well, thats my weekend ruined.


79

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:24 | #

Three-way, PF?  I was copying them to my spamming list like we said.  You mean you didn’t do it to yours?

On a jocular note, Grim, why don’t you exercise your grasp of phenomenological reality by means of an explanatory note, which I will post.  Speaking for myself, I am very interested in the concepts of intentionality and immediacy, neither of which, I suspect, are much use in the formulation you would give them.  But prove me wrong.  At the very least it would give us something to focus on ... a scholarly figure for the disagreement between us.  So much more edifying that your stream of consciousness ramblings.


80

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:25 | #

It is more apt to say that the genes which code for the ethnically-particular self-sacrificing altruism such leaders carry would be the beneficiary in the instance of a successful movement in that such individuals’ reproductive fitness could be expected to benefit.

Yes, but beyond that do those genes become fixed in the population regardless of the impact upon individuals in the group? In other words if there is no slight reproductive differential for the individuals carrying these altruistic genes, then how does a population become altruistic vis-a-vis the group?

In contrast. the slight reproductive differential imputed by the pursuit of wealth destroyed the Malthusian trap. Yet some will call this dysgenic/nihilistic. And yet the morality handed down to you was a product of a slight differential in reproduction through the pursuit of self-interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/08/06/science/20070807_INDU_GRAPHIC.html


81

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:21 | #

Don’t worry, Grim.

We’ll hide and watch as GW, PF and Notus sublimate their three-way, goose-stepping, rhetoric to Super-Rat’s debut.

Then we’ll rise against the enemies of God!


82

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:44 | #

PF:

I love it when an online convo devolves into hysterics.

I bet your all a’tingle and hugging your plush toys.

Gadzookes he really isn’t in the maze after all!! Hey GW - forget about what I said to you in my last email, we are not going to succeed in trapping Grim in the maze, because he isnt in our rat’s maze at all. All those intricate three-way emails between you, me and Notus about how to trap him and it turns out he isnt even there at all.
Well, thats my weekend ruined.


Why haven’t you left for military school?


83

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 22:26 | #

Gworker: 

On a jocular note, Grim, why don’t you exercise your grasp of phenomenological reality by means of an explanatory note, which I will post.


Thank you, I intend to do that…presently, I am busy with other writing. I’ll see about later this week or next.

Speaking for myself, I am very interested in the concepts of intentionality and immediacy, neither of which, I suspect, are much use in the formulation you would give them.


‘Intentionality and Immediacy’?......that should rip the roof off.

At the very least it would give us something to focus on ... a scholarly figure for the disagreement between us.


Fundamentally, there is no disagreement between us. The problem I have is with your descent into madness.

So much more edifying that your stream of consciousness ramblings.


Who’s ‘stream of consciousness ramblings’???


84

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 22:37 | #

J Marr

Then we’ll rise against the enemies of God!

Yes, we’ll rise….fill the glasses, perhaps send for dice. Rising against the enemies of God is laborious and toilsome sport.


85

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 23:42 | #

James: Any west Texan who can talk about being toward death without talking about man-to-man single combat to the death as the ingredient missing from our culture in the unification of sex and death, is a mere mockery of a west Texan.

Renaissance festival season is coming up here in the Midwest, I promised my nephew that we wouldn’t be satisfied until we either found these guys or a similar fighting troop.  I do believe that there is some man-to-man single “combat” in the linked video.


86

Posted by PF on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 02:00 | #

Grim wrote:

Yes, we’ll rise….fill the glasses, perhaps send for dice. Rising against the enemies of God is laborious and toilsome sport.

Must…write…more….random…..shit….. YES AND ILL HAVE A HAM SANDWHICH WHILE WE’RE PLAYING DICE. THEN YOU WILL TELEPHONE YOUR COOL FRIENDS AND THEY WILL COME OVER TO PLAY CARDS WITH US. Rise against the enemies of constantly satirizing everything everyone else says. After that, rise against the enemies of talking-past-one-another snarkfests!

Writing of GW, Grim said:

Fundamentally, there is no disagreement between us. The problem I have is with your descent into madness.

Finally you broached the non-issue I have been non-worrying about since never, Grim, which is the sanity of our dear GW.

Who’s ‘stream of consciousness ramblings’???

whatever GW meant by that, it was certainly not this:

NUMBER ONE: I DONT BELIEVE ANYTHING.

FAR FATTER CHANCE SNEAKING A DONUT PAST A KRISPY KREME CALENDER GIRL. WHAT I CARE ABOUT IS THIS ‘INTELLECTUAL’ SOUNDING DOG’S BREAKFAST… IN FACT SOUNDS LIKE A CLAQUE OF JIVE-IDIOTS.

WHY HAVEN’T YOU LEFT FOR MILITARY SCHOOL?

I’M NOT IN YOUR RAT’S MAZE. I HAVE NO MAP TO AN ALTERNATE SUPER CHEESE. MY COUNCIL IS TO STAND ON YOUR OWN TWO FEET AND BE MEN INSTEAD OF LAB RATS!

I put it in caps to emphasize what I like to call the ‘crazoid factor’.


87

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 02:21 | #

Notus Wind writes: “Renaissance festival season is coming up here in the Midwest, I promised my nephew that we wouldn’t be satisfied until we either found these guys or a similar fighting troop.  I do believe that there is some man-to-man single “combat” in the linked video.

And if you read the rules of single mortal combat in the state of nature (point 6), you’ll notice your Renfair fighters are as much a mockery as Rick Roderick is a mockery of genuine West Texan culture.

The idea is not to evolve specialized fighting skills adapted to numerous artificial rules regarding equipment and layout of the arena—nor to entertain observers.  The idea is to recognize the environment of evolutionary adaptation as a proper foundation for dispute processing, and no, I don’t mean the 10,000 year explosion posited by Cochrane and Harpending.  In the case of Northern Europeans, there were exceedingly different selective pressures brought to bear during that 10,000 year period from those set forth in their biased account of recent human evolution.  Guys like they and Jared Diamond would have sired no children.


88

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:47 | #

PF,

When Grim or I start to get under your skin, try looking at our participation in light of
The Role of Anger in White Nationalism:

Hate is like nuclear fuel.  You have to be careful with it, but if used properly, can accomplish great things, just like love. (Keivsky)

Some of us are not gifted with the ability to continuously make direct positive contributions to this blog. Ours are the contributions of contrast. We just need to be careful in moderating the strength and frequency of that contrast to optimize the burn rate in our reactor.

Even if Grim is unaware of the role he plays here, it doesn’t detract from its efficacy. I, as a newcomer, appreciate his assistance. Nothing will reveal GW’s lucidity to me more quickly than allegations of his madness.


89

Posted by PF on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 13:00 | #

Jimmy,

When Grim or I start to get under your skin, try looking at our participation in light of

Actually last night when I typed the comment, I was laughing out loud maniacally at the way in which your zen-flavored snark-humor blended with Grim’s ferocious machine-gun-of-metaphors meltdown to produce what appears to be a collective descent into a surrealistic Serious Nonsense. Only you and Grim could have precipitated that glory. I am waiting for the more serious and committed posters to make us gather up our toys and usher us back into a form of sanity, the uninterested to aid them by ignoring us, and possibly some vessel of bitterness to sing a song of superiority to all of this, the chastening by the chaste that usually follows such adventures and flights of fancy.


90

Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:44 | #

....there i was and suddenly these really hot blondes are riding in a car driving past my house….suddenly the car breaks down and rolls to a stop! They get out and their dresses catch on the door and rip from top to bottom…they run to my door…..


91

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:50 | #

Stay away from Lithuania, Grim.


92

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 20:45 | #

...these really hot blondes are riding in a car driving past my house….suddenly the car breaks down and rolls to a stop! They get out and their dresses catch on the door and rip from top to bottom…[/quote]

You’ve got talent, Grim. James Bowery has initiated a discussion of a possible video production theme conducive to white nationalist sentiments. Have you given consideration to such a project?


93

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 21:47 | #

After that, rise against the enemies of talking-past-one-another snarkfests!

The only way for the English to cease snarking the virtues of their alleged moral superiority is for them to be ruled by the Krauts.  Not that, anything but that.


94

Posted by PF on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 21:55 | #

CC wrote:

The only way for the English to cease snarking the virtues of their alleged moral superiority is for them to be ruled by the Krauts.  Not that, anything but that.

English are snarking the virtue of their alleged moral superiority?

I’m not really sure what you mean, broseph.


95

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:15 | #

ferocious machine-gun-of-metaphors meltdown to produce what appears to be a collective descent into a surrealistic Serious Nonsense.

I no longer feel under any obligation to make my meaning clear.


96

Posted by PF on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:50 | #

CC wrote:

I no longer feel under any obligation to make my meaning clear.

Well that makes three of us. wink


97

Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:52 | #

....there i was and suddenly these really hot blondes are riding in a car driving past my house….suddenly the car breaks down and rolls to a stop! They get out and their dresses catch on the door and rip from top to bottom…they run to my door…..

Not one of you asked the logical question…................and?

Now do you see what I mean?


98

Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:53 | #

I rest my case


99

Posted by PF on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:25 | #

Damn it Grimothy, I do see what you mean at long last. Blondes in torn clothes - I would have called the police immediately and locked myself inside lest I become trapped in the satin snare of dalliance with one of them.

Incidentally, I also rest my case. Good work boys.


100

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:19 | #

You are a ‘case’ PF


101

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:20 | #

basket case


102

Posted by PF on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:42 | #

basket case

Thanks Grimiffer. You too are a case.


103

Posted by PF on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:43 | #

A case of fine German Riesling.


104

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 04:19 | #

Grim, you do know, don’t you, that Vilnius is currently the world-capital of stag-partying?  The “tourists” pay good money and expect good service, not a bed-time story.  What we are engaged in the process of finding out is which of us knows the difference.  The sad part of it, of course, is that the one who doesn’t still won’t know it.


105

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:06 | #

@Notuswind,

Haven’t heard further from you about a potential expression of personal authenticity, such as we discussed over at OD, months ago.

Also, have you run across “Macrobius” over at the Phora ?

A fellow physicist and remarkable intellect - worth checking out.

NN


106

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:45 | #

Neo,

What would you know about personal authenticity, actually?  You project yourself, at least, as one of the vainest and, dare I say, noisiest vessels on the net.  You are doing it again now.

When you finally bring yourself to counter that regal inflation of yours you will learn something about mechanicity.  Only then, when you have learned enough about mechanicity, can you start learning about consciousness.  And only then, when you have learned what consciousness is, will you be worth listening to on the matter of authenticity.

It simply isn’t something for which you can construct meaningful thought models.  The inauthentic cannot hold a useful opinion on authenticity, and the authentic does not hold opinions.  It lives them.


107

Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:13 | #

NN,

Haven’t heard further from you about a potential expression of personal authenticity, such as we discussed over at OD, months ago.

It has been several months, I hope things are well on your end.

A potential cosmological expression.  Unfortunately, the only piece of physics that has managed to capture my imagination in the interval has been Conway’s FWT, which I’ve written about in a recent entry here.  Don’t worry though, there’s enough breath left in me to think about all sorts of things.

Also, have you run across “Macrobius” over at the Phora?

Never heard of him, do you have a link to any of his work?


108

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:43 | #

GW,

What would you know about personal authenticity, actually?

I’m not sure.  I claim no particular familiarity or expertise in that regard - rather, I thought I was approaching Notuswind with a question born of having myself just now been acquainted with the notion, for having listened to the lecture.  Apparently I have clumsily offended by soiling Sacred Ground with my clodded boots, to judge from your sanctimonious tone.

You project yourself, at least, as one of the vainest and, dare I say, noisiest vessels on the net.

We agree.  You seem to be making this observation in the spirit of a reprimand.  You have yet to impress me as someone whose reprimands have any authority, if I do not mistake your intention and am thus correctly addressing the spirit of your remark.

You are doing it again now.

We disagree - though it might seem to be the case to you, I would judge, amidst this spectacular decompression of an animus, on your part, that evidently has had time to ripen and gasify itself in confined quarters within your parts.

When you finally bring yourself to counter that regal inflation of yours you will learn something about mechanicity.  And when you have learned enough about mechanicity, can you start learning about consciousness.  Only then, when you have learned what consciousness is, will you be worth listening to on the matter of authenticity.

The latter was not what I had in mind, but I’m pleased to have done you the service of having here facilitated the flatulent relief of that inward inflation that has so indisposed you toward me.

It simply isn’t something for which you can construct meaningful thought models.  The inauthentic cannot hold a useful opinion on authenticity, and the authentic does not hold opinions.  It lives them.

For whatever future value this counsel might contain, I provisionally thank you, GW.


109

Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:44 | #

On a belated note, I’m very much looking forward to Grimoire’s note.  I’m ready for more ideas and less vituperation.


110

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:03 | #

Neo,

I’m not sure

A welcome start, because the first true statement that we can make, such as we are, is that we do not know directly what this authenticity is.  We can say what it is not.  We can describe the historical events and the human and ideological forces which have brought us to this point.  We can present a score of ways to defend ourselves against these forces.  Nonetheless, if we are ever to move beyond the politics of protest, we have to come to terms with what it is in us, exactly, that we would defend.  What does being mean for a son of Europe alive today in America, in Australia, in England, France, Germany, Sweden?

Now, if you consider that the proposition may be valid but its formulation is “flatulence”, I would be happy to hear it put in more pithy terms.  Be my guest.  But if you consider that the proposition is “flatulence” there is a more fundamental problem, which might be one of philosophical difference or it might be one of a more human substance.

What do you think?


111

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:46 | #

NN
        Shaolin brother, mach’s gut! The old C96 Rote-Neun still keeping you warm and your enemies cold? Never mind Gworker, he’s been sniffing the fissure of Adyton and if we tie a basket to him we can go sightseeing. A wrong remark before we reach the Weinkeller and we lose altitude. Instead,  ‘ah, the mechanism of the coccyx! The progress of the fetus! The neologism of the tapeworm….and we can go to the moon. The moon belongs to us kamerad.

Have read your page, very impressive.


112

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:48 | #

Notus:
          I wonder, was there something specific you wished to see ranted upon?


113

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 00:24 | #

Grimoire,

I wonder, was there something specific you wished to see ranted upon?

Hehe.  I can’t think of anything right now at this late hour (in the States) but I’ll reserve the right to take you up on this request at some point.


114

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 00:25 | #

but I’m pleased to have done you the service of having here facilitated the flatulent relief of that inward inflation that has so indisposed you toward me.

Tactlessness is nothing to apologize for if it is an expression of one’s authentic Self.


115

Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 01:06 | #

CC: Tactlessness is nothing to apologize for if it is an expression of one’s authentic Self.

  Then you Captain, are nothing less than the real deal.

btw: I should have been clearer in my responses to you. Allow me to repost a few lines;

C-chaos: 
But you are less than honest if you say you yourself are not pushing something. Namely, transcendent values and ideals you associate with our race which you clearly believe enjoy a metaphysical and eternal validity.  Is it not so? 


To your mind. Your statement above make it clear you do not understand what I am trying to say. Namely, transcendent values and ideals are not what I associate with my race - they are my race.


(

I am not one of them, by the way, I occupy a middle ground - my commentary reflects that fact.  “God” or whatever one wishes to call or imagine it as, may well exist.  I do not firmly believe that, nor do I wholly reject the possibility.)


Captain…..., God, St Ignatius and the Virgin are all busy and cannot return your calls. Dawkins and his sort are available 24/7. The task at hand however, is really not part of their conversation. ..however Dawkins is flattered you think such. After these detours and dalliances we will find all we really have is ourselves…which is all that we need…the rest can go to hell.


116

Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 01:31 | #

for the rest of you post-modernists:

(out of nowhere….)

....there i was and suddenly these really hot blondes are riding in a car driving past my house….suddenly the car breaks down and rolls to a stop! They get out and their dresses catch on the door and rip from top to bottom…they run to my door…..

was a cognitive spot test. After tabulating the responses…..the results are measured against a multi-phasic index…..the return sum translates to a indicative prognosis regarding the subjects mental and cognitive abilities:

Warning: subtract 50 IQ points when bloggers talk about philosophy.


117

Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 01:33 | #

which puts you in the red


118

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 02:26 | #

The British quarter of my Being cries out to know the joy hypocritical moral vanity!  The Krauts debased themselves and deserved to be exterminated.  I want to believe!


119

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 02:52 | #

After these detours and dalliances we will find all we really have is ourselves…which is all that we need…the rest can go to hell.

Something to the effect of a man being no less himself when he bulks up via strength training.  And a people likewise being no less themselves when strengthened via palingenesis.  You realize this will give the English fits?


120

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 04:45 | #

CC,

Sorry to inconvenience you, but while what is real and permanent in us (not “transcendental values and ideals”, obviously, though the capacity for them is part of it) will survive any daft confabulations we impose upon ourselves, said confabulations remain not of us.  The only case that can be made for confabulation is one not of content but of utility.


121

Posted by John on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 06:04 | #

“A welcome start, because the first true statement that we can make, such as we are, is that we do not know directly what this authenticity is.  We can say what it is not.”

I might not know what authenticity “is” but I know what hypostasise and reify mean. The adjective “authentic” adequately describes something with a real referent. The philosopher’s task would be easier in some ways with a language that had precise markers for abstraction levels, no static or modal verbs and no possibility of nominalisation.


122

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:37 | #

GW,

A welcome start, because the first true statement that we can make, such as we are, is that we do not know directly what this authenticity is.

Presumably it is something embodied in identifiable persons, to speak of it as you do here.  Who are these persons that might be examined for the quality and quantity of their “authenticity”?

We can say what it is not.  We can describe the historical events and the human and ideological forces which have brought us to this point.

Please explain the connection between what seemingly was represented as a matter of personal philosophy/bearing and historical events/forces.

We can present a score of ways to defend ourselves against these forces.  Nonetheless, if we are ever to move beyond the politics of protest, we have to come to terms with what it is in us, exactly, that we would defend.

You have placed your fingers on the problem as I see it.  The White-wing has essentially played defense ever since racial issues have arisen in Western polities - and is so positioned by an alien “Christian” metaphysic and succedaneous slave ideologies.  That has proven a losing strategy.  Rather, I am on the offense, like a good Roman of the old school (Titus comes to mind).  Thus slavery is a good institution, as is imperial aggression a good practice, in my universe.  So I stand down to no accusation of having endorsed, as I do, the “evils” of the past - and thus you will see the sacred symbol of the race displayed as my avatar at the Phora.
 
What does being mean for a son of Europe alive today in America, in Australia, in England, France, Germany, Sweden?

To me it means to be noble and inwardly arrogant as one is outwardly courtly - and inclined to join a war band with one’s brothers in arms.  As you propose it, “authenticity” sounds like the acquisition of some form of humility.  Though that is not what I took from the lecture.

Now, if you consider that the proposition may be valid but its formulation is “flatulence”, I would be happy to hear it put in more pithy terms.  Be my guest.  But if you consider that the proposition is “flatulence” there is a more fundamental problem, which might be one of philosophical difference or it might be one of a more human substance.

You misunderstood my point.  But since you appear to have been recalled to your composure, we need not revisit it.

What do you think?

I think that arguing over the measure of one’s individual or collective “authenticity” is as pointless, effeminate, and narcissistic, as is contending at length over whether one has met a standard for being a “warrior”.  I take from your introductory assault that the issue was therein raised as to my status in terms of this “authenticity” and that I was very much to be found wanting.  But I don’t care how I stand in those terms, whatever they are - thus your explosive reproachfulness, triggered by a naive and jocular question put to Notus in terms of a merely putative exercise on his part, was ill-conceived, to put it politely.

My version of personal authenticity, as I would employ the term, is being in your face with the truth as I see it.  And “warriors” are those who openly carry deadly weapons, ready for action - (I used to be one of those).  My interest in Heideggerian “authenticity” is merely academic and in passing, and you are welcome to explain it to me.  But I refer and defer to Nietzsche on the point, and direct you to this passage from BGE:

CHAPTER IX (What is Noble?)

257. EVERY elevation of the type “man,” has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be—a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. Without the PATHOS OF DISTANCE, such as grows out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates and instruments, and out of their equally constant practice of obeying and commanding, of keeping down and keeping at a distance—that other more mysterious pathos could never have arisen, the longing for an ever new widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, further, more extended, more comprehensive states, in short, just the elevation of the type “man,” the continued “self-surmounting of man,” to use a moral formula in a supermoral sense. To be sure, one must not resign oneself to any humanitarian illusions about the history of the origin of an aristocratic society (that is to say, of the preliminary condition for the elevation of the type “man”): the truth is hard. Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power—they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as “more complete beasts”).


123

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:30 | #

G.,

NN, Shaolin brother, mach’s gut! The old C96 Rote-Neun still keeping you warm and your enemies cold?

Especially so, loaded out with Corbon DPX.  I love the smell of solid copper in the morning.

Never mind Gworker, he’s been sniffing the fissure of Adyton and if we tie a basket to him we can go sightseeing.

I noted that some propellant gas was involved in this episode.  And also a buoyant vapor, you say!

A wrong remark before we reach the Weinkeller and we lose altitude. Instead, ‘ah, the mechanism of the coccyx! The progress of the fetus! The neologism of the tapeworm….and we can go to the moon. The moon belongs to us kamerad.

I am ready to plant our flag.

Have read your page, very impressive.

Ausgezeichnet


124

Posted by PF on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:48 | #

Nietzsche wrote:

257. EVERY elevation of the type “man,” has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be—a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. Without the PATHOS OF DISTANCE, such as grows out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates and instruments, that other more mysterious pathos….. Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power—they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as “more complete beasts”).

This really relates to what Nietzsche saw in himself and considered to be his source of elevation - the repudiation of Naumburg Christianity and the post-Wagnerian/post-Schopenhauerian conception of the Genius. This Genius figure grew grander and grander as N severed himself from society and began to orbit around various holiday camps searching for relief to his illness. It grew all the more florid as it had to compete with the socially available null-hypothesis that Nietzsche was in fact an invalid as a result of an earlier prostitute visit, a man whose philological reputation had been shattered by Wilamowitz, a man disappointed both by Wagner as a person and Wagnerian art as a social-regenerative force (regenerative of what would never be clear), without friends or close relatives and without the hope of female companionship.

The ideal was murkily both artistic, as it was patterned on Wagner (although N’s claim on the creative arts was small), and militaristic (although he was as frail as a leaf and was horrified by his own military experiences). It relied on a metaphor by which N’s philosophical endeavors were made to be understoood as creative acts and even as acts of war. Its the strength of confidence in the metaphorical connection between revolutionizing established ideas and wielding violence - the link between thinker and warrior, which in my view is a pipe-dream - which allows N’s oblique self-praise to elide so confusedly into impressionistic portrayals of “militaristic spirit”.

This attempt to understand himself in a light that would save him from the social verdict that had been passed on him was then extrapolated to history, and used to explain for example the fall of the roman empire. Weaker, moralistic natures - such as his family at Naumburg or those who didnt want to accept his nihilistic writing - were the cause of the decline of great nation-states. Whereas the germ of his thinking and spirit were, conveniently, to be found in the aristocracies of the nation-states. So by another metaphor, really, Nietzsche and his intellectual endeavor becomes equivalent to aristocratic endeavor and life. He is using metaphor to associate himself with war, the creative arts, and aristocrats of every era.

This does have some sort of surface plausibility but mostly what he was experiencing was the natural conflicts of a super-gifted individual, cast adrift from society by self-willed behavior and suffering a cruel fate because of disease. His attempt to place the laurel on himself by finding his personality structures as being the secret cause of all historical greatness - surely this must awaken suspicion.

Welcome to the prison cell of teleology, gentlemen.


125

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:56 | #

...surely this must awaken suspicion.

Not at all, my dear PF.

One would think that one so seasoned as yourself in the survey and analysis of personality would have long ago noted that the occasional mis-combination of the body and the spirit (gender-wise/temperamentally/in respect of health, e.g.) are to be anticipated among our fellows.  And thus that a frail Nietzsche may well have remarkably taken note of the pattern of history, as have I (who is no weakling to be taken as compensating for infirmities) and may thus be credited, here, with a worthy contribution to scholarship, simply on the face of things.

Of course, great men and ideological opponents are, contrariwise, always subject to your preferred form of examination and deprecation.  Marx, Hitler, Caesar, Nietzsche and many another lesser figure have been so subjected according to various agendas - and surely this must awaken suspicion as to the complex of questionable personal deficits for which one might be compensating in so doing.


126

Posted by PF on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:40 | #

NeoNietzsche

One would think that one so seasoned as yourself in the survey and analysis of personality would have long ago noted that the occasional mis-combination of the body and the spirit (gender-wise/temperamentally/in respect of health, e.g.) are to be anticipated among our fellows.  And thus that a frail Nietzsche may well have remarkably taken note of the pattern of history, as have I (who is no weakling to be taken as compensating for infirmities) and may thus be credited, here, with a worthy contribution to scholarship, simply on the face of things.

Miscombination of body and spirit?

You mean the destruction of his body through syphilis didnt correspond to the great warrior spirit inside him?

In this case the illusion to be investigated is the belief that taking strong stances on things, being defiant of other people, overturning ideas, and asking questions in a truth search, somehow constitutes claims on having a powerful spirit. In reality these are just personality dynamics that all human people carry out constantly, and someone who does this with an IQ value north of 140 may mistake his personality-adventures as being of messianic or world-historical import, but they are really no different (in terms of metaphysical significance) than the 110 IQ person wrestling with being called a mean name. We do not know the metaphysical, as it cannot be given a proper presence in our symbol set.

In other words, certain mutations inherited from one’s parents which lead to heavier myelination in the brain and more metabolically efficient astrocytes have now given the mind increased computational power - which you/I/everyone perceive as an increase in our ability to generalize and extract patterns of reality - far above and beyond that which is available to the average man. So while everyone else is awash in the internal play of symbols relating to their everyday lives, its possible for us to be awash in a more highly generalized and therefore “higher” symbol set - such as musing on life, history, the universe.

This doesn’t constitute “spirit”, nor does any ill-tempered or adventurous-tempered, risk-embracing, iconoclastic or independent stance or posture taken on various issues. At this level of depth, unfortunately, there is no metaphysical reward to be had.


127

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:35 | #

I’d be remiss if I didn’t get in on this discussion.

NN: Marx, Hitler, Caesar, Nietzsche and many another lesser figure have been so subjected according to various agendas - and surely this must awaken suspicion as to the complex of questionable personal deficits for which one might be compensating in so doing.

How about this critique of Nietzsche:

If his insights don’t belong to either natural philosophy nor abstract philosophy nor metaphysics then on what epistemological basis should we consider them?  If Nietzsche merely comes to us as a modern prophet then why should we privilege his word over that of the same pre-modern prophets that he so vehemently criticized.  What’s good for the goose and all that.

More problematically still, how can we trust him on the basis of his own immoralism?  Couldn’t speaking falsely sometimes be a noble act; after all, we’re talking about the same man who wrote, “Suppose truth is a woman, what then?”.  What then indeed!

PF: We do not know the metaphysical, as it cannot be given a proper presence in our symbol set.

In other words, certain mutations inherited from one’s parents which lead to heavier myelination in the brain and more metabolically efficient astrocytes have now given the mind increased computational power - which you/I/everyone perceive as an increase in our ability to generalize and extract patterns of reality
...
This doesn’t constitute “spirit”, nor does any ill-tempered or adventurous-tempered, risk-embracing, iconoclastic or independent stance or posture taken on various issues. At this level of depth, unfortunately, there is no metaphysical reward to be had.

But the Incompleteness Theorem tells us that truth doesn’t belong to our symbol set either.  So how can we know it?

If the answer can’t be found via myelination in the brain then why not consider the possibility of something more extravagant?


128

Posted by PF on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:03 | #

Notus wrote:

But the Incompleteness Theorem tells us that truth doesn’t belong to our symbol set either.  So how can we know it?

Metaphysical truth is known through felt-perception. It is called truth because it is perceived as supremely significant, elucidating, meaningful, and ‘confirmatory’ - but calling it truth is still using a metaphor. The ‘truth’ of our symbol system and social narratives - i.e. did you steal the cookies from the cookie jar, Notus? - is the original meaning of the word ‘truth’ and refers to symbolic truth. This is something quite different from metaphysical ‘truth’ - which is more like an experience of reality and of oneself.

Metaphysical ‘truth’ fulfills all the functions that we always (unconsciously) want symbolic ‘truth’ to fulfill - mostly in assuaging the underlying emotional/existential discomfort that, unbeknownst to us (because we don’t usually have access to other states to compare ours to), is always driving the inquiry that is the ‘search for truth’. In other words, symbolic truth is the unfruitful search for metaphysical truth carried out in the mental plane. When our symbol system lines things up symmetrically, we appear to have arrived at a moment of confirmation and elucidation of what is. This is all symbolic truth can offer. The cling-cling of conceptual symmetry - which is always the plausibility of an appearance.

‘Truth’ is an idea of human invention which applies mostly to those areas where we share the same errors and blind-spots, thus where the absolute is most heavily impinged upon by a relative framework which we cannot see, which allows relative truths to appear absolute to us. Since we philosophically teethed ourselves within the confines of this relative framework, we still have inherited the illusion that ‘truth’ is assailable or knowable within our symbol system.

This relative framework which we have unconsciously applied to the absolute is, in the case of humans, our sensory system, which parses reality into defined segments that have no actual existence as separate units - using, among other things, edge-detection algorithms in the visual processing of the brain - thus even the naming and perception of things is predicated on an analysis which is arbitrary, but which was fruitful in terms of survival outcomes.

Thus it seems to me that truth is a chimeric concept based on the artifacts of perception.

If the answer can’t be found via myelination in the brain then why not consider the possibility of something more extravagant?

What are you getting at? Spirit?


129

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:05 | #

You mean the destruction of his body through syphilis didnt correspond to the great warrior spirit inside him?

Correct, if we charitably allow for this prejudicial and deprecatory formulation, as such, in which you choose to indulge for questionable reasons.

In this case the illusion to be investigated is the belief that taking strong stances on things, being defiant of other people, overturning ideas, and asking questions in a truth search, somehow constitutes claims on having a powerful spirit.

I would join you in saying no.  However, when these elements are productive of powerful insights and prescriptions, born seemingly of intuition as well as scholarship, their author may make a reasonable claim on such a spirit, in the judgment of persons not so indisposed as yourself.

In reality these are just personality dynamics that all human people carry out constantly, and someone who does this with an IQ value north of 140 may mistake his personality-adventures as being of messianic or world-historical import, but they are really no different (in terms of metaphysical significance) than the 110 IQ person wrestling with being called a mean name. We do not know the metaphysical, as it cannot be given a proper presence in our symbol set.

But I trust that you will nevertheless devotedly maintain your vigilance in alerting us to historic instances of this phenomenon.


130

Posted by PF on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:25 | #

NeoNietzsche:

Correct, if we charitably allow for this prejudicial and deprecatory formulation, as such, in which you choose to indulge for questionable reasons.

Well, saying that his body was destroyed by syphilis is relatively factual. Saying he had a great warrior spirit is just saying directly what Nietzsche himself said obliquely in so many different utterances. Why else would he so consequently draw the parallel between Thinker and Caesar, man of war and man of thought, old aristocracy and ‘the aristocracy of the spirit’?

However, when these elements are productive of powerful insights and prescriptions, born seemingly of intuition as well as scholarship, their author may make a reasonable claim on such a spirit, in the judgment of persons not so indisposed as yourself.

In other words, you are so impressed with your own thought process, that you point inward towards yourself and say “something great must be going on in there - I think it is a spirit!”. This claim is entirely reasonable, of course. For every claim there is a perspective from which it appears reasonable. There are other tests for the value of inner experience which are more stringent and which must therefore fail these moments as genuine points of access to the metaphysical.

But I trust that you will nevertheless devotedly maintain your vigilance in alerting us to historic instances of this phenomenon.

Haha! You are a clever one to notice that discrepancy, Mr. Neo.


131

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:24 | #

NN,

I want to challenge your claim to a masculine teleology.  And because I am not an intellectual, and much less a scholar, I am going to do that despised thing which ordinary folk so often do, and rely on a couple of personal anecdotes.

It happens that in 1944 my father was an RAF bomber pilot.  He was twenty-two.  He flew Lancasters over Germany and the occupied territories.  He got shot up but never down, caught an imploding windscreen in his face one time, had three operations on his eyes without the benefit of anaesthetic, and went back to the Squadron six weeks later and completed his tour.  He was one of the lucky 50%.

His father had a more remarkable war.  He served with the BEF from 1916 as a Medical Orderly.  He was one of those guys who went out to the injured and dying.  He also survived.

Neither of these men regarded themselves as heroes then or after.  Or barbarians or warriors or men of prey.  They were lovers.  They loved and served their people, and they looked after their mates.  And though they saw heroism about them, and though they knew they might have to sacrifice themselves in the course of their duty - something hundreds of bomber pilots did as they held their stricken kites steady for the crew to bale out - yet they never needed a truckload of palingenesis pumped into the scrotum to go out and get the job done.

They would have despised your nonsense.  They would have told you that they never met a man who fitted your description.  They would have said that, on the contrary, heroism lies in the humble and the unassuming.

And this they knew without reading a word about Martin Heidegger’s “being before death”.  Like many of my generation I have wondered often how I would have fared if war had claimed my generation of Englishmen also.  In any event, I was spared it and this lesson in humility and human “being” with it.  But, a few years ago, when I was still lifting weights, I would have been happy to tell you that there is a moment of terrible honesty revisited continually in every serious gym when the world narrows, all extraneous considerations, pride and vanity take flight, and there is only the awful, aching necessity to keep the bar moving until you can lock-out.

In that extremis only what is humble and unassuming remains of the man who stood before the bar or lay beneath it joking, psyching himself up, concentrating.  I am saying, in other words, that Nietzsche lied, and you are lying - you do not know it, of course, but you are.  Even in my own unexalted and rather tawdry experience I have seen in others and known in myself that Heideggerian moment when the energy in one’s arms or legs or back is exhausted, when all memory of past deeds have become empty and meaningless, when the pain is too great and then there is calm, then ... THEN what is left is what is true and, whether you succeed or fail, there is nothing else.

You asked me:

Please explain the connection between what seemingly was represented as a matter of personal philosophy/bearing and historical events/forces.

I am speaking of the final resource and the only reality we have in this age when ideas and circumstance and the will of evil men conspire against the life of our race.  It is our existence which is at stake, and it is out of our existence that the power to act in our defence must come.  Vanity and pride are nothing.


132

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:41 | #

PF,

Metaphysical truth is known through felt-perception. It is called truth because it is perceived as supremely significant, elucidating, meaningful, and ‘confirmatory’ - but calling it truth is still using a metaphor.
...
This relative framework which we have unconsciously applied to the absolute is, in the case of humans, our sensory system, which parses reality into defined segments that have no actual existence as separate units

Do you really think that the deductive calculus and the axioms of set theory came to us through the bare facts of felt perception?  Or, in an attempt to make this example more concrete, do you really think that the bare facts of felt perception were enough to tell us that the earth revolved around the sun before the age of space travel?  At the very least, you’ll have to admit that it certainly doesn’t seem like it.

Suppose Nietzsche got it wrong and truth is not just “a movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms”.  Suppose truth is a woman!  And her beauty absolute.

Since we philosophically teethed ourselves within the confines of this relative framework, we still have inherited the illusion that ‘truth’ is assailable or knowable within our symbol system.

Maybe.  But if such were the case then why can’t I remember the teething process?  You’re asking me to consider the prospect of an illusion that I’ve had since the age of five (and I don’t remember much before then).

What are you getting at? Spirit?

All I am saying is that if Nietzsche can suppose that truth is a woman then why can’t I suppose that matter is not all that matters.  Is that so wrong?

Here’s a nice quote that I’d like to share:

“The ultimate paradox of materialism is that the one feature of the universe which alone gives meaning to all the rest is the one feature which has to be declared redundant!  Nothing can account for its emergence; nothing follows from its existence.” - John Beloff

Mr. Beloff has a point.  So long as we’re going to be monists our substance of choice should explain a wee bit more.


133

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:01 | #

GW: I would have been happy to tell you that there is a moment of terrible honesty revisited continually in every serious gym when the world narrows, all extraneous considerations, pride and vanity take flight, and there is only the awful, aching necessity to keep the bar moving until you can lock-out.

Very true.

I remember a time when I attempted to squat more than three times my body weight for 20 reps.  There were several moments of terrible honesty on the way to the last rep, but when I finally got there I dared to wonder, “How many more can I do?”  To this day I’m not sure how many more I did because I collapsed on the floor.

Another experience worth sharing.  I remember felling a large oak with a chainsaw but, contrary to my expectation, it landed on a chain link fence (bending it in half) and not in the open field as I had planned.  I then tried to use the muscles in my back, rear, and legs to lift the oak but couldn’t.  However, after taking a short break and concentrating my mind - removing all extraneous considerations - I somehow managed to lift the thing and drop it onto the open field; my whole body shook for hours afterwords.


134

Posted by uh on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:02 | #

This doesn’t constitute “spirit”,

So, adding up, Nietzsche’s writing do not constitute “spirit” - nor, I presume, anything Feldgraudeutsch - but the thoughtless patriotism of British fighter pilots and Guessedworker’s “Heideggerian” weight-lifting do.


135

Posted by PF on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:05 | #

Notus wrote:

Do you really think that the deductive calculus and the axioms of set theory came to us through the bare facts of felt perception?  Or, in an attempt to make this example more concrete, do you really think that the bare facts of felt perception were enough to tell us that the earth revolved around the sun before the age of space travel?  At the very least, you’ll have to admit that it certainly doesn’t seem like it.

No, those are symbolic truths. Arrived at through thinking. Metaphysical ‘truth’ is arrived at through felt-perception.

Maybe.  But if such were the case then why can’t I remember the teething process?  You’re asking me to consider the prospect of an illusion that I’ve had since the age of five (and I don’t remember much before then).

The teething process I refer to occurred thousands of years ago, when our ancestors had agreed on a fixed set of word-object definitions about which they could then construct statements that could be confirmed or denied. Thus they created ‘truth’ by creating a fixed set of definitions via language. Now we have this toolkit and once we get beyond the level of ‘hand’, ‘fire’ - ‘is your hand in the fire, yes or no?’ - the picture begins to break up.

All I am saying is that if Nietzsche can suppose that truth is a woman then why can’t I suppose that matter is not all that matters.  Is that so wrong?

My understanding of Nietzsche’s meaning was that truth had to be approached through the emotions, which N. accomplished through the enjoyment of art. Nietzsche knows what the emotions are.

I’m not sure we know something which isn’t “matter”.


136

Posted by PF on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:13 | #

uh wrote:

So, adding up, Nietzsche’s writing do not constitute “spirit” - nor, I presume, anything Feldgraudeutsch - but the thoughtless patriotism of British fighter pilots and Guessedworker’s “Heideggerian” weight-lifting do.

Deadlift above 75 kg and God will talk to you. wink


137

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:14 | #

uh,

There is no spirit.  Spirit is an invention, the same as “being as ground”, I suspect.  The same as you and me, too, if one is brutally honest.

No, this moment of clarity and resolution, of unique agency, which is known to all long-distance runners, probably to rock-climbers, to exponents of Tai Chi, and to many others beside, is not one thing or another, not “spirit”, not “self”.  It is itself and all there is.


138

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:21 | #

PF,

75kg?  Come on, this is MR!  I was six-repping 180kg and topped out at 205 because of light-boned hands and a weak grip.  But that was nothing.  There were guys in the gym two plates and more beyond that.  Of course, they had to get their girlfriends to jam a needle in their arse every so often, but the newspapers are telling us now that that’s a way to a long life.  Sort of.


139

Posted by PF on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:28 | #

GW,

Come on, this is MR!

LOL!

Im sorry. Its probably a deficiency in manliness on my part. Maybe if I keep Caesar in mind, and do some sort of grizzled affirmation series beforehand, I will be able to put on more plates.

“Must….become….the….overman!!”


140

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:31 | #

Maybe if you got Neo to spot for you ...


141

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:32 | #

In fairness, I should add that my back is completely fucked up.


142

Posted by PF on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:34 | #

because of lifting weights?


143

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:36 | #

PF,

I’m not sure we know something which isn’t “matter”.

What is “matter”, can you define it?  If we say that it is the stuff that makes up the world, or the sum total of properties and things that we can ever discover, then your statement becomes a tautology.  On the other hand, almost any other definition that we can think of is problematic.

What a curious situation…


144

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:37 | #

Because of twenty-five years of lifting weights.  Also the knees, and the left shoulder isn’t so great either.


145

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 19:04 | #

GW,

Maybe if you got Neo to spot for you ...

Nah.  I perform all my feats alone, like a true Aryan. [laughs]

Because of twenty-five years of lifting weights.  Also the knees, and the left shoulder isn’t so great either.

Yeah, I only do calisthenics these days for this reason.


146

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 19:29 | #

GW,

I want to challenge your claim to a masculine teleology.

Which seems to have been effected, here, by defining “heroism” and “masculinity” in a manner that flatters the underclass in their characteristic exercises of devotion, sacrifice, and endurance.

And because I am not an intellectual, and much less a scholar, I am going to do that despised thing which ordinary folk so often do, and rely on a couple of personal anecdotes.

And so you entertain but do not instruct.

...

Neither of these men regarded themselves as heroes then or after.  Or barbarians or warriors or men of prey.

But presumably they are to be regarded as such despite their becoming modesty.
 
They were lovers.  They loved and served their people, and they looked after their mates.  And though they saw heroism about them, and though they knew they might have to sacrifice themselves in the course of their duty - something hundreds of bomber pilots did as they held their stricken kites steady for the crew to bale out - yet they never needed a truckload of palingenesis pumped into the scrotum to go out and get the job done.

They were, in context, stooges and fodder for the “traditional enemy”.  Otherwise, you may have it as your sentimental account follows thereupon.

They would have despised your nonsense.  They would have told you that they never met a man who fitted your description.  They would have said that, on the contrary, heroism lies in the humble and the unassuming.

All of this is in order in the rationalizations with which the underclass are presently equipped.  Any inversion of historic notions is permissible under a “democratic” regime - so why should “heroism” and associated notions escape this revaluation?

...

In that extremis only what is humble and unassuming remains of the man who stood before the bar or lay beneath it joking, psyching himself up, concentrating.  I am saying, in other words, that Nietzsche lied, and you are lying - you do not know it, of course, but you are.  Even in my own unexalted and rather tawdry experience I have seen in others and known in myself that Heideggerian moment when the energy in one’s arms or legs or back is exhausted, when all memory of past deeds have become empty and meaningless, when the pain is too great and then there is calm, then ... THEN what is left is what is true and, whether you succeed or fail, there is nothing else.

If you believe me to be lying and are not failing to exercise more precision in your language, I must rightfully dismiss you as the sentimental proletarian of your own confession and testimony.  For how ludicrously au courant with the democratic afflatus of you to have claimed access to “what is true” by virtue of a session in the gym.  Perhaps we will hear from you next regarding your graduation to pseudo-sophistication in a session of Motorcycle Maintenance.

You asked me:

“Please explain the connection between what seemingly was represented as a matter of personal philosophy/bearing and historical events/forces.”

I am speaking of the final resource and the only reality we have in this age when ideas and circumstance and the will of evil men conspire against the life of our race.  It is our existence which is at stake, and it is out of our existence that the power to act in our defence must come.  Vanity and pride are nothing.

You require a great deal of education.


147

Posted by uh on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 19:31 | #

There is no spirit.

Yea dude, I know. So did Nietzsche, remember.

No, this moment of clarity and resolution, of unique agency, which is known to all long-distance runners, probably to rock-climbers,

Definitely to rock-climbers. I could get into that. I don’t like the stasis of lifting. Feet need to be moving.

to exponents of Tai Chi, and to many others beside, is not one thing or another, not “spirit”, not “self”.  It is itself and all there is.

I’m sure this can be explained with recourse to neurology. Let’s ask PF to bring his fancy neuro-nihilism to bear a little on this alleged “Heideggerian” moment, or what I will call

HEIDEGGER MUSCLE ZEN


148

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 19:59 | #

PF,

Well, saying that his body was destroyed by syphilis is relatively factual.

In fact, it remains a matter of controversy - and you employ the observation after the fashion of his ideological enemies.

Saying he had a great warrior spirit is just saying directly what Nietzsche himself said obliquely in so many different utterances.

We agree.  I object, rather, to your snide emphasis upon his disability - and your dismissal, by omission, of his contribution.

...

In other words, you are so impressed with your own thought process, that you point inward towards yourself and say “something great must be going on in there - I think it is a spirit!”.

No, a case of consilience seems to have been involved.  Something I suspect will be denied you in this life by your limited faculties.


149

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 19:59 | #

GW,

Your 451 Lb. dead-lift is impressive. How much did you weigh?

My PR is 405 Lb. I weighed 165 Lb at that time.

I always knew something was holding me back, but I never suspected it was my belief in heroes.


150

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 21:30 | #

PF: No, those are symbolic truths. Arrived at through thinking. Metaphysical ‘truth’ is arrived at through felt-perception.

Well, here’s my confession.

Occam’s razor tells us that Truth is undivided and doesn’t come in separate categories, the facts of our sense experience are no different from the facts uncovered by reason.  The symbols don’t have any occult powers.


151

Posted by PF on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:13 | #

NeoNietzsche wrote:

No, a case of consilience seems to have been involved.  Something I suspect will be denied you in this life by your limited faculties.

Fair enough. Good luck with your further inquiries into metaphysics.


152

Posted by PF on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:21 | #

Notus wrote:

Yeah, I only do calisthenics these days for this reason.

Why is that, Notus?


153

Posted by PF on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:55 | #

Attention Notus

I just read something on Amren - a comment about educational rap videos that are meant to teach
kids how to do math. Then I looked on Youtube and found these awesome videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REjcPZeypVg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX7lcJySZPM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2vJ0Jo3iqc&feature=related

I’m surprised they didnt murder him right there! What are they waiting for?

oh my GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

all these people are white!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ogeQo_nV08&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzjiW50l4xg&feature=related

what the fuck is this ?!?!!!!!!

Notus you have to write about this !!!

And let me know if you see anything you think you can use in your teaching.


154

Posted by PF on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:03 | #

Oh my god - no!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlKL_EpnSp8

watch this one if you dont want any of the others:

“Raise yo’ kids, raise yo’ kids, raise yo goddamn kids!”

meanwhile cartoon pictures of women’s asses with “BOOK” written on them
flapping up and down….


155

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:13 | #

PF,

All I need is calisthenics, cardio, and a good diet to maintain my current physical shape, which I’m satisfied with, and don’t feel the need to punish my body in the gym for the sake of more mass and strength.

The weightlifting routine that worked for me in the past (and took several years to discover) was very demanding as it was designed to shock my body into releasing growth hormone.  Under that routine I gained a lot of lean mass in a very short period of time (25lbs in 5 months with 80% of that lean); however, continuing with that routine in the long-term would have been unwise to say the least.


156

Posted by PF on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:26 | #

Notus:

continuing with that routine in the long-term would have been unwise to say the least.

Why are hardcore routines like that unwise?


157

Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:42 | #

Gworker:
            No doubt your forebears were brave. Let us say they were heroic, for the sake of argument. However this does not exclude other heroism, or courage in histories carousel. It is problematic that you fix this as ‘essential’ and react defensively towards any other understanding.
Heroism, or Courage, is not a material quantity. It is perhaps a ‘faith’. A duty to truth. An instinct for truth. What one must do, right or wrong.


158

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:43 | #

Why are hardcore routines like that unwise?

Because “That which does not kill us makes us stronger” is the wisdom of muscle fiber.

Bones, (and particularly their joints), tell a deeper, and longer-lived truth.


159

Posted by PF on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:53 | #

Jimmy Marr

Bones, (and particularly their joints), tell a deeper, and longer-lived truth.

Dude can you use the contact button to get in contact with Soren for a radio interview? I seriously laugh out loud at every other post of yours.


160

Posted by Silv on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:05 | #

Notus,

The weightlifting routine that worked for me in the past (and took several years to discover) was very demanding as it was designed to shock my body into releasing growth hormone.  Under that routine I gained a lot of lean mass in a very short period of time (25lbs in 5 months with 80% of that lean); however, continuing with that routine in the long-term would have been unwise to say the least.

There’s no way you gained 25lbs in 5 months 80% lean.  To gain at such a lean percentage (assuming it’s even possible, and I doubt that it is) in such a short time you’d have to have started off lean and then drastically under your genetic max.  (If you started off already bulked up the chances that you’d gain mass at 80% lean reduce to zero.)  But say you were of average height and started 160 lean—you’d have have been lean, remember—then you’d have boosted to 185 and still, according to your claim, been lean.  That’s a lifetime achievement for most lifters, and even then most don’t make it, yet you did it in five months?


161

Posted by uh on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:58 | #

That’s a lifetime achievement for most lifters, and even then most don’t make it, yet you did it in five months?

I knew you’d show up for this. Don’t underestimate the HEIDEGGER MUSCLE ZEN, brah.


162

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:57 | #

PF,

[NeoNietzsche wrote:]  “No, a case of consilience seems to have been involved.  Something I suspect will be denied you in this life by your limited faculties.”

Fair enough. Good luck with your further inquiries into metaphysics.

Why, PF, you impress me with this dignified retirement.

I rarely have had the pleasure of other than a cloud of blathering nonsense through which to view the acrimonious exit of most interlocutors.

So let me say, Good show, Old Chap!  You have risen above many another.

Let us see, then, how GW chooses to handle himself.

NN


163

Posted by danielj on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 09:00 | #

That’s a lifetime achievement for most lifters, and even then most don’t make it, yet you did it in five months?

People have done it Silv. Very few, but some have. Generally, it takes a good dose of D-bol or Winni and, as you suggested, somebody who is drastically under their potential (and somebody who had probably been starving themselves).

Skinny guys (with metabolisms that seem to belie a crack addiction) like me can put on a pound a week, if we really stuff ourselves, for the first few months of a routine but then we plateau just like everybody else.

GW: You should really consider replacement levels. I’ve heard nothing but good things about it so far and the research seems to suggest increased health and longevity.


164

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 09:04 | #

Silv,

Yes, I started off lean but I was not drastically under my genetic max.

That’s a lifetime achievement for most lifters, and even then most don’t make it, yet you did it in five months?

I tried quite a few different diet and exercise routines over, roughly, a half decade without getting any results.  Success didn’t come to me immediately.

PF,

Why are hardcore routines like that unwise?

Because if carried out long enough they would lead to chronic health problems of various kinds, which I would like to avoid since I fully anticipate a precipitous decline in the quality of care our medical systems provide.


165

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 09:16 | #

Apropos the present occupation of the thread, I suspect that few or none of you wimpy Limeys have had the experience of transcendence that accompanies rapid heavy-calibre gunfire in an enclosed space.

[Smirk]


166

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:18 | #

Jimmy,

When I was lifting I weighed 185 lbs on a 6ft tall frame.  I don’t metabolise super-fast.  My idea for core body strength was to lift heavy then rep light, but for arms and legs I repped heavy.  I maintained a good but at no time bulky general shape.  Never took powders, and wasn’t in the habit of getting out of bed in the middle of the night to eat a couple of chickens.  No juice, obviously.  The object was strength, not fitness or mass - and this was a long-term object.  For the reasons I have already explained (viz-a-vis the honesty of the moment), I found a rare companionship amongst guys who were two or three SDs lower than me and 70 lbs heavier.  Something I found rather humbling.

I gave it up five years ago now.


167

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:33 | #

kids how to do math. Then I looked on Youtube and found these awesome videos:

Words fail me.  Those videos are the reductio ad absurdum of where the liberals are taking us.


168

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:31 | #

Neo,

Let us see, then, how GW chooses to handle himself.

Oh dear ... you are arrogating sublime powers to yourself again.  You know, you really must stop this.  It’s so “gay”.

Which seems to have been effected, here, by defining “heroism” and “masculinity” in a manner that flatters the underclass in their characteristic exercises of devotion, sacrifice, and endurance.

The underclass?  I suspect you are morally unfit to wipe their boots.  The remarks in my comment above are about military values, to which devotion and duty are key.  It was the presence of these two qualities which attracted the highest military honours, you know.  Nobody set out to be a hero.  Heroism is not a lifestyle, Neo.

For its part, masculinity is defined, obviously, in relation to its opposite.  It has nothing to do with manly doings in battle.  It is to do with completion and creation.  So it resides in the tender embrace of one’s child, and the gift of oneself to that child’s lifelong psychological wholeness and well-being.  Do you maintain otherwise, honestly?  Do you even have children?  Are you really unaware that arrogating special significance to yourself in lieu of your Nietzschean will is the imaginary act of a man-child.  Did Nietzsche have children?

You see, my friend, this idea for a new philosophical totus which we are fumbling towards has such love and devotion in it, and also consciousness and freedom, and an opening to the treasure of life’s discovery.  It has a place for striving and for faith, for genetics, for the science of Mind.  It has a place for everything that is truly of us, and none for everything that is not.  And while I acknowledge that you are personally bright and eloquent, notwithstanding your gauche inauthenticity, yet I do not think you or your philosophical precepts can stand against our higher truth.  I think your intellectual weakness is a function of your verbosity, and the only reason you are let off the hook so easily here is that no one has troubled to put together the ontological pieces and kill you off.

I must rightfully dismiss you as the sentimental proletarian of your own confession and testimony ...

Blather.  If you have an argument - one argument - against the supreme value of life, let me hear it.  And don’t bother to produce another critique of style.  There are no fucking brownie points for that.


169

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:00 | #

Neo-Nietzsche’s argument boils down to the fact that he thinks the masses are incapable of self-government and self-direction in the roiling vicissitudes of history.  He thinks authoritarian rule by aristocracy the only means by which the race can be saved, both in the short and long term.  He believes the rule of elites is inevitable anyway, citing often the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”.  The writing of Nietzsche is to him a blueprint and inspiration for the shaping of the aristocratic mind that will rule.

Is the rule by authoritarian means of an aristocracy necessary to secure the genetic continuity of the race?  If so, what philosophical/intellectual view of the world should these prospective elites be inculcated to which would best secure the continuity of the race?  These are questions of utility.


170

Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:27 | #

Gworker: Let us have fair debate.

Neo:Let us see, then, how GW chooses to handle himself.
GW: Oh dear ... you are arrogating sublime powers to yourself again.  You know, you really must stop this.  It’s so “gay”.

Careful here Gworker. This type of rebuttal tends to explode in ones face and end as an epitaph. Who is it btw. who has been arrogating sublime powers to one’s self? Careful! This interests me as it is a subject I have been wondering about lately.

The underclass?  I suspect you are morally unfit to wipe their boots.


The Beast in in attendance .. you have the opportunity here to demonstrate your moral superiority. Elucidate…expand on these thoughts. I am personally interested. I have been puzzled by this claim of moral superiority for which I find no basis but frequent assertion. Hence you can inform the perplexed.

The remarks in my comment above are about military values, to which devotion and duty are key.

Here again I am interested. I have some experience in this and can tell you these are not military values. These are the basic enforced laws for which failure to observe draw heavy consequence. As to attracting the highest awards….. on occasion from the propaganda dept. which is a separate and entirely serendipitous affair. That military values need to be kept separate from propaganda values is an object so important a whole department is assigned the task. True Military values are the willingness to fight and eliminate the enemy. The ultimate military value is victory given an objective. Everything else is adjutant and supportive of this.
Why do you presume knowledge of military values? I mistakenly received the impression you were against such rigor.

For its part, masculinity is defined, obviously, in relation to its opposite.


I just wonder why you need to use the adverb ‘obviously’. For example, do we need more Men ‘who are defined, obviously, in relation to their opposites? Or do we need more Men who are defined by the strength of their qualities? Please explain when you can.

It is to do with completion and creation.  So it resides in the tender embrace of one’s child, and the gift of oneself to that child’s lifelong psychological wholeness and well-being.  Do you maintain otherwise, honestly? 

Well…, I do, ‘obviously’ and ‘honestly’ so. Thats all fine and placating to the feminists and PF. But i offer that that is not enough, has never been enough, not even fractionally. In todays world we are told that sometimes children have two mommies, and that’s apparently okay. But even hard-core lesbians do not insist this is the definition of masculinity….the opposite.

Do you even have children?  Are you really unaware that arrogating special significance to yourself in lieu of your Nietzschean will is the imaginary act of a man-child.


Have I missed something here someone could point out?

Did Nietzsche have children?


We already have one microcephalic homunculus who engages in high gain ‘ad hominum’ and enough historical distortion to make even a rabid Rabbi choke. Are you now claiming -  women are the real men? (well they are 52% of the population and this blog is called Majority Rights…..) . Would it be to Nietzsche’s credit if he had an abortion? The philosophers have a right to their own bodies and reproductive rights, or should….(do they? I anticipate another illuminating essay by PF further lifting the lid on Herr Nietzsche.)
 

You see, my friend, this idea for a new philosophical totus which we are fumbling towards has such love and devotion in it, and also consciousness and freedom, and an opening to the treasure of life’s discovery.  It has a place for striving and for faith, for genetics, for the science of Mind.  It has a place for everything that is truly of us, and none for everything that is not. 

(sob)... I love you man…....


And while I acknowledge that you are personally bright and eloquent, notwithstanding your gauche inauthenticity, yet I do not think you or your philosophical precepts can stand against our higher truth.

Personally, I would be interested in seeing this authenticity in action. I anticipate complete and hard- earned evisceration forthcoming to this gauche inauthentic.


I think your intellectual weakness is a function of your verbosity, and the only reason you are let off the hook so easily here is that no one has troubled to put together the ontological pieces and kill you off.

I like the clarity of the statement. How it circles around like a lost torpedo, building tension as it echo’s it’s tightening orbit.

Blather.  If you have an argument - one argument - against the supreme value of life, let me hear it.  And don’t bother to produce another critique of style.  There are no fucking brownie points for that.

What is this ‘supreme value of life’ and how does this come into it? The beast is here…kill him off and not by critiques of style….no brownie points for that. This is very, very interesting. Also, quite obviously this NN character and all like him….. by their arrogant refusal to supplicate before the new ‘ontology’ deserves brutal and irreversible liquidation.

We need to make the world safe for the children and PF’s essays.  Let them not say we suffered a lack of devotion or duty. Let us finish the job!


171

Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 01:29 | #

Captainchaos:

Neo-Nietzsche’s argument boils down to the fact that he thinks the masses are incapable of self-government and self-direction in the roiling vicissitudes of history.  He thinks authoritarian rule by aristocracy the only means by which the race can be saved, both in the short and long term.  He believes the rule of elites is inevitable anyway, citing often the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”.  The writing of Nietzsche is to him a blueprint and inspiration for the shaping of the aristocratic mind that will rule.


Leave aside Neo-Nietzsche and his Nietzsche for a moment , assume they do not exist. Does history bear this out? Is not our predicament due to the non-observance of this iron rule?....and our we not ruled by other elites who do understand history, and the lessons of history of which Nietzsche’s work bears the
message ?


The writing of Nietzsche is to him a blueprint and inspiration for the shaping of the aristocratic mind that will rule.

He makes a point to GW or PF, (it does not matter which or where for obvious reasons) concerning the underclass and their transformation of values to palatable levels equal to their abilities, and the distortion necessary to justify the narrowing of horizons ... that is important…..
Let me tell you this, for this is an aspect of understanding Nietzsche which his detractors first attempt to distort….this iron law of oligarchy, this necessity of aristocratic rule can only usefully be understood as the LAW OF THE SELF, THE LAW OF BEING. This applies to all of Nietzsche’s philosophy. The world of struggle he describes is first to be understood as inner, as ‘essential’.

The necessity of rule by aristocracy and aristocratic values   is the rule of self governance of one’s own being, then it is a statement on social organization. This is the core of what it is to be a European. To be a Man as a European.
We have no need for sheep. We can import them from Africa cheaply or believe PF’s doggerel. We have need of Men of aristocratic nature. A people who refuse these truths, as they do here….are ruled by others who do understand the iron law of oligarchy. And such are fit only to be the ruled who do not choose their rulers.
I present Anglo-America as proof of the argument. I present you the ludicrous writings of PF. I present GW’s evasive pretensions of a metaphysic -  proof of the argument.

I rest my case until I hear a word of truth from GW instead of claque and evasion.

Is the rule by authoritarian means of an aristocracy necessary to secure the genetic continuity of the race? 


Yes. Not aristocracy of blood, but of mind. Similarly, CC himself must be ruled by his own aristocratic nature, and not by the nature of the underclass….the same for all of us.


If so, what philosophical/intellectual view of the world should these prospective elites be inculcated to which would best secure the continuity of the race?  These are questions of utility.


Only if we collectively bear these truths are we worthy of an Elite who find the race worthy of continuity.
This is an iron law of history.


172

Posted by PF on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:02 | #

Grim wrote:

The necessity of rule by aristocracy and aristocratic values is the rule of self governance of one’s own being, then it is a statement on social organization. This is the core of what it is to be a European.

Let’s get some definitions out on the table if we can.

Who is/is not an aristocrat? How can we tell?

What are aristocratic values?

I’m bound to say that the Aristocrat is another image of greatness which no one who speaks of it does know or has known, except through reading, imagination, and a few highly filtered experiences. Rather like the Hero, then, in that regard. Like the hero, its a cool idea because by adopting a set of values we can all become it. Right, I mean thats the jist, right?

I take it for granted that no one is interested in the actual aristocrats of Europe, who hold less power today and have neither towering status nor personal accomplishments and as far as I can tell… generally resemble.. normal human beings. A cut above in looks, breeding, manners and more, I imagine, but nothing of sufficient lustre to illustrate the principle described above.

I also take it for granted that we are ignoring the fact that aristos typically made up 2-5% of the population and that we are being advised to take this small fraction of our population as somehow representing the core founding principle of what we are. I also take it for granted that the analysis will ignore information suggesting that agricultural surplus leads to the social stratification that makes a separate aristocracy possible, and the information that for most of our human history we were unable to sustain sufficient numbers of people to actually have a separate ruling class. Also taken for granted is the fact that the rise of Europe to cultural and technological dominance coincided with the decline of aristocratic power throughout Europe. The arising of a literate and ambitious middle class is one of the defining features that make European societies successful in comparison with Asian cultures - most of which also have some sort of aristocracy. If you compared Europe and Asia 1800-1900, you would have to say that aristocracy was far more entrenched and powerful in Asia during that period. It might also be useful to not remember that the great majority of our literati and thinking men, not least Nietzsche and I presume most people present, stem from middle class backgrounds. Its the scientific and cultural contributions of mostly middle class people that constitute Europe’s claims to ‘greatness’ in the minds of most people who believe in that stuff.

Just some things to consider.


173

Posted by PF on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:56 | #

More assumptions…

I also assume that we’re going to allow ourselves to decide which oligarchs/oligarchies/aristocracies qualify and which dont. For example, we will exclude the immensely successful American and Russian oligarchs on some basis.

I also assume we will ignore the fact that European aristocrats have had to do ongoing battle with personal vice as a result of their access to resources/leisure/status, and that several historical periods show them as being the exponents par excellence of debauchery and decadence. I refer not only to concubinage, de Sade, overindulgence in luxury and sport, distraction from present day affairs - but also the notorious over-eating, smoking, and excessive drinking which is for example cataloged in any life of the Soldatenkönig, Frederick the IIs father, and likewise haunts the histories of the Russian nobility.

And we may not want to look too closely at Japanese, Chinese, Arabian, and Mohammadan aristocracies, or the Mughals and other descendants of the Khans - because, while fulfilling the qualification of direct descent from military conquerers as well as the older European aristocracies do - these presumably do not explicate the principle of the being of European man.

Lastly we should ignore Shakespeare’s recurring plaint that differences in rank rarely translate into differences of soul. Because the implication here is that they do. A recurring theme of literature from all aristocratic ages is to not judge a man by his rank. What we would effectively be saying is that the external rank order of the world actually corresponds to the rank order of souls, however that is quantified. Similar to saying that your salary nowadays gives a clue to the quality of your soul. So the guys at Goldmann-Sachs, our modern day Kings, must be the best exponents of this principle… unless we can produce some yet more qualifications of this thesis which is looking to me somewhat complex and problematic.


174

Posted by Wanderer on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 03:59 | #

In the spirit of PF’s comments above (Who is/is not an aristocrat? How can we tell? What are aristocratic values?) and in light of Grimoire’s question: “Does history bear this [the necessity of aristocracy] out?”,

It’s hard to imagine something like the Reformation happening in, say, the Orient. The once-mighty Roman clerical aristocracy had dominated Europe for centuries. All of a sudden it is smashed by its own subjects in Northern/Central Europe. What we call the Reformation was a populist movement by people(s) to take control of their own destinies, throwing an entrenched aristocracy out the window in the process (at Prague in 1618, yes, but mostly metaphorically).

After the defeat of the Pope’s clerical aristocracy, remaining were the royalist or quasi-royalist arbitrary aristocracies (“arbitrary”, i.e., not based on merit or skill or commitment to any kind of Purpose…but based on birth). The Weltanschauung that propped-up this group suffered blows now and then [the beheading of Charles-I comes to mind—again, impossible to imagine in the Orient]. And, sure, there was lots of 19th-century romanticist-nationalistic and proto-communist rambunctiousness against the Old Order. But not until 1918 was it overthrown once and for all. Eleven AM [Western-Europe time] on November 11th of 1918, to be precise. The old aristocracy was dead as of lunchtime, Nov. the 11th.

In November 1918 the question became: What kind of aristocracy in the European World is to replace the one which had just been killed by the lethal blows of Verdun, Somme, Tannenberg, Galipoli? After all, every society need an “aristocracy”; a ruling class that steers the course.
— Was it to be one of Money, based on the open pursuit of money, with those who could earn most in a fair playing field the new aristocrats?
— Was it to be one with a dedicated commitment to racialism, “Volksgemeinschaft”-romanticism, eugenics, and ethnocultural-continuity?
— Was it to be one with a dedicated commitment to utopian Equality and collective dignity, to freeing mankind forever from the tyrannies of faith and folk?

Capitalist-Liberal-Democracy, vs. Voelkisch-ism, vs. Communism: The conflict that defined politics in the white world from 1918-1989 (with Voelkisch-ism mostly sitting it out after 1945).

The winner was Capitalist-Liberal-Democracy. It used, and continues to use, a tremendous amount of “negative-legitimacy” to justify itself, mostly against European Voelkisch-ism. The Holocaust Myth is central to this.


In summary. Europeans are not necessarily anti-Aristocracy, but we are anti-“arbitrary-aristocracy”, anti irrational-aristocracy, (GW reacts harshly to nihilistic would-be aristocrat-ism in this thread), anti self-serving-aristocracy.


175

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 07:18 | #

Grim,

Who is it btw. who has been arrogating sublime powers to one’s self?

I know your command of English is very fine, and your antennae for most difficult meanings likewise.  So I do not think you will have missed Neo’s language of uber-aristocratic pretension.  The ambition to exemplify personally is only too transparent.  I am embarrassed for him.  The one question that emerges from it is: what does his real voice sound like?

As for the aristocracy today, as any middle-class German like you or middle-class Englishmen like me knows, they do the opposite of airs and graces in real life - they drop the lot.  You wouldn’t know you were standing next to a “title” in the village shop or in the saloon bar.  If Neo explained to them how they have to be more Nietzschean they would, of course, do him the courtesy of leaving the room before dissolving in mirth.

I have been puzzled by this claim of moral superiority for which I find no basis but frequent assertion.

You mean the claim that an ordinary man brought to that moment of “being towards death” is morally superior to the arrogators of superiority?  Do you doubt it?

On military values, I think you confuse means with value to some extent.  The purpose of military action is the achievement of objectives as ordered, and the means to that end, as you nearly infer, is the defeat of the enemy - and its elimination, btw, as a force capable of action, not its elimination per se.  There are many practical values involved in this, for example, good training, camaraderie and dependability, resolve under fire, discipline, good planning, clear leadership, knowledge of the ground, and so on.  But to pretend that high devotion “beyond the call of duty” does not garland and surpass all these things, and is not understood by all serving soldiers as worthy of respect, and to label that respect “propaganda”, is, I feel, very poor.  I think you should reconsider.

Personally, I would be interested in seeing this authenticity in action.

Perhaps, then, you should become a novitiate at Shaolin rather than merely offering Trigger-Finger here the fraternals.

But, seriously, if you had been paying attention at all on these threads, including this one, you would have seen a number of references to what we might call “variations” from the inauthentic mean in life ... only gestures in the direction of authenticity, it is true, but still important for all that.  I know it is tempting, since you have talked yourself into a position of such bad faith, to sneer (or “smirk” a la the gracious uberman) at the simplicity and even, as I said before, the tawdryness of some of these variations.  But I do not see you questioning our identification of them, and since I hold your intellect in too high regard to assume you cannot see (obviously, you do not want to see), I find that very telling.

What is this ‘supreme value of life’ and how does this come into it?

Transmission unto the morrow ... the provision of immortality to Nature.  The carriage of Being in Time.  Genetic interest.  However one formulates it, all come to the same thing.  “How does it come into it?”  It is it.

Also, quite obviously this NN character and all like him….. by their arrogant refusal to supplicate before the new ‘ontology’ deserves brutal and irreversible liquidation.

I am calling the Man of Prey’s bluff, just for fun.  Let’s see what he can do, ‘cos he ain’t done nothing yet.

He makes a point to GW or PF, (it does not matter which or where for obvious reasons) concerning the underclass and their transformation of values to palatable levels equal to their abilities

It isn’t a point.  It is a conceit.  This non-aristocratic underclass has a mean IQ of 100 and contains all the talents, and it is ... us.  We are Europeans, Grimoire.  We express a high individualism in our lives.  We are anti-authoritarian.  Historically we have thrown our lives at overturning the great impositions, whether they have come from within or without.  Obeisance to Power is not our way, and it never will be.  And that is why we will not accept indefinitely the dictates of Power today.

There will always be leadership.  But let it be of us, and let it be the leadership of lovers, of servants.  The people are the aristocracy, for though they may be estranged from their own truths today, and though there is no ideational vehicle right now to bring them back, nevertheless the truth of the least is no less than that of the highest.  Human presence does not particularise for social order (or education, btw).

this iron law of oligarchy, this necessity of aristocratic rule can only usefully be understood as the LAW OF THE SELF, THE LAW OF BEING.

It might be understood as utility.  But there is no law of the self, much less a law of being.  I suggest you calm down and practise one of the Wudang Qigong for a while.  This kung fu stuff is getting you over-excited.

The necessity of rule by aristocracy and aristocratic values is the rule of self governance of one’s own being

Loose, loose formulation.  What governance can there be over being?  And what self are you talking about?  Can you distinquish acquisition, for example?  I think not.  No, you have not been paying sufficient attention to even know why you should.

I present GW’s evasive pretensions of a metaphysic - proof of the argument.

I am trying very hard to be clear.  But, in truth, I know what I’m saying will be only understood by those who already understand.  The rest will self-referentialize and lose the meaning.  You show that you are one of these.

Only if we collectively bear these truths are we worthy of an Elite who find the race worthy of continuity. This is an iron law of history.

Don’t be an idiot.  Are your genes “worthy” of continuity?  Do you have children, actually?  Are they “worthy”?  Your argument is not.


176

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 10:48 | #

GW,

Oh dear ... you are arrogating sublime powers to yourself again.  You know, you really must stop this.  It’s so “gay”.

I hear the lisp you affect thus in your “voice,” GW - and find it suspiciously convincing.  But I hold “gay”-ness against no one, a priori, as seemingly do you here.

The underclass?  I suspect you are morally unfit to wipe their boots.

To that end, we will have to decide as between alternative moralities - regarding which choice I find you unequipped on other than the basis of uninformed prejudice.

The remarks in my comment above are about military values, to which devotion and duty are key.  It was the presence of these two qualities which attracted the highest military honours, you know.  Nobody set out to be a hero.  Heroism is not a lifestyle, Neo.

As you, GW, have adopted the inversion and revaluation of the notion of the “hero” - it is as you say.  You persist in a misunderstanding, for the lack of education to which you have already been alerted.

For its part, masculinity is defined, obviously, in relation to its opposite.

So define or identify its opposite for us.

It has nothing to do with manly doings in battle.  It is to do with completion and creation.  So it resides in the tender embrace of one’s child, and the gift of oneself to that child’s lifelong psychological wholeness and well-being.  Do you maintain otherwise, honestly?

I do not bother to argue over definitions. I will accept yours and ask for its implications.  Which we will note as the mere implications of your definition. 

Do you even have children?  Are you really unaware that arrogating special significance to yourself in lieu of your Nietzschean will is the imaginary act of a man-child.  Did Nietzsche have children?

(1) I would not have children, lest my conscience now, and my memory, later, be cursed for having brought them into what I see coming.  (2) Your premise(s) are false, thus your conclusion/question is not perfected.  Try again.  (3) He did not, as we all know.

You see, my friend, this idea for a new philosophical totus which we are fumbling towards has such love and devotion in it, and also consciousness and freedom, and an opening to the treasure of life’s discovery.  It has a place for striving and for faith, for genetics, for the science of Mind.  It has a place for everything that is truly of us, and none for everything that is not.

And you are, for us, a model of humility, GW, spurning thus the arrogation of sublime powers to yourself.

And while I acknowledge that you are personally bright and eloquent, notwithstanding your gauche inauthenticity, yet I do not think you or your philosophical precepts can stand against our higher truth.

We and they would never be so audacious and irreverent, Great One.  For, so brilliant is your Light, my Lord, that we dare not open our eyes to it.  Thus we dwell in miserable and contemptible darkness, clinging to misconceptions that are but the reflection of our misguided and immature aspirations.  If only you would take our hand, GW, our Redeemer, and guide us out of this darkness and into Your Light, and then instruct us in the parting of our eyelids and the survival of our eyesight, in beholding the Glory that is your Being.

I think your intellectual weakness is a function of your verbosity, and the only reason you are let off the hook so easily here is that no one has troubled to put together the ontological pieces and kill you off.

I am at your service when you can arrange that which you merely presume upon.

Blather.  If you have an argument - one argument - against the supreme value of life, let me hear it.  And don’t bother to produce another critique of style.  There are no fucking brownie points for that.

I do not argue values.


177

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:22 | #

Neo-Nietzsche’s argument boils down to the fact that he thinks the masses are incapable of self-government and self-direction in the roiling vicissitudes of history.  He thinks authoritarian rule by aristocracy the only means by which the race can be saved, both in the short and long term.  He believes the rule of elites is inevitable anyway, citing often the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”.  The writing of Nietzsche is to him a blueprint and inspiration for the shaping of the aristocratic mind that will rule.

Is the rule by authoritarian means of an aristocracy necessary to secure the genetic continuity of the race?  If so, what philosophical/intellectual view of the world should these prospective elites be inculcated to which would best secure the continuity of the race?  These are questions of utility.

Nicely formulated, Captain.


178

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:13 | #

In that extremis only what is humble and unassuming remains of the man who stood before the bar or lay beneath it joking, psyching himself up, concentrating.  I am saying, in other words, that Nietzsche lied, and you are lying - you do not know it, of course, but you are.  Even in my own unexalted and rather tawdry experience I have seen in others and known in myself that Heideggerian moment when the energy in one’s arms or legs or back is exhausted, when all memory of past deeds have become empty and meaningless, when the pain is too great and then there is calm, then ... THEN what is left is what is true and, whether you succeed or fail, there is nothing else.

If you believe me to be lying and are not failing to exercise more precision in your language, I must rightfully dismiss you as the sentimental proletarian of your own confession and testimony.  For how ludicrously au courant with the democratic afflatus of you to have claimed access to “what is true” by virtue of a session in the gym.  Perhaps we will hear from you next regarding your graduation to pseudo-sophistication in a session of Motorcycle Maintenance.

Blather.  If you have an argument - one argument - against the supreme value of life, let me hear it.  And don’t bother to produce another critique of style.  There are no fucking brownie points for that.

As to your first point, regarding “value,” I have already answered to the effect that I do not argue such.  I argue the consequences of actions and consider values only as they have implication for acting toward consequences.

And as to the second point, you have mistaken (and continue to mistake) consideration of epistemological propriety (regarding which you appear to know or to have heeded nothing based upon an experience of having attained it as other than, ironically, vaporous self-inflation) for a “critique of style”.  Grimoire has addressed this point in speaking of your naive “essentialism”.  And thus you make it difficult to sustain the comradely pretense that you are an intellectual peer worthy of consideration.  You are self-contained in your metaphysical conceit and are evidently impervious to instruction, for having had a profound experience.

This “experience” seems, however, to have no implication other than motivating those, who have shared it, to grandiose proclamations of metaphysical nonsense that is, of course, beyond the grasp of the untouched, and as is typical of the aftermath of such “conversion” episodes.  You might consult the work of Dr. William Sargent in Battle for the Mind in an attempt at self-therapy.


179

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:57 | #

Is the rule by authoritarian means of an aristocracy necessary to secure the genetic continuity of the race?

It’s a moot point. The only law of nature that counts is differential reproduction.

the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population

Competition at the individual/kin level, “the gift of oneself to that child” is the real deal.  Charlemagne and Akbar shaped the future by pursuing their individual genetic interests not that of their race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Family


180

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:14 | #

[GW to Grim:] As for the aristocracy today, as any middle-class German like you or middle-class Englishmen like me knows, they do the opposite of airs and graces in real life - they drop the lot.  You wouldn’t know you were standing next to a “title” in the village shop or in the saloon bar.  If Neo explained to them how they have to be more Nietzschean they would, of course, do him the courtesy of leaving the room before dissolving in mirth.

But Neo would not bother, as those who are familiar with the Nietzschean project would know. 

[GW to Grim:] I am calling the Man of Prey’s bluff, just for fun.  Let’s see what he can do, ‘cos he ain’t done nothing yet.

Calling a bluff requires knowledge of the dare.

So - what is it that I dare to do, GW?  Please quote me on the point.

Have you another pair of personal anecdotes to occupy what otherwise appears to be a serious breach in your offensive line?

[GW to Grim:] It isn’t a point.  It is a conceit.  This non-aristocratic underclass has a mean IQ of 100 and contains all the talents, and it is ... us.  We are Europeans, Grimoire.  We express a high individualism in our lives.  We are anti-authoritarian.  Historically we have thrown our lives at overturning the great impositions, whether they have come from within or without.  Obeisance to Power is not our way, and it never will be.  And that is why we will not accept indefinitely the dictates of Power today.

Not even so as to save ourselves.

And so will we perish amidst the default of our righteously conceited proletarians.

And deservedly so - should we ever be inclined to salvation according to the dictates of Power.

[GW to Grim:] There will always be leadership.  But let it be of us, and let it be the leadership of lovers, of servants.  The people are the aristocracy, for though they may be estranged from their own truths today, and though there is no ideational vehicle right now to bring them back, nevertheless the truth of the least is no less than that of the highest.  Human presence does not particularise for social order (or education, btw).

And it came to pass, when GW had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

I know what I’m saying will be only understood by those who already understand.


181

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:24 | #

It’s a moot point. The only law of nature that counts is differential reproduction.

It is not.  There must be something in the way of a concrete ordering of the future society we hope to create that will give us if not maximum, at least reasonable, assurance that our race will survive in perpetuity.  I do not wish to depend on even the best and most loyal exemplars of our race solely.  I want a hard skeleton of law and institutions, formalised as if in granite in the founding documents of a new order, that cannot be done away with even at the whim of a prospective “elite” unless they also wish to engage in manifest revolution.

Charlemagne and Akbar shaped the future by pursuing their individual genetic interests not that of their race.

White men will pursue their genetic interests within the confines laid down by the law and institutions designed explicitly to ensure the continuity of the race or can perhaps expect to meet with draconian punishment - however much this may offend the English, who don’t seem inclined to even support anti-miscegenation laws.


182

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:01 | #

PF:

I take it for granted that no one is interested in the actual aristocrats of Europe, who hold less power today and have neither towering status nor personal accomplishments and as far as I can tell… generally resemble.. normal human beings. A cut above in looks, breeding, manners and more, I imagine, but nothing of sufficient lustre to illustrate the principle described above.

You assume that for the sake of your latest foray into strawmanery.  Nothing new there.  It is obvious that “aristocrat” is meant here as a White man of highest intrinsic merit in the context of racial preservation, not a hereditary caste of privileged buffoons.

GW:

It’s so “gay”.

GW, you are aware that what makes a man homosexual is his sexual attraction to members of his own gender, not his political and aesthetic preferences, right?  That obvious point aside, your conflation of National Socialism as historically incarnated with homosexuality is mystifying to me.  Was National Socialism eminently concerned with pro-natalism?  It was.  What National Socialism concerned with elevating the status, genetic interests and living standard of the working man?  Indeed.  Were most leading National Socialists naught but flaming queers obsessed with flaunting their martial vigor in front of a coterie of nancy boys and wholly unconcerned with raising families?  Hardly.  Goebbels had six children.  Heydrich had four children. 

On another note, it is not that I am wholly unsympathetic to your “philosophy” project, as I have stated.  I am already aware of what the National Socialist programme has to offer.  I am therefore interested in what your project can potentially bring to the cause of racial preservation.


183

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:18 | #

There must be something in the way of a concrete ordering of the future society we hope to create that will give us if not maximum, at least reasonable, assurance that our race will survive in perpetuity.

It won’t stand. Even if we assume that to create this future society such men of great altruism can be found to provide maximum assurance of racial survival/interest, how will that trait become embed, if you will, in future generations if there is not a reproductive differential.

Read KMac:

One unique feature of the Church is that its popularity was aided by the image (and reality) that the Church was altruistic.  The medieval Church successfully portrayed the image that it was not concerned with controlling women or having a high level of reproductive success.  This was not always the case.  Before the reforms of the Middle Ages, many priests had wives and concubines.  Writing of the French Church in 742, Saint Boniface complained to the pope about “so-called deacons who have spent their lives since boyhood in debauchery, adultery, and every kind of filthiness, who entered the diaconate with this reputation, and who now, while they have four or five concubines in their beds, still read the gospel.“9

Nevertheless, reform among the clergy was real.  No English prelate of the 13th century is known to have had a wife or family.  Married clergy even at lower levels were exceptional during this period in England, and low levels of clerical incontinence continued into the Reformation period.

The Church therefore projected the image of chastity and altruism.  Its power and wealth were not directed at reproductive success.  True reproductive altruism appears to have been a factor in the very widespread attraction of extremely ascetic monastic lifestyles.  This asceticism was an important part of the public’s perception of the Church during the high Middle Ages.  During the 11th and 12th centuries thousands of monasteries were founded.  Composed of celibate and ascetic males and recruited mainly from the more affluent classes, monasteries “set the tone in the spirituality of the whole church, in education and in art, [and] in the transmission of culture . . .“10 The image of monastic altruism was also fostered by an ideology in which the prayers of monks were believed to aid all Christians.

These orders provided a very popular public image of the Church.  During the 13th century, mendicant friars (Dominicans, Franciscans) were instrumental in reforming the Church to extend the power of the Pope over the Church, to enforce rules on clerical celibacy, to prevent nepotism and simony (the buying and selling of Church offices), and to give the Church substantial power over secular powers, including the ability to regulate sexual relationships. “The voluntary poverty and self-imposed destitution that identified the early Mendicants with the humblest and most deprived sections of the population, in loud contrast to the careerism and ostentation of the secular clergy and the corporate wealth and exclusiveness of the monasteries, moved the conscience and touched the generosity of commercial communities.“11

They had no children. How then can the merit of this altruism to group be passed from generation to generation? It can’t. How can it displace self-interest if there is no reproductive differential of phenotype? The Church’s program of true reproductive altruism was unsustainable.


184

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:41 | #

CC,

That obvious point aside, your conflation of National Socialism as historically incarnated with homosexuality is mystifying to me.

The feminisation of those sharp party uniforms in particular and military worship in general ... the glamour, the parades, the theatre ... giving themselves up utterly to the masculine principle in the form of “the leader” ... chasing after a heroic image ...  There was no shortage of behaviour unbecoming to, if you will, the spirit of European masculinity.

Was National Socialism eminently concerned with pro-natalism?

Not enough to stop it militarising society and launching profoundly damaging wars of aggression.

What National Socialism concerned with elevating the status, genetic interests and living standard of the working man?

Its economic triumph was the provision of work and bread at the beginning.  We can acknowledge and learn from that.

Were most leading National Socialists naught but flaming queers obsessed with flaunting their martial vigor in front of a coterie of nancy boys and wholly unconcerned with raising families?

Great physical instability begets great psychological instability.  Nazi Germany and sixties flower-power are linked in this regard.  Sociologically, both were attempts - very different, of course - to heal the wounds of war by an act of escapology.  Both were teleological.  Both were feminising to a degree.  Both sought uniformity.  Both were ecstatic.  Both were too extreme, too ugly and too beautiful to last.

It’s time for you stand back aways, and look from where others here are standing.  You have the ability to create - I have always said so.  Don’t tie yourself to failure any longer.


185

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:54 | #

Even if we assume that to create this future society such men of great altruism can be found to provide maximum assurance of racial survival/interest, how will that trait become embed, if you will, in future generations if there is not a reproductive differential.

How does the theory that permanent change is possible only through the reordering of the general system of thought stand your hard-drive test, Desmond?


186

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:59 | #

How does the theory that permanent change is possible only through the reordering of the general system of thought stand your hard-drive test, Desmond?

Almost as well as the nonsense about estrangement. Do you actually have an argument or are you simply denying evolution?


187

Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 19:36 | #

Gworker:
            You answer with game dear friend,  within the context of your program. As to NN’s pretension, I care nothing for it. I look for the truth of what one writes. The pretension does not mask the honesty of his word…it requires it.  Rather a Wolf speak truth than a friend falsehood.

What effect the distortion and lies one reads here under your tutelage? No honest mistakes - all willful, dishonest, contemptible attempts of propaganda - ‘for the noble purpose’. Why, if the ‘middle-class’ is so sacrosanct, does it require such repetitive lying, distortion and willed ignorance?

You mean the claim that an ordinary man brought to that moment of “being towards death” is morally superior to the arrogators of superiority?  Do you doubt it?

This question is another leading fallacy. All men are ordinary before death. It is the inferior who seek superiority in the most ordinary of moments.


On military values, I think you confuse means with value to some extent….


You are blind. Your ‘middle-class’ values are demonstrably peripheral. This myth dissolves immediately with experience… the first illusion to fall in the field of wart is the sham of ‘middle-class’ values’.

Your abrogation of military values, like your clumsy abrogation of Hiedegger is provocative indeed. Your exchange of reality for flowery delusion make routine of sending men to useless deaths “above and beyond the call of duty”. Much like the direction of your work here.

The military has no use for your gestures or illusion. Nor does the task at hand.

But, seriously, if you had been paying attention at all on these threads, including this one, you would have seen a number of references to what we might call “variations” from the inauthentic mean in life ... only gestures in the direction of authenticity, it is true, but still important for all that.


I’ve paid attention, and what I see is similar, but far inferior to the works of the committed cultural marxism. In comparison their work is a analysis of history par excellence.


Human presence does not particularise for social order (or education, btw).


Why then, do you?


But I do not see you questioning our identification of them, and since I hold your intellect in too high regard to assume you cannot see (obviously, you do not want to see), I find that very telling.


I have been questioning all along whether your identification is little more than ‘gesture’. Your refusal to answer truthfully has also been telling.


I am calling the Man of Prey’s bluff, just for fun.  Let’s see what he can do, ‘cos he ain’t done nothing yet.

I see the contrary, he is one of the few here who knows exactly , whether you agree or disagree,what he is saying. He makes no apology. He has not appropriated with one hand the moral authority of a culture he slanders shamelessly with the other.  Nor appeal to the prejudices of the weak, nor offer comfort to failure and mendacity. This itself, is authenticity. 


It is a conceit.  This non-aristocratic underclass has a mean IQ of 100 and contains all the talents, and it is ... us.  We are Europeans, Grimoire.  We express a high individualism in our lives.  We are anti-authoritarian.  Historically we have thrown our lives at overturning the great impositions, whether they have come from within or without.  Obeisance to Power is not our way, and it never will be.  And that is why we will not accept indefinitely the dictates of Power today.


I have repeatedly said it is a conceit.  Are you not psuedo Europeans.? Or, Anglo-Americans who are neither Anglo or American?  You attack the spiritual and metaphysical in both the religion and the science of Europe on one hand, and then appropriate the work and assign the credit to the English middle-class with the other. Obeisance to Power is your only way. The bargain being that the impositions are elsewhere. The responsibility elsewhere…like your posts on Ireland. Well no longer as even you can will one day see. You are powerless to do little else but accept indefinitely the dictates of Power today. You will do so indefinitely if you continue under your pretensions.

There will always be leadership.  But let it be of us, and let it be the leadership of lovers, of servants.  The people are the aristocracy, for though they may be estranged from their own truths today, and though there is no ideational vehicle right now to bring them back, nevertheless the truth of the least is no less than that of the highest.  Human presence does not particularise for social order (or education, btw).


That state which seperates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools”
Thucydides,

  Listen little man.

Loose, loose formulation.  What governance can there be over being?  And what self are you talking about?  Can you distinquish acquisition, for example?  I think not.  No, you have not been paying sufficient attention to even know why you should.

I’ve told you before your pretense is so poor it is an insult. I can dissemble far greater than you in a moment… the defense in the lines above are the lack of substance..

I am trying very hard to be clear.  But, in truth, I know what I’m saying will be only understood by those who already understand.  The rest will self-referentialize and lose the meaning.  You show that you are one of these.

Your words ring hollow. Do you understand your non-word ‘self-referentialize’? It is the circling of the lost torpedo echoing a tightening orbit.


188

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:15 | #

Neo,

To that end, we will have to decide as between alternative moralities - regarding which choice I find you unequipped on other than the basis of uninformed prejudice

No you don’t, you empty vessel.  You can’t even comprehend that there is no alternative morality, merely a few social and religious distortions.  In simple, morality is our adaptive life choices, sociobiolocally-coded and carried into the emotional system.

As you, GW, have adopted the inversion and revaluation of the notion of the “hero” - it is as you say.  You persist in a misunderstanding, for the lack of education to which you have already been alerted.

Ah, and so uneducated am I that I refuse to agree with you that heroism is a lifestyle.

Anyway, it’s good to see that you have found a way to avoid flogging a dead if terribly noble and high-born horse.

For its part, masculinity is defined, obviously, in relation to its opposite.

So define or identify its opposite for us.

Well, Neo, I have to tell you that I have spend the last forty-eight of my fifty-nine years trying to work that one out, and I am still trying.  I’ve been son, brother, lover, husband and father to Woman, and I’d be lying if I said I could answer.  But what have you to say?  Or do I only mean what has Nietzsche to say?

I do not bother to argue over definitions.

So why do you ask for them if you are not prepared to offer your own?

I will accept yours and ask for its implications.  Which we will note as the mere implications of your definition.

The implication for you, Neo, is that Man is a rounded being who ceases to be complete and therefore loses all possibility to know himself when he is reduced to a template for someone’s teleology.

And you are, for us, a model of humility, GW, spurning thus the arrogation of sublime powers to yourself.

The point about existential thought, Neo, is that it does not construct gilded models of any kind for poor fools to aspire towards.

We and they would never be so audacious and irreverent, Great One.  For, so brilliant is your Light, my Lord, that we dare not open our eyes ...

It would have been so much more sporting of you to take the bait and test your truth.  It appears to be utilitarian - you want to make a winning politics.  If that is right, you have no reason to devote yourself to foundational issues, do you?  A holistic understanding of Man ... an interest in ontology, and in science ... these things are peripheral for you, aren’t they?

I do not argue values.

You don’t actually argue at all very much.  You bitch a lot, though.

For how ludicrously au courant with the democratic afflatus of you to have claimed access to “what is true” by virtue of a session in the gym.

“What is true” is not the possession solely of high intellects, but of all men, as I have explained.  When gifted individuals are tempted to gild it in any way, they have already lost it and painted themselves a fake.

I argue the consequences of actions and consider values only as they have implication for acting toward consequences.

Yes, you are a utilitarian.

Please quote me on the point.

Where am I to find people who might be goaded into asking intelligent questions?  I know you haven’t.  But I live in hope that you or Grimoire will, eventually, live up to your billing.

And thus you make it difficult to sustain the comradely pretense that you are an intellectual peer worthy of consideration.

On the matters of importance I speak from experience and observation, not from learned and ordered knowledge.  A while ago I had a conversation with Grim in which we both uttered the commonplace that experience is not susceptible to thought.  Which leaves your epistemological critique where, exactly?

Further, I have never presented myself as an intellectual or a man of learning, and I am certainly not your peer.  But I need intellectuals for the heavy lifting that I cannot do myself.

That said, it is surely apparent from this exchange that your ideas are skinny, skitterish things which cannot lift any existential weights, and there is no evidence thusfar that you actually have what it takes for “being towards the Olympic bar”.

Not even so as to save ourselves.

Certainly, Anglo-Saxons would not take kindly to your ubermen.  Nor Scandinavians, I suspect, and not the northern tribes of France.  Not any part of the European diaspore, either.

Maybe your notions don’t have much utility after all.

And so will we perish amidst the default of our righteously conceited proletarians.

Your racial dualism still strikes me as a hateful and wrong-headed thing.  Why would you bother to save these unsavoury proles since you do not have any love for them?


189

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:34 | #

Desmond,

Almost as well as the nonsense about estrangement. Do you actually have an argument or are you simply denying evolution?

Self-estrangement is just another term for the human condition - more narrow and specific, because it describes what befalls us in absence, while we are held in the deadly embrace of the modern world.  But it also contains the idea of a return to self-knowledge and self-possession which is important and which promises repair.


190

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 21:23 | #

Grim,

No honest mistakes - all willful, dishonest, contemptible attempts of propaganda - ‘for the noble purpose’.

Well, both PF and I have tried to get you to investigate and not simply dismiss the struts and binding on this kite. We will doubtless go on trying.  Looks like we have to.

You mean the claim that an ordinary man brought to that moment of “being towards death” is morally superior to the arrogators of superiority?  Do you doubt it?

This question is another leading fallacy. All men are ordinary before death. It is the inferior who seek superiority in the most ordinary of moments.

This charge you should make of Neo, not me.  I agree that all men are ordinary before death.  This universality is central to what I have been saying.  Neo is flogging exceptionism, not me.

The military has no use for your gestures or illusion. Nor does the task at hand.

I think you should go back and read what I wrote again.  The bad faith in your interpretation is becoming too much.  I have made the point that acts of heroism, when they arise in military action, are spontaneous.  As a principle, heroism probably does not lend itself well to teleology, and there is certainly no such thing as rebirth as a hero.  You agree, apparently.  So that’s fine.

I’ve paid attention, and what I see is similar, but far inferior to the works of the committed cultural marxism. In comparison their work is a analysis of history par excellence.

And yet Marxist intellectuals appear to have no experience at all the paradigm of absence <> presence.  Their Freudian underpinnings are useless for constructive purposes, which is hardly surprising, of course.

I have been questioning all along whether your identification is little more than ‘gesture’. Your refusal to answer truthfully has also been telling.

You have asked nothing.  And you cannot because you also do not possess the experience of Mind and consciousness to see why the categorisation I have presented is true.  This has been hinted at, but you have not taken the hints.

[Neo] is one of the few here who knows exactly, whether you agree or disagree, what he is saying. He makes no apology. He has not appropriated with one hand the moral authority of a culture he slanders shamelessly with the other.  Nor appeal to the prejudices of the weak, nor offer comfort to failure and mendacity. This itself, is authenticity.

When Neo finds a girl and make a baby he might gain some insight into life.  In the meantime, he reeks of rejection and loneliness, not unlike his philosophical hero.

Authenticity, btw, is specific to what is engaged with life - Dasein, if you will.  It is not about the truth or otherwise of opinions.

Human presence does not particularise for social order (or education, btw).

Why then, do you?

Show me, please.  I think I have expressed a certain universalism, and you puzzle me.

I have repeatedly said it is a conceit.  Are you not psuedo Europeans.? Or, Anglo-Americans who are neither Anglo or American?  You attack the spiritual and metaphysical in both the religion and the science of Europe on one hand, and then appropriate the work and assign the credit to the English middle-class with the other. Obeisance to Power is your only way. The bargain being that the impositions are elsewhere. The responsibility elsewhere…like your posts on Ireland. Well no longer as even you can will one day see. You are powerless to do little else but accept indefinitely the dictates of Power today. You will do so indefinitely if you continue under your pretensions.

Ireland?  I argued that the English people did not harm the Irish.  The person who argued the longest otherwise was exposed as an apologist for Irish violence, and has not made an appearance on this page since (unnecessary, Gorbuduc - you are still welcome).

So you now, my conviction is that the people - all the peoples - are innocent of historical blame, and innocent of blame for their own condition today.  We must look elsewhere, which is what I endeavour to do.

“That state which seperates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools”

And can you tell me which states have sent philosophers into battle?  Or are you merely making a noise that sounds meaningful in your ears?

I’ve told you before your pretense is so poor it is an insult. I can dissemble far greater than you in a moment… the defense in the lines above are the lack of substance.

But answer my questions all the same.

Your words ring hollow.

I already know from an earlier engagement with you that you have no experience of the matter at hand.  That is the problem in our efforts to communicate with one another.  You aren’t listening because you can’t hear, and because you can’t hear you attack me.

I know this.  PF knows this.  You do not know this.


191

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 22:27 | #

GW,

“To that end, we will have to decide as between alternative moralities - regarding which choice I find you unequipped on other than the basis of uninformed prejudice.”

No you don’t, you empty vessel.  You can’t even comprehend that there is no alternative morality, merely a few social and religious distortions.  In simple, morality is our adaptive life choices, sociobiolocally-coded and carried into the emotional system.

QED [in a manner of speaking]

“As you, GW, have adopted the inversion and revaluation of the notion of the “hero” - it is as you say.  You persist in a misunderstanding, for the lack of education to which you have already been alerted.”

Ah, and so uneducated am I that I refuse to agree with you that heroism is a lifestyle.

No.  You are evidently unacquainted with heroism as classically understood - and insensible to the irony of your claims as to manly European attitudes toward “Power” when you regale us with the putative “heroism” of those who sacrificially served The City, rather, as fodder, stooges, and fools (following Thucydides via Grimoire).

Anyway, it’s good to see that you have found a way to avoid flogging a dead if terribly noble and high-born horse.

You are looking at the wrong horse.

For its part, masculinity is defined, obviously, in relation to its opposite.

“So define or identify its opposite for us.”

Well, Neo, I have to tell you that I have spend the last forty-eight of my fifty-nine years trying to work that one out, and I am still trying.  I’ve been son, brother, lover, husband and father to Woman, and I’d be lying if I said I could answer.  But what have you to say?  Or do I only mean what has Nietzsche to say?

It is for you to say, in support of a definition (or re-definition) of masculinity, regarding which you presume to instruct us.  As it is, your argument - one seemingly intent upon “proving” that I am lacking in this regard in one or more respects - is thus in abeyance.

“I do not bother to argue over definitions.”

So why do you ask for them if you are not prepared to offer your own?

I am not the one offering the thesis here - you are.  If you would be understood therein, definitions are your burden.

“I will accept yours and ask for its implications.  Which we will note as the mere implications of your definition.”

The implication for you, Neo, is that Man is a rounded being who ceases to be complete and therefore loses all possibility to know himself when he is reduced to a template for someone’s teleology.

Do tell.  So you rail against the impositions consequent upon the inescapable logic and history of political-economy by which humanity has been burdened since the dawn of proto-civilization.  So issues the whine of the intellectually infantile - in this instance, an anarchist unaware of himself as such.

“And you are, for us, a model of humility, GW, spurning thus the arrogation of sublime powers to yourself.”

The point about existential thought, Neo, is that it does not construct gilded models of any kind for poor fools to aspire towards.

More commonplace from our vessel of the “higher truth”.

“We and they would never be so audacious and irreverent, Great One.  For, so brilliant is your Light, my Lord, that we dare not open our eyes ...

It would have been so much more sporting of you to take the bait and test your truth.  It appears to be utilitarian - you want to make a winning politics.

No.  That project is for others.  I cultivate Gentilshomme.

If that is right, you have no reason to devote yourself to foundational issues, do you?  A holistic understanding of Man ... an interest in ontology, and in science ... these things are peripheral for you, aren’t they?

They are not.  As above, your premise is incorrect.

“I do not argue values.”

You don’t actually argue at all very much.  You bitch a lot, though.

Which complaints of mine might I withdraw in order to comfort you?

“For how ludicrously au courant with the democratic afflatus of you to have claimed access to “what is true” by virtue of a session in the gym.”

“What is true” is not the possession solely of high intellects, but of all men, as I have explained.  When gifted individuals are tempted to gild it in any way, they have already lost it and painted themselves a fake.

I’m tempted to ridicule this allegation as to intellectual democracy - but that would be to gild the portrayal.

“And thus you make it difficult to sustain the comradely pretense that you are an intellectual peer worthy of consideration.”

On the matters of importance I speak from experience and observation, not from learned and ordered knowledge.  A while ago I had a conversation with Grim in which we both uttered the commonplace that experience is not susceptible to thought.  Which leaves your epistemological critique where, exactly?

Untouched and without demonstration from you of any epistemological sophistication.  You have yet to grasp the necessity for distinguishing between Realism and Nominalism - and the misuse of the former - despite Grimoire’s remarks to the point.

That said, it is surely apparent from this exchange that your ideas are skinny, skitterish things which cannot lift any existential weights, and there is no evidence thusfar that you actually have what it takes for “being towards the Olympic bar”.

Then you are under the misimpression that “my ideas” have here been mooted.  Rather, the exchange has exposed the vacuity, errancy, or mere arbitrariness of yours (with regard to “heroism,” “masculinity,” “higher truth” - I trust you will recall).

“Not even so as to save ourselves.”

Certainly, Anglo-Saxons would not take kindly to your ubermen.  Nor Scandinavians, I suspect, and not the northern tribes of France.  Not any part of the European diaspore, either.

Certainly, the Jews, rather, know the techniques of mastery of the present residue of European Man.

Maybe your notions don’t have much utility after all.

Certainly not in terms of coordinating the efforts of those of the underclass.  You who respond positively to none but lies and self-deceit require approaches other than that of a frank discussion of reality. 

“And so will we perish amidst the default of our righteously conceited proletarians.”

Your racial dualism still strikes me as a hateful and wrong-headed thing.  Why would you bother to save these unsavoury proles since you do not have any love for them?

Unfortunately for me,  their fate will be my own.


192

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 23:29 | #

GW,

I thought I should deal with this rather snide remark in isolation, since otherwise to do would represent a tangent to the thread of the discussion:

That said, it is surely apparent from this exchange that your ideas are skinny, skitterish things which cannot lift any existential weights, and there is no evidence thusfar that you actually have what it takes for “being towards the Olympic bar”.

I well understand that we tend to be contemptuous of disembodied intellect, and so this characterization of my ideas seems to be in the service of your agenda - and might thus be taken to refer to the adequacy my corporeal person - especially since other such allegations and insinuations have been made here as to my qualities as a man.

It has been my past experience with others of your sort, who seemingly have mastered the simulation of a Yiddische kop, that I must eventually encounter and deal with this Freudian-esque resort when a discussion assumes a considerable length.  I congratulate you in particular, though, for the record brevity involved in your own resort thereto.

So “evidence” seems to have been solicited in support of a claim to manhood on my part - but it has also been my past experience that having been thus provoked to “prove” myself with an account of my manly laurels and achievements uniformly results in a protest, later, as to the unseemliness of my immodesty therein.

So, I will confine myself to one account:

I did Army Basic at Ft. Jackson, S.C., in the early 70’s.  At that time, trainees had to qualify with M-16 and grenade.

For those who have hefted a grenade, you know that it feels amazingly heavy - as if it were a solid lump of steel.  Qualification involves throwing one into, onto, and through various obstacles, at a substantial distance from the throwing station.

I was one of two men in a company of two hundred to make a perfect score (or even approach it).

[And I did my share of weight-lifting and body-building such that I am deceptively heavy at 6’1” and 225, while appearing to weigh 185.]


193

Posted by PF on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 23:46 | #

Guys,

Just to refocus this discussion a bit - I still literally do not understand who is/is not an aristocrat, the principle by which it is decided, the reason why this category is identified with “the European”, and according to what analysis can we find ‘the aristocratic tendency’ in social movements/epoches?

Neo wrote:

No.  You are evidently unacquainted with heroism as classically understood - and insensible to the irony of your claims as to manly European attitudes toward “Power” when you regale us with the putative “heroism” of those who sacrificially served The City, rather, as fodder, stooges, and fools (following Thucydides via Grimoire).

Where is the classical understanding of heroism to be found?

Is it in the tragedians, where the element of resulting loss is often emphasized? In Virgil, who speaks ironically about the greatness of Rome? In Plutarch, surveying things hundreds of years distant? In Aristophanes, who would not suffer the self-seriousness inherent in the concept?

Man’s interface with war is as many-sided as his interface with other perennial human activities. Yet you speak on behalf of the ancients, and tell us they had reached a consensus? Can you point me to a source where I can learn about the classical understanding of heroism?

I do know, however, about Nietzsche’s resuscitated neo-hellenist Heroism. That heroism which was also transferred to thinkers - thinkers who could become heroes, just like they could become aristocrats.

Here is my understanding of heroism: hero is basically a nice word given to boys who died in battle. It is a way for society to reward those hurt by its often dysgenic sacrifice of committed young men, at a time when there was no other way but to use your clear and sparkling youth as a weapon. It is a way for society to cover up deeds about which they rightfully feel a little queasy - a way to appease the gods for killing off their young men in often unnecessary quarrels. They make up for throwing their boys to death by heaping up praise and brownie points on the dead and on those about to die. What you are thinking is some edifying laurel or token of higher meaning was in fact a commiseration and a solace.

What can you give a man after you have taken away his legs, or a part of his face? What after you have ruined his health? What can you give a man after you’ve made him watch his friends die? What can you give a man who has lost his father or brother? Men who have been through this know to despise the title that is offered like some palliative, because anyone who really experiences these things stands to lose and does lose much more than can ever be got back by praise and elevated status. My grandfather for example saw 20 of his partners (scouts worked in a two-partner system) get killed in various gruesome ways. Do you think a guy who experiences that, cares what society has to tell him about the value or significance of his experience? Does the sensibility that emerges from that still have the delicateness to care whether he is maligned or exalted by those who could not know? Waking up from the ‘dream of heroism’ is one of the results of experiencing warfare! You realize that accolades are not real, but having your legs very much is real!

None of you are not subconsciously aware of the massive stockpile of brownie-points reserved for heroes in all militaristic societies, just as you are not unaware of the massive stockpile of brownie-points reserved for aristocrats and the high-born.

And I am not unaware of the tendency for unregenerate man, before he has reached the point of self-ownership, to orient himself subconsciously around supplies of brownie-points. So the mystery of all this heroism and aristocrat talk was solved for me some time ago:

It is the effort to abstract from history a category which is purely praiseworthy and can be seen as constituting the trans-historical Good. Then it is the effort to make oneself a representative of that category, thus accruing the Motherload of Brownie-Points.

Nietzsche could hardly have spelled it out more clearly:

Me = Hero = Aristocrat = Thinker = Associated with everything good, positive and strong in European history.

Those who arent me = not really heroes = not really aristocrats.

It reminds me of gangster rappers, actually. They also do this same kind of posturing. They dont base their self-pedestalizing on reference to ancient authorities though, they do it on the basis of being “live”, “dangerous”, “tough”, “real”, and “thorough”. Which are apparently qualities of the Overn****er.

CC wrote:

You assume that for the sake of your latest foray into strawmanery.  Nothing new there.  It is obvious that “aristocrat” is meant here as a White man of highest intrinsic merit in the context of racial preservation, not a hereditary caste of privileged buffoons.

Is it obvious that “aristocrat” is meant as a white man of highest intrinsic merit?

Why are we then using a word with a specific meaning that is different from what we mean?

Who determines what constitutes intrinsic merit? How is it judged historically?

I think you must see that Grim’s and Neo’s (Nietzsche’s) analysis actually *would* look at the aristocratic on the basis of rank, because they dont have much window into the past to see who actually had ‘intrinsic merit’? Also, you’re observing the tail-end of a much older European status-battle from a time when merit ‘in the context of racial preservation’ didnt exist. The superficial judgment of intrinsic merit in those days might have been predicated on education, knowledge of ancient languages, culture and manners, etc.


194

Posted by PF on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 23:56 | #

Its surprising that nobody got that GW was using the word ‘gay’ in its modern slang usage, which is to say, “uncool”. Thats why gay is in quotes.


195

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 00:12 | #

The ongoing conversation between GW, Grimoire, and NN sets a new world record for obliqueness insofar as I’m concerned.


196

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 00:34 | #

Where is the classical understanding of heroism to be found?

It is to be found implicit in the attitudes and self-regard of aristocrats throughout history.

To wit: for the nobleman, the “hero” is his proto-aristocratic ancestor - a barbarian king and his lieutenants who fought for themselves and for their eventual acquisition of territory and title.

For the nobleman, conversely, the endurance, hardship, pain, injury, terrors and horrors involved in what moderns would call “heroism” amongst the underclass was simply that which was the unremarkable lot and duty of those who had been conquered and who subsequently chose servitude over death.  That the hand of the victorious was stayed in the survival of the slave simply meant that the moment of the slave’s peril and perishing amidst his “heroism” (as judged by moderns) was but the eventual end to the deferral of his trauma and death, and thus warranted no moral approbation (from the perspective of the noble). 

And in the modern day, the underclass “hero” is likewise a stooge and fodder for the master class and is so regarded thereby - the difference being that it serves the preservation of the master class as such to maintain the public pretense that the soldier’s sacrifice is for “his country” rather than for, as is the case, for the oligarch’s money.


197

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 00:55 | #

Its surprising that nobody got that GW was using the word ‘gay’ in its modern slang usage, which is to say, “uncool”. Thats why gay is in quotes.

Thanks for that clarification.


198

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:01 | #

Notus,

The ongoing conversation between GW, Grimoire, and NN sets a new world record for obliqueness insofar as I’m concerned.

Obviously, you need to hit the squat rack for some insight.


199

Posted by PF on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:06 | #

NN wrote:

It is to be found implicit in the attitudes and self-regard of aristocrats throughout history.

To wit: for the nobleman, the “hero” is his proto-aristocratic ancestor - a barbarian king and his lieutenants who fought for themselves and for their eventual acquisition of territory and title.

This is a great answer, for what it is.

Apparently the distinction is quite important that they fought for themselves. Thus the modern soldier’s heroism is counted less because the objective is not as valid.

I have difficulty, however, with a psychological distinction that defines the internal quality of a person through something like this. The ability to wield violence for personal acquisition is something that was possible in certain epoches, and impossible in others.

It was possible in 6th century Scandinavia for example, but less possible in 10th century Scandinavia after Harald and the other Kings came to power. By definition then, this act of heroism was only possible in certain centuries. It is actually forbidden to men in our own time, given that an individual or small group wielding violence cannot take on a nation-state or international police-force.

Some portion of my ancestry were Vikings who took over parts of England. What is basically being said is that their value as men, or the quality of their souls, is somehow determined by that act of acquisition. Yet to their descendents, such as the Englishmen who fought WWII, equivalent acts of heroism were not possible. Therefore it was not possible for them to attain to the heights of spiritual development which (according to the above definition) must have accrued to their ancestors.

On which specific noblemen is “the nobleman” described above, patterned? I guess this perceived consonance of viewpoint, attitude, and regard for ancestry which is imputed to aristocrats is something I have never seen attested to historically. I know of many aristocratic individuals (in both meanings of the word) whose biographies I have read, and I didnt see this uniformity of personality structure.

I read for example the biographies of Samuel Johnson (which is useful because it describes Boswell), Nietzsche (3x), Frederick the Great (2x), Plutarch’s biographies of Statesman, T.E. Lawrence (useful because he was ‘an aristocrat’ (metaphorically) and worked with many actual aristocrats), Francis Burton, Byron and Shelley. I don’t find anything implicit in their attitudes and self-regard!!! Actually I find the notion of them having a consistent ‘trait’ in this way, a kind of denial of the actual humanity that these people were brimming with!

The above definition is taken from Nietzsche’s portrait of aristocrats, including his own imaginary life of Theodoric the Ostrogothic King which he wrote early on at Schulpforta. Nietzsche didn’t actually know any aristocrats AFAIK, only a few metaphorical ones. He also didnt study the lives of aristocrats, as far as can be known from his reading.

Paradoxically, the greatest prop N leaned on for support in his individualist stance against the Naumburg Church was… the essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson! A man writing from a country without any historical aristocracy, and himself in a tradition that proclaimed the equality of all souls before God - a man who was so against aristocratic claims that he opposed slavery and was an abolitionist! I say it was his greatest prop because N used its anti-traditionalist Christian stance to justify his own stance in his mind, which is why the two anecdotes from Nietzsche about Emerson are more affectionate than anything he said about any other thinker except Schopenhauer.


200

Posted by PF on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:26 | #

Whats ironic about the last bit, in case I didnt elaborate it enough, is that N’s conception of himself as a nobleman was based on his ability to stand alone, athwart social trends and mores, and stridently proclaim (usually in text!) his own individual position. He thought this made him noble.

Yet N’s ability to be a nobleman received succor from Emerson, who is an individualist in the American tradition. Americans are individualistic enough that they often display the traits of the ‘noblemen’ which Nietzsche described, i.e. actually going against trends and stubbornly do their own thing. But in tracing the lineage from nobility to heroism, we find someone supporting the behavior which is considered Nietzsche’s badge of nobility, whose thinking is 100% against the strict aristocratic principle which Nietzsche would later, confusedly, find himself advocating.

I say confusedly because it was full of contradictions. Just like the claim to know about heroes that disregards the war-experiences of all post-Crusade generations and the claim to know about aristocrats that isn’t actually interested in any real knowledge of the way real-life aristocrats behave or self-relate. Or his claim to rightfully interpret the meaning of hellenic culture - with each generalization demolished by Wilamowitz in a way sufficiently severe to be almost career-ending for Nietzsche. I think Nietzsche’s great value was in pursuing perspectives which destroyed the 19th century European cultural narrative of Christianity, and pursuing the Socratic method with great psychological subtlety to question the nature of virtue and Good and Evil.

In his attempts at constructively philosophizing, he wrote a great deal that was absurd.


201

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:29 | #

The gang leader and his “dogs” come up to a man and woman with their children and say, “Give us stuff or we kill you, the children and rape the woman.”

Wow… how heroic…


202

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:42 | #

The gang leader and his “dogs” come up to a man and woman with their children and say, “Give us stuff or we kill you, the children and rape the woman.”

Wow… how heroic…

No.  It’s business - tax collecting.


203

Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 01:58 | #

Gworker;
              Bravissimo Gw! I detect…., as I suspected,  there might be some metal to your spine. Whatever evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, you later falter, and again take refuge behind the half-price fumes of the cheap incense you’ve acquired at your local Feng-Sui MegaMall.
But then you’ve been playing with these ‘opiates of the masses’ or simply ‘underclasses’  for some time, Bound to suffer from a degree of joss-lung. Why not just breathe unpretentious clear air and honest C02 for awhile? Lets go down further and clear away that decadent air. Let us hope it restores your head.

I hate to pettifog (whatever that means). So I will only do this once, despite the necessity of having to do this for your every other line. This labour of importunities I resent. Like with PF, this just becomes too tedious. It is the matter of accountability. Whether you know what you are saying, when you say it, and whether you even remember what you have said.  Also, evasion must be done with subtlety. Unless you are applying the relief of your British humour, whereby you throw over the Ming and blame the Turkish waiter, and then later the Germans, and so on. Otherwise, honesty is the best policy. It was only a priceless vase after all, and besides, surely the Turk is clumsy.

GW:You mean the claim that an ordinary man brought to that moment of “being towards death” is morally superior to the arrogators of superiority?  Do you doubt it?
Grimoire:This question is another leading fallacy. All men are ordinary before death. It is the inferior who seek superiority in the most ordinary of moments.
GW:This charge you should make of Neo, not me.  I agree that all men are ordinary before death.  This universality is central to what I have been saying.  Neo is flogging exceptionism, not me.


  Ah….surely NN is clumsy? I don’t see NN as clumsy, anywhere….he is rather restrained really. Call me a humourless Boche, but the pastiche of your second comment omits the comic tension and descends into parody.  You make these mistakes everywhere. Perhaps it is you who does not understand British humour. Perhaps you take yourself too seriously….afterall. You should have tripped your own bullshit meter sometime ago. As you are not registering…it seems only we can save you. What we are trying to do is beat some awareness into you. You may not like NN’s throwing light on your pretension by deflecting your arrows like dewdrops. But he is not lying to you. Neither am I.

I think you should go back and read what I wrote again.  The bad faith in your interpretation is becoming too much.  I have made the point that acts of heroism, when they arise in military action, are spontaneous.

I, unlike you, only need to read it once, I cannot tell you the contempt you arouse in me with this. You reveal yourself far too blatantly, it borders extreme disrespect. Listen and I will tell you, acts of heroism are entirely deliberate and ordinary everyday experience. It is what separates men of substance, from men without. The Gentleman and Aristocrat from the churl and coward. The Man from the dog. And this democracy of nobility resides in the soul of all men who call themselves European. Be they English or Greek,  Your willful ignorance of this is your most egregious mistake.

As a principle, heroism probably does not lend itself well to teleology, and there is certainly no such thing as rebirth as a hero.  You agree, apparently.  So that’s fine.

You speak more of things of which you have no authority or knowledge, and presume agreement. You see why we are having this discussion…, is because you are making a farce of yourself and all who listen to you. Why I am here instead of than the shaolin blog you recommend, is because I have more faith in the British, than you. And I expect more from you, and my faith in you is not yet entirely shattered.

And yet Marxist intellectuals appear to have no experience at all the paradigm of absence <> presence.  Their Freudian underpinnings are useless for constructive purposes, which is hardly surprising, of course.


They have done well without this “paradigm of absence <> presence”, and have resisted the descent into ineffectual parody and farce, while you have not, which is hardly surprising, of course.

Listen to me friend….this “paradigm of absence <> presence” nonsense….you are making a fool of yourself. We are here to ask you to stop it. We appear as your adversaries because at times your only true friends are your enemies. Consider this an ‘intervention’. So far we have been gentle. If it requires more force, so be it. You are lucky indeed to have such enemies. Do not take it for granted.

You have asked nothing.  And you cannot because you also do not possess the experience of Mind and consciousness to see why the categorisation I have presented is true.  This has been hinted at, but you have not taken the hints.

Take the hint you are fooling no one.


When Neo finds a girl and make a baby he might gain some insight into life.  In the meantime, he reeks of rejection and loneliness, not unlike his philosophical hero.


It is obvious this is projection. You have friends right here, some true, some not so true, but like you, striving. This bastard NN is a better friend as an enemy than you will find among a million fools. He does not lie. This is the reason for your repulsion. Engage him, but learn from him. It does not matter whether you agree or disagree with Nietzsche. What matters is you learn brutal honesty. No one else can teach you this like NN> Without this you have no hope of understanding ontology, or anything.

Ireland?  I argued that the English people did not harm the Irish.  The person who argued the longest otherwise was exposed as an apologist for Irish violence, and has not made an appearance on this page since (unnecessary, Gorbuduc - you are still welcome).

For this I have resented you deeply. This ‘Gorboduc’ was a true stone of Britain, as we say. An Aristocrat of which I speak. You learned nothing from him.  You like the other non- entities presumed to instruct him. What gall.  Where I am from, men like him are cherished for the privilege of their association, for the humility of which they share their riches of spirit. He is one you should have counted yourself lucky to reflect on his every word. Unless you are so denatured you are beyond hope.
As for your comments on Ireland,....the less said the better.


204

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 02:24 | #

Could someone please either explain to NN why the statement: “To wit: for the nobleman, the “hero” is his proto-aristocratic ancestor - a barbarian king and his lieutenants who fought for themselves and for their eventual acquisition of territory and title.

and the statement: “No.  It’s business - tax collecting.

demonstrate a failure to speak the English language, or explain to me why anyone bothers to talk to him at all?


205

Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 02:43 | #

The barbarian King and his lieutenants founded the civilization which you are part of.

The thug bought crack and spent the next 8 behind bars.

What is it about this that is it so hard to understand?


206

Posted by PF on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 03:18 | #

I begin to feel like some sort of highly specific top-level therapist for dealing with people who have acquired religious images relating to the European past.

Obsessed with Nietzsche? National Socialism? Ancient Kings with scant biographical evidence? Heroism? Aristocrats? Call Potential Frolic 1-800-FROLICS.

I will show you how to work through your obsession with various images of greatness, and how you can realize that you too are a man without need for the glorification of various proxies. Take a sceptical view of your own idols, today! Subject your pet theses and assumptions to criticism! Stop wetting the bed - and so much more! Here is a transcript of a conversation with a client…

PF: “Now I know you are not good enough. Tell me who is.”

Mr. X: “The ancient Kings of the Völkerwanderung, they are good enough.”

PF: “Who told you that?”

Mr. X: “A book.”

PF: “Which book?”

Mr. X: “Human, all too Human.”

PF: “Alright, lets explore what these ancient Kings mean to you…”


207

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 05:40 | #

PF,

Is it obvious that “aristocrat” is meant as a white man of highest intrinsic merit?

In the way NN, Gmoire, and myself are now using it, yes.

Why are we then using a word with a specific meaning that is different from what we mean?

Your specific meaning is, I think intentionally, applied to rhetorical belittlement of the aforementioned’s meaning - that is tendentiously.

Who determines what constitutes intrinsic merit? How is it judged historically?

Just what is it you see in yourself which is essentially meritorious that justifies you in having the high opinion of yourself you clearly do, or at least profess to?

I think you must see that Grim’s and Neo’s (Nietzsche’s) analysis actually *would* look at the aristocratic on the basis of rank, because they dont have much window into the past to see who actually had ‘intrinsic merit’?

You contradict yourself in relation to your wider professed philosophical goals.  Would you like me to tell you why?  Okay.  The essentialist philosophy you are attempting to create simply is of no utility to us if in the moment of Dasein a White man cannot recognize an order of rank amongst his fellows.  If he cannot then see who is the better man based upon the values which flow from his Being we can likely say he will have no consciousness of values natural to our race as well.  That is just about the whole shooting match.

NN is not the only one who can be accused of becoming bogged down in his own verbosity. 

Desmond,

White liberals now have fewer children than White conservatives.  Recall the Sailer piece drawing attention to the voting patterns of White conservatives, their support for George W. Bush.  They were essentially voting their reproductive fitness.  Assuming this tacit ethnocentrism is genetic, a more ethnocentric White race is being bred.

GW,

It’s time for you stand back aways, and look from where others here are standing.

I will attempt to better understand your perspective.

Don’t tie yourself to failure any longer.

I don’t place all my eggs in one basket.  I want the race to survive.  Whatever it takes.


208

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 08:26 | #

Grimoire,

Whether you know what you are saying, when you say it, and whether you even remember what you have said ...

Interesting.  This is a microcosm of our communicational impasse.  My constant referent is the principle that in a “moment of self-habitation” all manner of falsities acquired in life - yours included - fall away.  It undergirds my response to Neo and then you on superiority/inferiority.  Self-habitation (I will call it) is a superior state to the fragmented and drugged state of ordinary waking consciousness, but self-habitation is also a state accessible to all men, regardless of their station, intelligence, learning, etc.  So I am talking about a state of human freedom and self-consciousness to someone who insists on a static moral interpretation of men.  Given such referents, you conclude that I am contradicting myself or evading something or other.  But it is not so.

To get beyond this impasse we would need to share referents.  Then you could critique from oversight.  That’s exactly what I want from you - that’s what I mean by “heavy lifting”.  I want people with talent to engage on the relation of our sunken condition to our will to be, because I see there a proper (and, I believe, only true) transport to a fitting European life.  But your constant desire is to kill, kill, kill!

It does not matter that my concepts and terms are obscure or ill-put.  This is a competitive market, and far better analyses will emerge.  In the long-term I am not anyone of importance.  I am only a man trying to light a fuse.  I would welcome it very much if you could stand down your insufferable intellectual arrogance.  If, on the contrary, you could ask a formative question or two, then we might even arrive at a position where you can offer a real critique.


209

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 09:17 | #

Grimore writes: “The barbarian King and his lieutenants founded the civilization which you are part of.

I rest my case.


210

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 09:28 | #

I will show you how to work through your obsession with various images of greatness, and how you can realize that you too are a man without need for the glorification of various proxies.

PF,

I’m sorry to report, reciprocally, that there is no known therapy for moderation or elimination of the “Yiddische kop” syndrome - in this life.

NN


211

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 09:39 | #

[GW to Grim:] So I am talking about a state of human freedom and self-consciousness to someone who insists on a static moral interpretation of men.  Given such referents, you conclude that I am contradicting myself or evading something or other.  But it is not so.

======================================

[NN to GW:] “To that end, we will have to decide as between alternative moralities - regarding which choice I find you unequipped on other than the basis of uninformed prejudice.”

No you don’t, you empty vessel.  You can’t even comprehend that there is no alternative morality, merely a few social and religious distortions.  In simple, morality is our adaptive life choices, sociobiolocally-coded and carried into the emotional system.

?


212

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:20 | #

GW,

My constant referent is the principle that in a “moment of self-habitation” all manner of falsities acquired in life - yours included - fall away.

What will be going through someone’s head when Dasein hits?  Something more than “I am” whilst their tongue lolls to the side?

I mean that in all seriousness.  This psychological state must be of more significance than a mere meditative curiosity if it is to be of utility in preserving the race.


213

Posted by Mario on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:30 | #

Could someone please either explain to NN why the statement: ”To wit: for the nobleman, the “hero” is his proto-aristocratic ancestor - a barbarian king and his lieutenants who fought for themselves and for their eventual acquisition of territory and title. ”

and the statement: ”No.  It’s business - tax collecting. ”

demonstrate a failure to speak the English language, or explain to me why anyone bothers to talk to him at all?

Why should I explain that to him when it demonstrates no such thing at all?


214

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:45 | #

Mario, is this damage to verbal intelligence spreading? 

Let me spell it out for the victims of this plague:

“acquisition of territory and title” and the kind of “tax collecting” to which NN refers, amount to the same thing.  Either both are “heroic” or neither are.  The basic, English language, definition of “heroism” can have nothing to do with a gang showing up at an individual man’s house and, as a gang, demanding stuff from him.

I’ll agree with Grimoire that these kinds of cowards founded the civilization “of which you are a part”.

That’s what is wrong with its foundation.


215

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:46 | #

CC,

Your tongue is lolling to the side now.  That is what you need to understand.

An irony of Neo and Grim’s genuflection before this idol of the ancient aristocrat is that all societal movement in the direction The Great Ones would effect is precisely a movement towards self-habitation.  I am, after my fashion, only describing the psychological mechanism of this movement.


216

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:04 | #

That’s what is wrong with its foundation.

Precisely.  Were it to exist, a civilisation that is a pure expression of the European genius would contain none of the pathologies of elitism.  One such pathology is the disconnection of the elite’s genetic interests from the genetic interest of the people.  As Desmond points out, parasitism and free-riding are adaptive strategies for elites, and so they ineluctably develop.  In turn, the accent on societal development changes.  We get “civilisation”, an abstraction, instead of a common life.  “Civilisation” is the value to be defended, and to be held up as our ultimate raison d’etre.  But it is an imprecise metric for a popular survival.


217

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:16 | #

Let me spell it out for the victims of this plague:

“acquisition of territory and title” and the kind of “tax collecting” to which NN refers, amount to the same thing.  Either both are “heroic” or neither are.

You have a point, JB, but are insufficiently discriminate amidst your proletarian/anarchist orientation to “civilization”.

Indeed, the two functions are performed by essentially the same personnel - but the participants involved have a different complexion and inhabit different dimensions, as between the historic contexts.

To be specific: the war band of a king and his lieutenants/comitatus are typically on the verge of a durable conquest during the last stages of the decline of a civilized population - or when encountering, in an earlier era, a settled agrarian population (as Nietzsche correctly reads the history of such, and as Spengler and historians of Comparative History, such as myself, are aware).

And during such encounters, the domesticates are rarely, if ever, altogether unarmed or undefended (though their capacities would be well below that of a civilization at its peak).  And thus combat is involved that calls upon the invading barbarians for what they and their descendants would regard as acts of “heroism”.

Of course, to the modern Bolsheviki, this is nothing other, in essence, than the street gang holding up the utterly defenceless burghers.  Though - even in modern terms - we may see that victory in a territorial fight as between armed adversaries is qualitatively distinct, in moral as well as in other respects, from a contest where there is no contest, as in street crime victimizing the unarmed.

The basic, English language, definition of “heroism” can have nothing to do with a gang showing up at an individual man’s house and, as a gang, demanding stuff from him

And so, per the discriminate analysis above, we distinguish between the episodes involved, in both quantitative and qualitative terms - attaching the term “heroism” (from the perspective of the noble) to the ancient encounter - and the phrase “tax collection” (implying nothing of heroism) to the instance, both modern and ancient, when armed power extracts resources, under threat, from those who are utterly incapable of resistance.

I’ll agree with Grimoire that these kinds of cowards founded the civilization “of which you are a part”.

That’s what is wrong with its foundation.

Ah, further testimony apropos The Revolt Against Civilization (Lothrop Stoddard)

Unfortunately for the Bolsheviki, there is no alternative, in the logic and history of political economy, for the founding of an ordered society, in other than an episode such as JB and GW naively disparage.


218

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:22 | #

Since my critique of Nietzsche was ignored I suppose that I’ll have to make it again with more force.

CC: He believes the rule of elites is inevitable anyway, citing often the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”.  The writing of Nietzsche is to him a blueprint and inspiration for the shaping of the aristocratic mind that will rule.
NN: Nicely formulated, Captain.
- - -
NN: And deservedly so - should we ever be inclined to salvation according to the dictates of Power.

So at bottom it all comes back to the writings and meditations of a single man in the 19th century.  Who gleaned, moreover, the “dictates of Power” not from the abundance of his personal experience but from his own readings of a fictional Homeric Greece.  From this house of straw he arrogantly dismisses practically the whole of Western civilization all the way back to the School of Athens.  Of course, this arrogance is lost on ignorant young fools who know nothing of their own history but what excuse do adults have.

In my short time on this earth I’ve ran away from home, been wrongfully put in jail, received public censure from academic authorities, disowned by family members, taken care of other family members until they (quite literally) die in my arms, confronted my own mortality several times in the Rocky Mountain wilderness at the mountain ledge and with the brown bear, and undergone the kind of punishing academic training that few people ever experience.  Throughout all this I’ve learned that the highest principles of this earthly life are Truth and Love.  True power flows from these principles and any authority that seeks to establish itself on any other foundation will have its mandate from heaven removed.  Of that I am supremely confident.

And what did Nietzsche know of Truth?  He considered it a dogmatist’s error and invited us to suppose that it were a woman instead - a sum of metaphors and human relations.  What nonsense!  And since he obviously knew nothing of Truth I am inclined to think that he knew nothing about power either.  A false prophet through and through.

Grimoire: Listen to me friend….this “paradigm of absence <> presence” nonsense….you are making a fool of yourself. We are here to ask you to stop it. We appear as your adversaries because at times your only true friends are your enemies. Consider this an ‘intervention’. So far we have been gentle. If it requires more force, so be it. You are lucky indeed to have such enemies. Do not take it for granted.

It’s always easier to be critical than create for the same reason that it’s always easier to tear down than build up.  Create with us, write that note, for what use does humanity have for pure critics who never create.


219

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:24 | #

Fortunately for the Bolsheviki, instruction is at hand.


220

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:33 | #

Notus,

Throughout all this I’ve learned that the highest principles of this earthly life are Truth and Love.  True power flows from these principles and any authority that seeks to establish itself on any other foundation will have its mandate from heaven removed.  Of that I am supremely confident.

Thus the inescapable Rise and Fall of all organic entities.

Speak to us of something not already in evidence, please.


221

Posted by uh on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:35 | #

This psychological state must be of more significance than a mere meditative curiosity if it is to be of utility in preserving the race.

One of the more crushing conclusions reached in this awesome(ly boring) thread. No one is allowed to ask why weight-lifting highs count toward racial preservation, am I right?


222

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:39 | #

NN writes: “And during such encounters, the domesticates are rarely, if ever, altogether unarmed or undefended (though their capacities would be well below that of a civilization at its peak).  And thus combat is involved that calls upon the invading barbarians for what they and their descendants would regard as acts of “heroism”.

So what happens when your presumed “domesticate” challenges the leader of the gang to fair single combat to the death in a the state of nature upon which, not civilization, but their very bodies are founded?

Does the coward laugh at the “domesticate” and say:  “You’re a Bolsheviki with no understanding of political economy!” and then sic his dogs on the “domesticate”?

Face it, NN, you’re just a coward.


223

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:05 | #

JB,

[NN writes:] ”And during such encounters, the domesticates are rarely, if ever, altogether unarmed or undefended (though their capacities would be well below that of a civilization at its peak).  And thus combat is involved that calls upon the invading barbarians for what they and their descendants would regard as acts of “heroism”. ”

So what happens when your presumed “domesticate” challenges the leader of the gang to fair single combat to the death in a the state of nature upon which, not civilization, but their very bodies are founded?

Does the coward laugh at the “domesticate” and say:  “You’re a Bolsheviki with no understanding of political economy!” and then sic his dogs on the “domesticate”?

No.  He says “stand and deliver”.  As does the IRS.

Face it, NN, you’re just a coward.

Then I take it that I am relieved of what I would otherwise regard as my duty to respond to your call for capably coming to your defense with my arsenal, should you ever be faced with armed assault.


224

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:13 | #

I ask NN:

So what happens when your presumed “domesticate” challenges the leader of the gang to fair single combat to the death in a the state of nature upon which, not civilization, but their very bodies are founded?

Does the coward laugh at the “domesticate” and say:  “You’re a Bolsheviki with no understanding of political economy!” and then sic his dogs on the “domesticate”?

NN writes:

He says “stand and deliver”.  As does the IRS.?

OK, so the gang leader’s honor has no meaning to him or to his dogs.

That’s why Jews take over civilizations so-founded.

Play by Satan’s rules and you end up in Hell.

I guess you didn’t really understand “The Anti-Christ”, did you, NeoNietzsche?


225

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:31 | #

JB,

OK, so the gang leader’s honor has no meaning to him or to his dogs.

An issue of “honor” arises as between gang leaders.  Sheep have no “honor”.

That’s why Jews take over a civilization so-founded.

Since all civilizations (of which we know the origins) have been so-founded, why has this one proved vulnerable, as others have not?


226

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:40 | #

JB,

Play by Satan’s rules and you end up in Hell.

That seems to be the game to which we are confined when we appraise it with open eyes.

I guess you didn’t really understand ”The Anti-Christ”, did you, NeoNietzsche?

I guess that depends upon what (you suppose) I have not understood.


227

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:44 | #

NN posits:

An issue of “honor” arises as between gang leaders.  Sheep have no “honor”.

So a natural man, as head of his household occupied solely by his mate(s) and children is not a “gang leader”?  You’re correct.  He’s an individual sovereign possessing natural honor—honor which is not lost by being subdued by a gang anymore than it would be lost by being subdued by a bolt of lightning from the sky.

The bolt of lightning has power but not honor.

NN asks:

Since all civilizations (of which we know the origins) have been so-founded, why has this one proved vulnerable, as others have not?

The definition of “civilization” is at issue but I’ll let the derivation from “city” slide for the moment and mention that what is known of pre-Christian northern Europeans is that if an individual man, standing alone, with no gang, were to challenge to single mortal combat the kind of leader that held off the Roman Empire, the leader would not hide behind the claim that the individual man did not command other men, lest he be “pressed down into the slimy bog” along with the other cowards as well as the “sodomites”.

This was lost to Paul’s Anti-Christianity that used the image of an individual man, directly descended from Nature’s God, crucified by a gang, to appeal to the sons of Nature’s God to whom love unto willing death is their triumphant God heritage.  Do you recall the original Greek meaning of “hero”?


228

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:05 | #

...what is known of pre-Christian northern Europeans is that if an individual man, standing alone, with no gang, were to challenge to single mortal combat the kind of leader that held off the Roman Empire, the leader would not hide behind the claim that the individual man did not command other men, lest he be “pressed down into the slimy bog” along with the other cowards as well as the “sodomites”.

Another good point, JB.

You fail to take account, however, of the obvious problems that firearms have increasingly posed for the conduct of affairs of honor and the determination of one’s rank.

The “leader” is no longer the one most proficient - thus adjudged most worthy of leadership - at combat sans firearm.

And no gang leader, whatever his inclination to honorably respond to an instance such as you ludicrously depict, is going to turn a firearm over to a pending victim in order to conduct a duel of honor - or is going to suffer the disapprobation of his associates for failure to do so.  Quite the contrary.

But this last observation about the associates - to which I believe you would accede - suggests, following your own thesis here, that there is a qualitative difference between the barbarian gang and the street gang.

Or will you persist in a claim of moral equivalence and grant by implication that the street gang leader may thus be honorably inclined to accept a challenge, but that he is precluded from following through by practical considerations, or by contempt for his victim (reinforced by the ludicrousness of a challenge such as you imagine in a modern context)?

You have painted yourself into a corner.

You have, on the one hand, exculpated the barbarians from conceptual association with street gangs per your accusation, “OK, so the gang leader’s honor has no meaning to him or to his dogs.”  And civilization “so-founded” is thus excused from your damnation.

Or you must acquiesce in my explanation of the apparent failure of the modern leader to perform as did his ancient prototype.  And thus the “honor” of the gangs is intact.

So we find that Civilization, so-founded, is vindicated in its honorable origins, no matter the alternative we choose.


229

Posted by PF on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:11 | #

CC wrote:

You contradict yourself in relation to your wider professed philosophical goals.  Would you like me to tell you why?  Okay.  The essentialist philosophy you are attempting to create simply is of no utility to us if in the moment of Dasein a White man cannot recognize an order of rank amongst his fellows.  If he cannot then see who is the better man based upon the values which flow from his Being we can likely say he will have no consciousness of values natural to our race as well.  That is just about the whole shooting match.

There are two levels here. First, there is the order of rank of external advantages. One man has long legs, so he can run fast. Another has a smart brain, so he can think well.

I’m not advocating a sabotage of our thought-system to the point where we can’t recognize simple differences.

While man doesn’t know himself, he attempts to reason about his ‘merit’ based on these external differences. But look at what ‘merit’ and ‘rank’ imply - they are all about judgment from a perspective of social utility. There is something however which precedes social utility and thus the awarding of brownie-points.

All men are equal in their Being, because there is no comparison between Being - I cannot *be* more than you, you cannot *be* more than me. This doesnt prevent me from realizing that I’m smarter than most other people, but I would be a fool to think that this difference in astrocytes and myelination in the brain somehow made me a fundamentally different creature. I look very different from a social utility perspective - but the same process is going on inside me as in you, as in all others. Before we connect to this, we believe that these differences make up who we are.

On the deepest level, the length of your legs is utterly irrelevant. So, too, is how many people you’ve slain in order to acquire territory - or in the service of any other motive or agenda. Attempting to tie these external differences in our circumstances, or even our heritable external traits, to the deepest expression of who we are, just proves how little we know about it. Man’s first instinct is of course to do this - because, remember - man is hypnotized and transfixed on the social perception of reality.
These things unfortunately cannot be given a lasting meaning in the way that people would like them to have.

Look, if a woman were to hear this told to her, she would think that her Being was constrained by her boob size and whether her feet looked delicate or not, or whether her nose was too big. You are doing the same thing, since all these advantages we list - martial prowess, bravery in battle, willingness to fight - are the male equivalent of female boob size. It is something that evolved to help us fill a niche, make us competitive on various different markets. Its not an expression of what we are - me the coward and you the hero - this isnt really us. It is just our ‘junk’ evolved in an arm’s race over the last few millenia.


230

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:34 | #

NN assumes his conclusion:  “...an instance such as you ludicrously depict…

What is ludicrous about a man challenging another man, each, to lay down his life for his strongly held beliefs in a state of nature?

It certainly is ludicrous if one presupposes the use of capital such as can only be found among insectoid specializations.  Why presume that the gang leader has the only such capital?  The Jew could, and has quite capably demonstrated,  his ability to acquire nuclear arms with which to mount a sneak attack on your “leader”—not to mention the sneak attack of Paul’s Anti-Christianity hence Holocaustianity.

None of these things follow the manifest direction of Nature and Nature’s God, which is where the real power resides in any case.  All the rest of this is recreation disciplined to limited power for the joy of living.  Your all-consuming “power” is a foundation alright—but of life itself.  You are appointed once to die so love and die well.

If, in the process,  you find it necessary to band together with other men of love unto death, so as to slay the kind of mock “power” that would stand in Nature’s place, then you have my moral if not material support.  But be careful lest you must slay yourself.

The individual’s will to power—the will to power of the mortal man—is independent of and in potential conflict with all other men or it is as nothing compared to the power it pretends.


231

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:38 | #

uh,

No one is allowed to ask why weight-lifting highs count toward racial preservation, am I right?

Yes, of course you can ask.  But I thought you understood.  The moment of lying on a bench beneath a slowly rising 150kg bar, in between the bounce and the change in muscle-group focus, when the question is asked as to one’s will to be, is the same moment of existential questioning which occurs on the rock-face - which moment you would appear to cognise.

You have to reach a little for this meaning, my friend.


232

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:39 | #

Do you recall the original Greek meaning of “hero”?

Yes - which is not the usage that is being adopted here - except to the extent that the “original” was eventually democratized.

Thus GW has his “heroism” (and I take, by implication, his notion of “nobility”) exclusively in terms of underclass (as opposed to the classic demigod’s) performance. 

And I am explaining Nietzsche in terms of a noble (“What is Noble”) perspective taken from an earlier time.


233

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:55 | #

NN assumes his conclusion:  ”...an instance such as you ludicrously depict…”

What is ludicrous about a man challenging another man, each, to lay down his life for his strongly held beliefs in a state of nature?

The context.  A street mugging.  You can’t transform that into a “state of nature” by proclamation of the pending victim.

It certainly is ludicrous if one presupposes the use of capital such as can only be found among insectoid specializations.  Why presume that the gang leader has the only such capital?  The Jew could, and has quite capably demonstrated, his ability to acquire nuclear arms with which to mount a sneak attack on your “leader”—not to mention the sneak attack of Paul’s Anti-Christianity hence Holocaustianity.

Read SUPERHUMAN for my discussion of human governance by lies and violence.

None of these things follow the manifest direction of Nature and Nature’s God, which is where the real power resides in any case.  All the rest of this is recreation disciplined to limited power for the joy of living.  Your all-consuming “power” is a foundation alright—but of life itself.  You are appointed once to die so love and die well.

If, in the process, you find it necessary to band together with other men of love unto death, so as to slay the kind of mock “power” that would stand in Nature’s place, then you have my moral if not material support.  But be careful lest you must slay yourself.

The individual’s will to power—the will to power of the mortal man—is independent of and in potential conflict with all other men or it is as nothing compared to the power it pretends.

Thanks for the thoughtful remarks, JB.


234

Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:11 | #

Gworker

“Der Englander,” as Goethe put it, “ist eigentlich ohne Intelligenz.”

It is strange how with some, things do not change. “Unintelligence” here denotes not “stupidity,” but rather the inability to grasp a thing’s relation to its larger context or value because a cramped conviction closed off a broader, more accurate view.

“vulgar on the side of beauty and grace, coarse on the side of mind, spirit, and intelligence.”

How psuedo-Christian, how Age of Aquarius are your evasions. It grows from the same root - Jewish Biblical Intelligence. Your bowdlerization, more of a slaughter and butchering of Hiedegger, and your constant bringing up of a new, improved mystical terms, ‘self-habitation’  now, ““paradigm of absence <> presence” earlier,  as if they were the unum necessarium (the one thing needful) and, worse, the satisfaction with this very crude conception and ignorance of what this implies.

Given that your unum necessarium frees human beings from the obligation of thinking what to do in life’s multiple realms, this “one thing needful” is wont to justify the vulgarity, hideousness, ignorance, violence of its deformed spirit. Namely by accusing others who speak honestly and do not put dresses on the legs of a dining table.
To see things as they are,  requires a larger conception of human nature – a conception of which you of the necessarium feel no need.
For Hiedegger then, “to Hebraise” meant to sacrifice “all sides of our being to the religious side” – at the expense not only of a fuller understanding, but of a more balanced or complete life. For you GW, this applies, “to Hebraise” means to sacrifice “all sides of our being to the religious disguised as philosophy -  side”.
Likewise, you complain we do not converse in the twilight-language of your hideous metapysic.

To get beyond this impasse we would need to share referents.  Then you could critique from oversight.

I speak German, good English, good French, tourist Italian and Spanish, and passable Russe. None of these is good enough for you. Not good English. Only your ‘lets pretend” - ‘self-habitation’  now, ““paradigm of absence <> presence” earlier, Whatever term you pick from a Youtube video later.

I want people with talent to engage on the relation of our sunken condition to our will to be, because I see there a proper (and, I believe, only true) transport to a fitting European life.

 

You have a very far-gone and sunked condition. But if you can be restored - much else would be easy. However, I’m pessimistic.

But your constant desire is to kill, kill, kill!

Kill falseness and the inauthentic. You have a task towards you must be brought to health in order to face. That is, creating the conditions of revanchement of your homeland, by civilized means, or otherwise reactive means. And it requires a grasp of reality as it is.


It does not matter that my concepts and terms are obscure or ill-put.  This is a competitive market, and far better analyses will emerge.  In the long-term I am not anyone of importance.

You are important.

I am only a man trying to light a fuse.  I would welcome it very much if you could stand down your insufferable intellectual arrogance.  If, on the contrary, you could ask a formative question or two, then we might even arrive at a position where you can offer a real critique.

Why ask questions of one who cannot give a formative or rational answer? I have asked you many questions. Questions you may not have liked, but questions you should answer. You have hidden in obfuscation and evasive emphasis in Ontology. Stop this, stop it all. Begin again.


235

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:20 | #

Neo,

Unfortunately for the Bolsheviki, there is no alternative, in the logic and history of political economy, for the founding of an ordered society, in other than an episode such as JB and GW naively disparage.

Desmond has pointed out that elites self-corrupt for evolutionary reasons.  You have offered no counter-argument.  You have not explained how your elites, whom you explained do not act for the common interest but, on the country, despise the rabble, will magically not congregate around their own class interests.  If you can’t resolve this very straightforward challenge to your Nietzschean Disneyland, then Desmond prevails and your argument falls.


236

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:30 | #

[Neo wrote:] “Unfortunately for the Bolsheviki, there is no alternative, in the logic and history of political economy, for the founding of an ordered society, in other than an episode such as JB and GW naively disparage.”

Desmond has pointed out that elites self-corrupt for evolutionary reasons.  You have offered no counter-argument.

Because I affirm this (Desmond’s) thesis.  Please note that I wrote of an “ordered” society - not of a perpetually enduring one.

You have not explained how your elites, whom you explained do not act for the common interest but, on the country, despise the rabble, will magically not congregate around their own class interests.

Because that is not my contention.

If you can’t resolve this very straightforward challenge to your Nietzschean Disneyland, then Desmond prevails and your argument falls.

Please quote me or Nietzsche to the effect you imagine to have been the case.


237

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:41 | #

Neo,

Can Nietzsche explain why your self-serving elite will particularise for the genetic interests of Europeans?


238

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:53 | #

Grim,

Don’t be a bloody fool.  You are becoming ridiculous.  You make idle presumptions.  You label.  You accuse.  I see you are now accusing me not only of a religious advocacy but an Hebraic one.  It has been said very plainly that you - do - not - understand.  That is not said to damage you or your argument.  It is not said with ill-will or for reasons of defensiveness.  It is said because it is true, damn it.  You don’t know how to approach the question of human consciousness (or presence - but you don’t like that term) because you think you are conscious.  In other words, you do not know your own unconsciousness (or absence, but ...)

There is no escaping this paradigm.  You are caught in it, as are all men.  Either you understand it and, at a minimum, factor it into the relevant thought-models, or you continue to thrash around as you are now.  But it will not go away because you don’t like its implications.


239

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:05 | #

Notus wrote: It’s always easier to be critical than create for the same reason that it’s always easier to tear down than build up.  Create with us, write that note, for what use does humanity have for pure critics who never create.

This is well said.  But if you write for us, Grim, as I sincerely hope you will - you know that - if possible please include your own theory of human consciousness.  You can be confident that it would interest us deeply.


240

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:07 | #

GW,

Can Nietzsche explain why your self-serving elite will particularise for the genetic interests of Europeans?

898 (Spring-Fall 1887)

The strong of the future.—That which partly necessity, partly chance has achieved here and there, the conditions for the production of a stronger type, we are now able to comprehend and consciously will: we are able to create the conditions under which such an elevation is possible.

Until now, “education” has had in view the needs of society: not the possible needs of the future, but the needs of the society of the day. One desired to produce “tools” for it. Assuming the wealth of force were greater, one could imagine forces being subtracted, not to serve the needs of society but some future need.

Such a task would have to be posed the more it was grasped to what extent the contemporary form of society was being so powerfully transformed that at some future time it would be unable to exist for its own sake alone, but only as a tool in the hands of a stronger race.

The increasing dwarfing of man is precisely the driving force that brings to mind the breeding of a stronger race—a race that would be excessive precisely where the dwarfed species was weak and growing weaker (in will, responsibility, self-assurance, ability to posit goals for oneself).

The means would be those history teaches: isolation through interests in preservation that are the reverse of those which are average today; habituation to reverse evaluations; distance as a pathos; a free conscience in those things that today are most undervalued and prohibited.

The homogenizing of European man is the great process that cannot be obstructed: one should even hasten it. The necessity to create a gulf, distance, order of rank, is given eo ipso—not the necessity to retard the process.

As soon as it is established, this homogenizing species requires a justification: it lies in serving a higher sovereign species that stands upon the former and can raise itself to its task only by doing this. Not merely a master race whose sole task is to rule, but a race with its own sphere of life, with an excess of strength for beauty, bravery, culture, manners to the highest peak of the spirit; an affirming race that may grant itself every great luxury—strong enough to have no need of the tyranny of the virtue-imperative, rich enough to have no need of thrift and pedantry, beyond good and evil; a hothouse for strange and choice plants.


241

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:16 | #

Neo,

Do you know anything about Olam Ha-ba and the age of the messiac?  You have just produced a fine portrayal of it, save the master-race are philosopher-warriors instead of Jews.  Have you told Grim about this “Hebraic” preoccupation of yours?

Further, do my people have a perfect moral right to burn you out of your house, and pursue you to the ends of the earth for your hatred and race-treachery?  If not, why not?


242

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:22 | #

Also, Neo, what value is there in your heroic Disneyland for my people if it does not serve their genetic interests?  Do you acknowledge that genetic interests are the fundamental life interest?  Do you acknowledge that a people’s failure to serve them is inevitably productive of its decline?


243

Posted by uh on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:29 | #

Grim,

Vielleicht werden Sie sich an diese vielmehr sachdienlicher Perle erinnern: “Sie stellen wie vom Himmel sich gesandt / Und lispeln änglisch, wenn sie lügen.”


244

Posted by PF on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:35 | #

Conflicting definitions of Hero

Neo’s definition of hero only lets in barbaric Kings and dark-age warriors - about whom we know next to nothing, yet we make them the lynchpin of our metaphysical value system. Grim’s definition has people doing heroic acts every day.

Conflicting definitions of Aristocrat

Neo’s definition of aristocrat has to remain somewhat literal in its fidelity to actual bloodlines, because Nietzsche’s embrace of ‘the aristocratic principle’ was at times very literal, even though he wanted the wiggle-room that would let himself in a la ‘aristocrats of the spirit’.

Grim and CC, on the other hand, seem to be advocating a definition of aristocrat as ‘anybody who I can vouch for as being cool and manly’. In other words, a club of people who they deem worthy. This is infinitely problematic (example: do GW and I get in? consider the absurdity of excluding us - yet consider the vituperation that is voiced towards us, and being consistent with that, we would have to be excluded) and yet it is just taken as being self-evident. Apparently words mean whatever we want them to.

No specific knowledge of heroic apotheosis

No one can explain for me exactly what it is that happens when a man does a heroic act, what internal alchemy propels him to a higher state of meaning. Nor do they know this state from their family or in themselves, apparently. Neo seems to hint that it is ‘the self-regard of the aristocrat’ which, as best I can tell, is simple arrogance. In which case the metaphysical mark has been entirely missed.

Claims without basis in historical knowledge

No one gives me specific examples of the Old Great Ones. Charlemagne, Theodoric, Uther Pendragon - I assume we’ve read what little scraps were authored about these men? Or have we not? Does it matter? Is it enough that Nietzsche imagined that he knew them - and that his narrative of how they founded our societies achieved a surface plausibility?

Its dangerous to base your worldview on fuzzy, confused idol-worship of this kind!

Yes, dangerous! At least Neo will pretend his knowledge isn’t fuzzy - he will pretend his image of the hero is as clear as day in his mind, fresh from having imagined it after reading Human All Too Human. He imagined it fresh after reading about Nietzsche’s imagining of it.

But Grim, you obviously are a totally confused rhetorician, hacking out sentences without a clear view of anything. We understand that simple old-school manliness and respect for the supposed pillars of society is what you are advocating. You’re speaking to people who once were in this same state of confusion. I once also pounded on my chest and said some inarticulate stuff about the Good Old Boys in the Good Old Days, and thats about the quality and clarity of your vision of what you’re talking about. The reason you write page-long style-critiques of GW is because you aren’t all that bright, and the irrelevance of these things isn’t clear to you. Case closed.


245

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:40 | #

Do you know anything about Olam Ha-ba and the age of the messia[ni]c?

Yes.

You have just produced a fine portrayal of it, save the master-race are philosopher-warriors instead of Jews.

How unremarkable.

Have you told Grim about this “Hebraic” preoccupation of yours?

Has anyone told you that you have a bad habit of presuming upon acquiescence in false premises?

Further, do my people have a perfect moral right to burn you out of your house, and pursue you to the ends of the earth for your hatred and race-treachery?  If not, why not?

I would expect nothing less from an outraged underclass.  But I trust that you will, reciprocally, not hold it against me if I Triple-Shock (tm) a goodly number of your pitch-forked peasants when they step within a thousand-yard radius of my premises, as I go down.


246

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:54 | #

I hereby retract what I wrote at 2.46PM today:

An irony of Neo and Grim’s genuflection before this idol of the ancient aristocrat is that all societal movement in the direction The Great Ones would effect is precisely a movement towards self-habitation.  I am, after my fashion, only describing the psychological mechanism of this movement.

It is not true in Neo’s case.


247

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:59 | #

Also, Neo, what value is there in your heroic Disneyland for my people if it does not serve their genetic interests?

Survival in the short term - after which eugenic measures could be considered for the long term.

Do you acknowledge that genetic interests are the fundamental life interest?

I’m not a racist fanatic, so genetic interests are not foremost in my mind.  Cosmology and political-economy are the topics that most occupy me.

Do you acknowledge that a people’s failure to serve them is inevitably productive of its decline?

As is the failure to understand that they cannot be served without the political sovereignty that is the product of concern with more immediate matters like the fundamentals of the domination and administration of human affairs in political-economy.


248

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:00 | #

I wonder if CC has seen enough.


249

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:05 | #

NN,

I’ll tap out a more serious response to you in a moment.

I would expect nothing less from an outraged underclass.

I am wiping away tears of laughter from having read this little retort.

Who belongs to the underclass again?  Is it a matter of genetics or personal worldview or psychological profile or something else?  What precisely separates the aristocrat from the masses below him on your understanding?

PF,

Thank you for trying to bring some clarity to this discussion.


250

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:13 | #

I am wiping away tears of laughter from having read this little retort.

And don’t forget he’s not a racist fanatic.


251

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:14 | #

Notus,

Who belongs to the underclass again?  Is it a matter of genetics or personal worldview or psychological profile or something else?  What precisely separates the aristocrat from the masses below him on your understanding?

“Personal worldview,” more than anything.

BECOME SUPERHUMAN


252

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:24 | #

Notus,

PF, Thank you for trying to bring some clarity to this discussion.

And he will have my thanks as well, when one of his attempts succeeds as other than the ludicrous simulation thereof.


253

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:40 | #

Ludicrous Simulation, Exhibit A:

Its dangerous to base your worldview on fuzzy, confused idol-worship of this kind!

Yes, dangerous! At least Neo will pretend his knowledge isn’t fuzzy - he will pretend his image of the hero is as clear as day in his mind, fresh from having imagined it after reading Human All Too Human. He imagined it fresh after reading about Nietzsche’s imagining of it.

I define a “ludicrous simulation,” for those who are aware of the facts, as one that has no correspondence with reality.

The simulation loses its laughable aspect, of course, in proportion to one’s ignorance of the facts and one’s prejudices in regard to the subject, myself - and so the simulation takes on the delusory appearance of having “clarified” something for the ignorant and prejudiced in this particular regard.


254

Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:16 | #

Gworker:

You don’t know how to approach the question of human consciousness (or presence - but you don’t like that term) because you think you are conscious.  In other words, you do not know your own unconsciousness (or absence, but ...)

  The ‘Sine qua non’  of Hebraic thought - ‘One needs therapy. then you would understand…..’
You really know a lot of bad jokes GW, and you just keep them coming…..


255

Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 22:00 | #

Uh:

Vielleicht werden Sie sich an diese vielmehr sachdienlicher Perle erinnern” Sie stellen wie vom Himmel sich gesandt / Und lispeln änglisch, wenn sie lügen

      This is a pertinent pearl. We see here the terrible fact that most of the members of our own race have been so conditioned by centuries of Jewish propaganda, they have effectively been trained as dogs, to yelp when they hear certain key words…Aristocrat, Fascist , Hero and the like….to which dogs respond as an extension of their masters training.

They are so emotionally addicted to narcotic fantasies that most of them are both unwilling and unable to endure the distress of looking at the real world and thinking rationally about it. They prefer to close tightly the eyes of their minds and live in a dreamworld of pleasurable fairy-tales, for which they borrow names ,  ‘ontology’, ‘philosophy’  ‘Hiedegger’ etc. as this adds to the pleasure of the fantasy. This affords an adult sounding respectability to what is essentially infantile - for it is to childhood which they subconsciously wish to regress.

If they desire a thing, they declare it true. If they desire it not, though that were death itself, they cry aloud, “It has never been!’

Kipling


256

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 22:07 | #

NN,

Here’s my problem, you come in the name of Nietzsche and I see no reason to take Nietzsche’s thought as seriously as you do.  Sure, he got some things right, and I’d be willing to grant that his better ideas could still be used as a source of inspiration for us today, but not to the point where we can quote this man chapter and verse as if his word was - pardon the expression - gospel truth.

The next problem I have is this insistence on thinking about society in terms of types (higher and lower) within a hierarchical structure.  Society is not a pyramid of types, where each layer can be thought of as being independent from the other, it is a living organism with many different parts (each having their own function) and subsists within a particular environment.  Of course, some parts will be more unique than others, but it would be a mistake to think that we can dub these as either “elite” or “aristocratic” or whatever and then hope to separate them from the organism that they were intended to be a part of without deadly consequence.

Now with respect to the political mechanics of how our society, when viewed as a living organism, should recycle itself, maintain order, and achieve harmony with its natural environment, I certainly don’t claim to have the answers.  I am more interested in the basic metaphysical questions that form the context of how the political mechanics are carried out than I am the actual mechanics themselves.  There are certainly others around here, like JB, who are developing theories of their own in this regard and you are more than welcome to consider them at your leisure.


257

Posted by uh on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 22:29 | #

Notus,

Tell us about the bear. MR - and ontology - is about being being authentic (or real as the Ubern***er would say), being pushed 2 da limit. Sounds like you’ve been there more than once, as you aired it. I’m shocked that you came away from the brink armed only with Love and Truth, those bromides of the Zeitgeistgefangener, but leaving them out I would love to know what exactly happened in this ursine challenge to your Dasein. Was the rock ledge involved or were these separate incidents? Please be as detailed as possible for my only experience with ledges and bears is from movies.


258

Posted by uh on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 22:52 | #

You guys ever see a Lonely Planet guide? On the inside cover, at least in the new editions, there’s a mosaic of suggestions of things to do while treading the well-worn paths of Wherever, printed in a very light gray. I don’t have one at hand but they’re lines like:

- trek in the mountains
- write in your diary
- meditate
- swap stories with mates
- study the local wildlife
- watch out for darkies

... Kidding there. But it is of that I’m made to think by all the talk of authenticity. Becomes a fetish, one must go authenticity-hunting as prompted by the Lonely Ontologist guide. Hunting for authenticity, or exalting moments of what you two claim to be such above the rest of existence, seems to me as bogus as Nietzsche’s claim that all history is a detour to his great men. I’m against neither conceit, in themselves, but raising them up out of history as things to be attained, and not experiences you’ve had or men you’ve admired, in N’s case, is misguided. We’ve all been there, I think, all had those moments, and it’s natural to want to revisit or fix them in some high-concept framework of a better life. Yet it is as wrong as Nietzsche’s—I’ll go to grammarian’s hell for this—effective “dehistoricization” of historical figures by making typographic fetishes of them. Your old “glyphs”, PF, and so far you haven’t done either, so I’m not talking to you. They are fine, excellent, full moments, no disputing that ..... As far as racial preservation, however, and it will be remembered that I have no faith in that, those “peak experiences” have damit gar nichts zu tun, and you are correct, GW, for only by a very great conceptual reach can it be made so.

Anyway. Quels beaux draps on a ici—great fuckin’ writing all around. You are a very impressive bunch, and if a lot of this ontology business is absurdism, the language in which it’s writ is always of the finest quality and provides many expressions useful in everyday life. Bravo alors, et bonne continuation.


259

Posted by uh on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 22:55 | #

ps - *typological
and i miss Gorboduc : (


260

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 23:21 | #

I second Uh’s sentiments. You guys have given a splendid discourse. It hasn’t been anything to which I felt I could contribute, but I’ve definitely been reading and thinking.

You do a great job of helping me understand how much I don’t understand.


261

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 00:37 | #

Thomas Jefferson provides us with a clear idea of what a natural Aryan Aristocracy should look like :

http://www.proconservative.net/NaturalAristocracyTJef.shtml


262

Posted by uh on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 02:33 | #

Grim,

They are so emotionally addicted to narcotic fantasies that most of them are both unwilling and unable to endure the distress of looking at the real world and thinking rationally about it.

Well, that is probably the root of it, but there is also more to Guessedworker and PF — which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. For example, although PF is riding his cheap psychobiography hobbyhorse too hard, at times to unbelievable lameness, the moral isn’t wrong, nor most of the details. He isn’t wrong that NeoNietzsche and CaptainChaos make toy-soldiers of concepts. He isn’t wrong that Nietzsche’s paragons of this and that are fictive, ahistorical golden monkeys taken up for lack of engagement with the self. He is wrong that Nietzsche’s writing boils down to daddy-missing and mommy-hating, which, if we knew nothing else about him, would give us to think he’s a first year women’s studies major at UC Berkeley. One should not mistake Arthur Danto’s Nietzsche for Nietzsche. On the other hand, these fatuous postmodern keywords and turns of phrase are irritating; I just said “engagement with self” — sounds ominously deep, but doesn’t say much at all as we’re trapped by culture in any case. All players in this wrangle have their conceits: NeoNietzsche the literal dogmatist, and CaptainChaos the National Socialist redivivus, are one side, while PF aspires to God and Guessedworker reposes in his Englishness, both shaking their heads at the children, beckoning them to quit their games. Of all, I think, Guessedworker can be faulted least, for his is a sovereign quality, a true national trait, and not really a pose or intellectual affectation, though the ontology humbug is precisely that. One hears this in the difference between American and British English; Americans mostly sputter and make a terrible hash of the language, where it seems to drift unstudied from the Englishman. An American might object that “we” have our political traditions, or something, but that’s mere reactive pluck hiding behind alien legalities, not racial bearing. It is no surprise then that an Englishman has here taken up this queer, apparently useless idea of “Dasein”, and whatever convoluted warp Heidegger put on it, which is supposed to be the playing of music instead of the fact of music, or something: for what is a race’s “being” and its “Dasein”, which is not static, if not its active, inbred bearing?

For however many centuries the metaphysicians have been overlaying reality with their conceptual doubles of reality. Heidegger’s trick is to claim that the old metaphysics was wrong, it just needs an overhaul, and we can all get back to the business of fretting about “Being”. This, fifteen-hundred years after the pre-Socratic philosophers (a facet of Nietzsche’s jive far more crucial to him than his Pforta essay on Theodoric, LOL), a hundred years after Nietzsche, sixty or seventy years after psychology came into its own, and right in the thick of a neurobiology craze only spottily impinging on their “project”. To tie this to the notion of racial bearing, Hitler has some to say about all of this in Mein Kampf, where he divides humanity into, what was it, creators, bearers, and thieves of culture — Aryans being the only true creators, which is actually, as you’ll know from the original German perhaps, an elaborate straight-faced joke meaning: “The Aryan never stops spinning the cobweb that catches him up.” So the issue here is for me one of racial bearing: Guessedworker’s possession, and Americans’ lack. It is harder for us. We are apt to take movements and men too literally because we haven’t come of a piece from a racially coherent culture. As I said, we all have our conceits, but that isn’t to be construed as strictly negative — everyone enjoys your comedic repartee, no doubt, but you leave Guessedworker wanting “engagement”, meaning he wants you to deconstruct what he says instead of dancing dismissively over it. That’s fine, I can deconstruct it for him: Heidegger is a waste of time and everything he wrote has been written elsewhere without the obscene German theorist’s cobwebbing. NO ONE who affects to understand Heidegger, friend or foe, can tell you straight what is necessary in his writing. I suppose you touched on this before (”unum necessarium). I’m tempted to think “ontology”, for Guessedworker, is nothing more than a last secretive redoubt for his frustrated nationalist desiderata; what cannot be wrought by mass politics, is instead to be wrought from inside out through this arcane “twilight” medium, — unfortunately, pure nonsense politically. He’s on safer, more authentic ground showing his true colors as British patriot and moralist, with a gift for turning conceptual tables on the left. On other fora this is precisely the figure he cuts, one analogous, in fact, to CaptainChaos’ here.

So: the Elite / NS thing is useless fetishism because, as Notus Wind notes, life is far more complex than such scenarios allow; yet it has the virtue of aiming higher than other fetishry, has exemplars behind it, however wrongly idealized, and tends to keep lines of distinction bold
... whereas: PF’s (overplayed) deconstructionism and GW’s “democratic” ontology arise from finer, and doubtless over-fine cogitation, have the virtue of being more human, more humble, while suffering from misty appeals to whatever and disrespect to intellectual and existential lights that burned brighter than theirs in their own day.

One more point. Since we’re all gabbing about how cool we are — Notus Wind beating the bear back with his cladistics textbook, Guessedworker and PF reaching Dasein-nirvana on the weight bench, PF brooding in his room for five years with a bunch of biographies, NeoNietzsche presiding over the new military aristocracy — and isn’t cool of me to imitate PF’s meta-irony in this way, in passing — I’d like to share that I, too, shut myself away for a number of years, where I didn’t read much but poetry, sadly. One thing I did read at a young age was Las Casas’ Memorial de Sainte Hélène, a day-by-day memoir of residence with Bonaparte on that island. This and Stendhal’s Le rouge et la noir were the extent of my “Great Man” infection got from Nietzsche. I think I read four of the eight volumes (fledgling effort in French), and somewhere in the third, I found Bonaparte gushing at table about the plans he had for Europe, one of which was to found a sort of grand finishing school for a new European aristocracy, drawn from the old blood and from new, where they would learn war, arts, politics, .... in short Nietzsche’s own vision of a new, bolder, grander, farther-seeing European ruling class. The difference entre les deux is, as PF makes clear, Nietzsche was in absolutely no position to daydream about this order of business — whereas Bonaparte had been at the center of it. If he hadn’t made sport of Russia, he might’ve toyed with Europe at his leisure, just as Hitler might have done if he hadn’t been possessed by a similar mania. So, — it was all possible, and of course is not now. To pretend otherwise is falsification, acting, pretense, role-play. But at least it isn’t plucked from thin air, is my point.


263

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 06:26 | #

uh:
      I concur with your charitable assessment of Gworkers finer qualities.

Nietzsche, he was foremost a philosopher, as Artist. He wrote truth as no one of our time has dared , in parable. Why treat him as if he was a politician? Because it is all most understand…the provisional truth of politics .. plebeians who must be appeased before they agree to cast their useless votes.
The excesses of Nietzsches philosophy intended one ‘to think for oneself’. His lack of constraint is an invitation. An invitation to think freely. as he demonstrates a demolition of everything that has caged the mind. It is a model, not a bible. This is the purpose of a true philosophy. It is not for followers who obsess over every word and clause as if tutored by the Talmudist or Imam. We are by blood Europeans. And this was a solely European philosophy - it is for Thinkers who read books for ideas,  not answers. Who look to the world around them….reality, and create answers.

This is the meaning of Thucydides.


264

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 06:30 | #

And for NeoNietzsche, he is true to his namesake…..he shows what Nietzsche has written, and assumes you’re intelligent enough to draw your own conclusions.


265

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 06:38 | #

“I’m so damn average that what I write resonates with people”.—Joe Bageant

source


266

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:08 | #

Notus,

Here’s my problem, you come in the name of Nietzsche and I see no reason to take Nietzsche’s thought as seriously as you do.

Nor do I - lest you have done my decades of work in the study of political-economy - such that you can appreciate (by virtue of the “consilience” I mentioned to PF) that Nietzsche has brilliantly summarized that which straightforward scholarship indicates is true of historic human society.  I have credited Nietzsche with nothing that I have not independently arrived at through prior attention to fundamental matters - and there is much of Nietzsche’s early ventures into epistemology of which I am critical.

So do the work yourself - and you will likewise stand with and appreciate Nietzsche.  I take you at your word in the qualities you have claimed for yourself: outstanding intellect of a technical variety, extraordinary physical strength and endurance, a life of trial and a summary philosophy based thereupon.  But you are nevertheless a callow youth in your (tenuous) grasp of how the world has and does work in the larger origination and administration of human affairs.  It appears to me that a reading of LAW, ETHICS, MORALITY (if that has been accomplished) passed before your eyes without registration.

Society is not a pyramid of types, where each layer can be thought of as being independent from the other, it is a living organism with many different parts (each having their own function) and subsists within a particular environment.  Of course, some parts will be more unique than others, but it would be mistake to think that we can dub these as either “elite” or “aristocratic” or whatever and then hope to separate them from the organism that they were intended to be a part of without deadly consequence.

Well spoken and taken.  Nietzsche is guilty of self-indulgent excesses and exaggerations for effect, as is often noted.

Now with respect to the political mechanics of how our society, when viewed as a living organism, should recycle itself, maintain order, and achieve harmony with its natural environment, I certainly don’t claim to have the answers.

As above, this is the crucial element that is missing from your analyses and syntheses.

I am more interested in the basic metaphysical questions that form the context of how the political mechanics are carried out than I am the actual mechanics themselves.

Thus you are an artist - and neither a physician nor scientist - in this regard.  An artist neither heals an organism nor repairs a mechanism.


267

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:47 | #

Brother uh,

I am shamelessly desirous of being lifted (if only singularly) from this Black Hole of Calcutta into which you have stuffed all of us.

Please throw me, if to none of the others, the rope that would allow me to lift myself out of the following personalized characterizations that otherwise consign me to the company of the others in this stinking recess:

——————————————————————————-

*He (PF) isn’t wrong that NeoNietzsche and CaptainChaos make toy-soldiers of concepts.

* NeoNietzsche the literal dogmatist

* NeoNietzsche presiding over the new military aristocracy

——————————————————————————-

NN


268

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:23 | #

And, if my appeal to uh’s fraternal feelings for me have the happy consequence of my relief from the company of the Hell Hole, I have in mind turning back and casting the following ropes to the remnant:

1) GW: read Battle for the Mind and recognize yourself therein.

2) PF: interview your subjects first, in hopes of blessing your otherwise ludicrous analyses with some passing correspondence with the facts - and flush the rationalization for doing otherwise as the excrement that it is.

3) To the Captain and Notus, I extend my hand rather than a rope, as you stand taller in the Hole and are within reach of the surface.

4) And it would seem, as I hope for his assistance, that uh knows the secret passage out through which only he can fit.


269

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:15 | #

Was the rock ledge involved or were these separate incidents? Please be as detailed as possible for my only experience with ledges and bears is from movies.

According to Holohoax lore the Krauts at a particular concentration camp used to throw disobedient Jews into a cage which housed an eagle and a bear and watch them tear to shreds said Jew.


270

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:16 | #

They are standing not in a hole but with their people, Neo.  Do you think they will walk away to join you?


271

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:30 | #

GW,


They are standing not in a hole but with their people, Neo

Who’s “they”?

Do you think they will walk away to join you?

I would be surprised to have any company.


272

Posted by uh on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:40 | #

I am shamelessly desirous of being lifted (if only singularly) from this Black Hole of Calcutta into which you have stuffed all of us.

Well, as I stuff my face with possibly the last scuppernong harvest of the season, let me remind you that I’m kinda dumb and a sloppy writer, and still worse have skimmed whole swathes of commentary because the wordiness puts me to sleep, so if I drew you one-dimensionally in haste, it’s hardly your fault. But handily you distill such points as made against you. They’re not really against though ....

*He (PF) isn’t wrong that NeoNietzsche and CaptainChaos make toy-soldiers of concepts.

Isn’t this so? You look to Nietzsche’s model of better society, Captain to National Socialism. PF has flogged this one so oft it’s passed from death back into life, so what else can I say. Neither of you is WRONG in your estimation, as you know I have as much regard for Nietzsche as you, and I believe the Captain can be reasonably sure of my regard for National Socialism. On the other hand I’m long since disillusioned like PF with hero-worship and the setting up of imaginary, backward-looking social orders. There’s more to us than the deeds of the great. White Nationalism has always mistakenly made fetish of the past in opposition to the godless present. It is possible to skirt both the excesses of value-fetishism and deconstructionist anti-hagiography. Thus my view cuts across the party lines drawn up here.

“Man’s nat’ural state is God’s design;”
such is the silly sage’s theme;
“Man’s primal Age was Age of Gold;”
such is the Poet’s waking dream:

Delusion, Ign’orance! Long ere Man
drew upon Earth his earliest breath
The world was one contin’uous scene
of anguish, torture, prey and Death;

* NeoNietzsche the literal dogmatist

Well, you follow N quite closely, literally, which is what a dogmatist does. Not all dogmatists are equal, of course, and I actually applaud you for sticking to the text. I should do it myself. Then again, when we’re dealing with guys with such poor understanding of N., why trouble? Notus above makes a couple claims that serve my point well.

“Couldn’t speaking falsely sometimes be a noble act;” — How is it possible to miss this as one of N’s most belabored “home truths” provided one has read more than ten pages of The Portable Nietzsche??

“the “dictates of Power” not from the abundance of his personal experience” — Someone exists with the nerve to assert that Nietzsche of all people lacked an abundance of personal experience. Believe that?

* NeoNietzsche presiding over the new military aristocracy

Just a joke. You’re very low in that species of presumption, no one will argue, though insomuch as one spends time dwelling on the hypothetical reconfiguration of society most satisfying to one, and presenting this picture to others, bidding them believe in its rightness, one clearly identifies therewith.


273

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:54 | #

GW,

Desmond has pointed out that elites self-corrupt for evolutionary reasons.

Earlier in this thread I wrote:

There must be something in the way of a concrete ordering of the future society we hope to create that will give us if not maximum, at least reasonable, assurance that our race will survive in perpetuity.  I do not wish to depend on even the best and most loyal exemplars of our race solely.  I want a hard skeleton of law and institutions, formalised as if in granite in the founding documents of a new order, that cannot be done away with even at the whim of a prospective “elite” unless they also wish to engage in manifest revolution.

[...]

White men will pursue their genetic interests within the confines laid down by the law and institutions designed explicitly to ensure the continuity of the race or can perhaps expect to meet with draconian punishment

So obviously I am not unaware of the free-riding elite problem, nor indifferent to correcting it so far as this is possible.  Desmond’s objection that such a system as I propose would not be evolutionarily stable in that the racially-particular altruists needed to administer it would not have at least a slight edge in differential reproduction is I think nonsense.  They would have high status and power, how could they not be more reproductively successful?  And, what if, race traitors, as defined by and convicted according to the law, face execution, every time, no exceptions?  Their reproductive fitness would certainly be curtailed in that they would be stone dead.


274

Posted by uh on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:57 | #

So I don’t seem like a jerk, I also liked Notus’ last comment very much. Our age is too complex for simplistic models of resurrected hierarchy. Unfortunately that also means it is too complex for renewed collectivism, armed insurrection, or whatever else one please.

An artist neither heals an organism nor repairs a mechanism.

An artist doesn’t presume it can or need be healed or repaired. Herein lay Nietzsche’s estimation of the artist as paramoral and anti-teleology, no?


275

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:23 | #

How does the theory that permanent change is possible only through the reordering of the general system of thought stand your hard-drive test, Desmond?

A political regime geared towards combating elite free-riding and replacing the liberal world view with a racially affirming one are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, I should think that one would not be viable in the long term without the other.  Or, once the “Restoration” occurs in England will you be contented to go without governance (e.g., no prime minister, no cabinet, not even a dog catcher)?  My prescription need not entail no freedumb for the lemmings unto what the dirty Krauts effected.  A hard shell of enforcement encapsulating a soft center of grazing pasture for the masses I think will do the job.


276

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:28 | #

Brother uh,

Isn’t this so? You look to Nietzsche’s model of better society,

I’m not sure of this “model” of which you write - or how such is being played with.

Please be more elaborate, so that I might see where I have/have not created a mis-impression.

Your characterization does not resonate with me, and I trust that I am sufficiently honest and self-aware to have detected something of what you sense, were it the case.

Well, you follow N quite closely, literally, which is what a dogmatist does. Not all dogmatists are equal, of course, and I actually applaud you for sticking to the text. I should do it myself. Then again, when we’re dealing with guys with such poor understanding of N., why trouble? Notus above makes a couple claims that serve my point well.

I must dissent from your characterization of myself, at the expense of reinforcing the impression of my lack of comely humility:

I do not “follow” Nietzsche - I stand with and (in certain respects) above him, in the explicit rationalization of such shared insights as I have affirmed by quoting them (and of those that are my own, alone).  The essays on my blog, BECOME SUPERHUMAN and LAW, ETHICS, MORALITY, are, in the former instance, my systematic arrangement of the thread of N.‘s scattered thoughts, such as he did not provide - and, in the second, my foundational work in the understanding of political economy, such as Nietzsche never committed to paper - if indeed this was the path he also took to the transcendently important insights he conveyed only in summary and in desultory fashion.

Just a joke.

Cool.  (not “gay”)


277

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 14:08 | #

Brother uh,

On the other hand I’m long since disillusioned, like PF, with hero-worship and the setting up of imaginary, backward-looking social orders

The hero-worship thing is an issue into which I have been dragged as a putatively complicit offender - and I reject the accusation and call for explicit proof of my guilt.

And as far as social orders go - and to the extent that I would bother to propose one - I am a “fascist,” as I define the term in favoring a modernist (as opposed to a traditionalist) solution to modernism.  I quote Nietzsche regarding this expectation in BECOME SUPERHUMAN.


278

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 14:39 | #

Brother uh,

Not all dogmatists are equal, of course, and I actually applaud you for sticking to the text.

As an anti-deconstructionist, I take it that the analysis of the writings of others involves assessment of what they actually wrote.

On the other hand, to read fashionable analyses of Nietzsche, is to suspect a case of mistaken identity.

As I have mentioned in my blog “profile,” I defy the de facto embargo on correct presentation of N.‘s political philosophy.

Thus, in the attempt also to defy the larger practice of deconstructing N. into an unrecognizable lump of blood and guts, I might be taken for merely “following” him in being faithful to WHAT THE FUCK HE ACTUALLY WROTE.


279

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:01 | #

“The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame.”

Wilde


280

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:11 | #

[Though what we write is, of course, neither that which we “really” mean or that which we really intend. Thus the necessity for employment of the painted and palsied Witch Doctor, stinking of smoke and incense, (such as PF, et. al.) to divine that which is the authentic agenda arising from the pages to which the clown applies his anointed nose.]


281

Posted by PF on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:19 | #

uh,

So thats what you’ve been hiding underneath your whatever all this time. Lovely to read it!

Thanks for the summary, I think you are the guy to close this thread! In fact the clusterfuck was worth it if it brought you to write your synthesis.

He (PF) is wrong that Nietzsche’s writing boils down to daddy-missing and mommy-hating, which, if we knew nothing else about him, would give us to think he’s a first year women’s studies major at UC Berkeley.

You’re right! Also in the lameness of what I have been saying recently and the overplayedness of it. Goddamn, I’m sick of it too! Thank you for saying that!

I passed on about 1.5 years ago from thinking about this stuff to looking intensely at my own life, and all this knowledge has become elided in my mind and lost its sharpness.

Anyway, nice brain work, uh.


282

Posted by PF on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:56 | #

uh has freed me from the stairmaster of musty german strivingness!

no more mold-smell of would-be heroism!

no more clink-clink of imaginary medals!


283

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:11 | #

uh,

I’m glad to see that some of my commentary took with you.  Perhaps I should return the favor.

Was the rock ledge involved or were these separate incidents? Please be as detailed as possible for my only experience with ledges and bears is from movies.

They were separate incidents that took place several years apart.  The first incident happened while I was hiking through a mountain pass and lost my footing while trying to skirt around an exposed rock face; the second happened while I was backpacking through a valley and accidentally stumbled upon a mama bear with at least one cub who immediately saw me as a threat.  Both experiences are not particularly uncommon for people who’ve spent as much time in the mountains as I have and don’t lend themselves to a dramatic retelling (at least that’s how I feel).


284

Posted by PF on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:12 | #

hey guys!

I just got a message from the Overn***ger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4euV4Gbadlc&feature=related

The message is this:

This guy is very cool, very tough, very awesome,
and just generally can’t be stopped.
He knows about how hard life is
and his knowledge of weapons makes him very dangerous
He stays true to his friends
Other cool people like him
He gets money and also has more girlfriends than he can handle.

Wait, here is another message from a different Overn***ger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdpr9aU5mcY&feature=fvst

The message is pretty much the same stuff, except, as far as I can tell,
this guy is *really* awesome. Not just awesome.

Just think, if they had a neocortex, they might have to find more elaborate costumes
to dress up in to fool themselves. I cant imagine what those would be though. wink

Nobody can take nothing from Big L but a loss, Chief
The last punk who fronted got a mouth full of false teeth.
I’m known to gas a hottie and blast the shotty
Got more cash than Gatti, - you dont know?
You better aks somebody.


285

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:32 | #

NN,

I’m pleased to read that you’ve arrived at your convictions through independent study and have not simply taken Nietzsche’s word authoritatively.  Perhaps next time you’ll speak to us about these other sources and how you reason from them to your own conclusions, which I understand to be in accord with the spirit of Nietzsche’s writings, but - please - not in a thread that is as long in the tooth as this one.  In the interim, I’ll be sure to carefully consider the essays that you linked to on your blog.

As above, this is the crucial element that is missing from your analyses and syntheses.

Fair enough.


286

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:47 | #

An amusing coincidence:  A little over a week ago, on a whim—basically because I had seen it only once during its original 1975 release—I ordered from Netflix the John Houston production of Kipling’s “The Man Who Would Be King”.  We got around to watching it last night. 

Relevant to this thread.

Its basic message is, “Don’t con the Brahmins to attain the throne.”


287

Posted by Dasein on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:30 | #

Having seen “Dasein” so many times in print, without ever having heard it spoken, I was pleased to finally hear someone say it. But coming, as it did, from a speaker with such a strong accent, I’m not sure how much confidence to put in his pronunciation.—Jimmy Marr

His pronunciation of German words was incorrect.

You can hear Heidegger himself pronounce Dasein at 0:43 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BHvdTZomK8&feature=related


288

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:39 | #

Notus,

Perhaps next time you’ll speak to us about these other sources and how you reason from them to your own conclusions, which I understand to be in accord with the spirit of Nietzsche’s writings, but - please - not in a thread that is as long in the tooth as this one.  In the interim, I’ll be sure to carefully consider the essays that you linked to on your blog.

Thanks for the considerate reaction to my message.

Please let me suggest that the Reading List is, by far, the most important and comprehensive “source”.

And would you be so kind as to let me know with which of those works you are already familiar?

(The “essays” were simply passingly-pertinent remarks drawn from the period when I was first establishing the blog.)


289

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:45 | #

You can hear Heidegger himself pronounce Dasein at 0:43 in this video:

dass zine - with slight emphasis on the second syllable - as taught in class.


290

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:58 | #

“zine” as in “wine” - not magazine


291

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:14 | #

@Notuswind,

BTW, the following exchange, hundreds of message ago, sparked all this:

—————————————————————————————-

[NN to Notus:] Haven’t heard further from you about a potential expression of personal authenticity, such as we discussed over at OD, months ago.

...

[GW to NN:] What would you know about personal authenticity, actually?  You project yourself, at least, as one of the vainest and, dare I say, noisiest vessels on the net.  You are doing it again now.

—————————————————————————————-

And off we went.


292

Posted by Dasein on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:52 | #

dass zine - with slight emphasis on the second syllable - as taught in class.

Not sure where you learned that, NN.  There is no ‘s’ sound in the first syllable, which is also the one that is stressed.


293

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:30 | #

Not sure where you learned that, NN.  There is no ‘s’ sound in the first syllable, which is also the one that is stressed.

Not that I particularly care - but I did not hear H. pronounce “dah zign”

My ear hears an “s” in between and emphasis later.

But I yield to authority and experience, and have no more to say.


294

Posted by Dasein on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:57 | #

There is some cadence in H’s speech, and perhaps he intentionally lessens the stress on the first syllable.  (btw, he’s using the genitive case, so it’s des Daseins there).

One can also hear it pronounced here:

http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler;=&search=Dasein


295

Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:01 | #

NN: or you could pronounce it Nullachtfunfzehn, ‘0815’, in this context.


296

Posted by Oliver on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 04:19 | #

A little more over you endeavor for cash remember, though , all the assets
fail and you are plan stops. As explained above, the better those borrower’s credit mark the cheaper the most important loan will wind up as that their economic lends to these kinds of and vice versa.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

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

Remember me


Next entry: Vince Cable on capitalism – old wine in new bottles
Previous entry: Repentant Former Leftists Confess All

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Benefit commented in entry 'These adverts communicate an important message, telling us the aims and desires of the corporations' on Mon, 20 Nov 2017 05:10. (View)

mortgages commented in entry 'These adverts communicate an important message, telling us the aims and desires of the corporations' on Mon, 20 Nov 2017 04:12. (View)

Whitney Sara Cohen commented in entry 'These adverts communicate an important message, telling us the aims and desires of the corporations' on Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:33. (View)

Jean Hill commented in entry 'JFK assassination files released: declassified documents reveal CIA plots to kill Fidel Castro' on Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:41. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'These adverts communicate an important message, telling us the aims and desires of the corporations' on Sun, 19 Nov 2017 13:27. (View)

Origins of fake pizza news commented in entry 'When the Alt-Right needs to subvert a fledgling White Left, they turn to Nowicki, Preston and Stark' on Sun, 19 Nov 2017 10:56. (View)

Prince, Pettibone, Posobiec commented in entry 'When the Alt-Right needs to subvert a fledgling White Left, they turn to Nowicki, Preston and Stark' on Sun, 19 Nov 2017 10:53. (View)

Origins of "Pizzagate" fake news: interesting commented in entry 'When the Alt-Right needs to subvert a fledgling White Left, they turn to Nowicki, Preston and Stark' on Sun, 19 Nov 2017 10:48. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'These adverts communicate an important message, telling us the aims and desires of the corporations' on Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:23. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'These adverts communicate an important message, telling us the aims and desires of the corporations' on Sun, 19 Nov 2017 06:04. (View)

Backgrounding/Jamming race-mixing agenda commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Sun, 19 Nov 2017 01:00. (View)

William of FN commented in entry 'French Court Rules: No Such Thing As Indigenous French' on Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:45. (View)

Trump Jr. > Wikileaks > Kremlin commented in entry 'There's no "there there" to Russian investigation only where the Alt-Right doesn't want there to be.' on Fri, 17 Nov 2017 22:17. (View)

Elizabeth I commented in entry 'PM speech to Lord Mayor's Banquet stresses importance of international rules-based system' on Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:15. (View)

Bush, Ford and Warren commented in entry 'JFK assassination files released: declassified documents reveal CIA plots to kill Fidel Castro' on Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:56. (View)

Bush / JFK assassination connections commented in entry 'JFK assassination files released: declassified documents reveal CIA plots to kill Fidel Castro' on Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:25. (View)

More earthlike planets being discovered commented in entry 'NASA invests in 22 visionary exploration concepts, including asteroid mining' on Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:55. (View)

Kushner co. accused of illegal rent inflation commented in entry 'Undoing inherited wisdom & means of separatism / forcing integration - YKW doing as YKW do' on Thu, 16 Nov 2017 04:29. (View)

Louis CK and the 1/4 issue commented in entry 'Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?' on Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:49. (View)

Un-Fairstein comes to Weinstein's rescue commented in entry 'Coerced Confessions of The Central Park Five' on Thu, 16 Nov 2017 01:43. (View)

Angela Nagle discussing her take on the Alt-Right commented in entry 'Angela Nagle: they think voluntary outbreeding is genocide. Cultural Marxism, Jewish porn! lol.' on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:09. (View)

African knowingly gives HIV to French women commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:04. (View)

Spencer's straw man commented in entry 'Poland is correct to denounce Richard Spencer' on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:42. (View)

Black murder of White working class commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:37. (View)

Evidence of Trump-Russia collusion exists commented in entry 'Abnormal: AltRight.com celebrates the Soviet Union's victory and fêtes Russia's imperialist legacy.' on Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:50. (View)

Turkey/Flynn plot to kidnap Gulen commented in entry 'Mueller investigating Flynn over alleged plan to deliver accused coup organizer to Erdogan' on Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:41. (View)

Key moment in decline of US power in Asia-Pacific commented in entry 'North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet' on Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:13. (View)

Not true, Putin told me so. commented in entry 'Abnormal: AltRight.com celebrates the Soviet Union's victory and fêtes Russia's imperialist legacy.' on Tue, 14 Nov 2017 06:59. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:09. (View)

Arthur commented in entry 'So what are we to make of the crisis in Catalonia?' on Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:12. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:00. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:47. (View)

Palace intrigue in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon commented in entry 'Trump may have pushed Saudi Arabia and Iran closer to war' on Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:31. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:41. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'U.K. Cabinet Minister Priti Patel Resigns Over Secret Israeli Meetings' on Sun, 12 Nov 2017 09:06. (View)

affection-tone