Individualism’s Wake: The Abyss - some favorites of Dr. Lister

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, 22 March 2015 06:32.

I think this is rather pithy - A Word in the Ear of the Future-Seekers — Modernity is not the bridge; it is the abyss.

Fine Persecution — Every society has before it an ideal of the kind of society it ought to be, and every society, in order to uphold that ideal, needs to persecute those within it who are at odds with that ideal. Once again, however, the deep mendacity of liberalistic society manifests itself in that it denies the persecution which it carries out against its hated enemies, namely, those at odds with its ideal. This denial of the persecuted status of its enemies — along with the ridicule of them when they claim it — are additional elements for the intensifying of their persecution.

Specify, or Be Damned — Individualism does not specify itself to be in keeping with any particular society, or even with the existence of society at all, but rather it addresses itself only to an unspecified individuality. Such unspecification about what an individual should be is precisely at the heart of individualism’s boast about its being the friend and not the foe of the individual’s freely seeking to be and to do whatever he chooses. “Do what thou wilt”, it says, whereto it may add the black-box phrase, “so long as it harms none”. Now, given a teaching which says that everyone may do as he pleases, irrespective of all truth, reason, goodness, morality, tradition, authority, obedience, bonds, and so forth, “so long as it harms none”, and which, by its boasted lights, does not specify the kind of society which should be upheld, or even that any should be upheld, how is it that anyone could then come to the belief that it might after all stand as a pillar of any society, let alone a particular one, rather than being, as in truth it is, the rot upon all? One might say that here we are at the brink of sheer madness, inbequeathed through many years of listening to silly tales. But leaving aside an understanding of the teaching itself, which might conceivably have taken any name, the very name which it does carry gives us a clue to its drift, namely, that it seeks to uphold the unspecified individual, not any society, specified or unspecified.
 
There are no ends specific to man as man, rather than to what he shares with mere beasts, which can be reached outside of his fellowship with his kind. No speech nor reasoning, let alone higher arts and sciences, would arise if all men stood from the first outside of fellowship. Every man began as a helpless baby and would have died were it not for the society of his kith and kin. Every man was without speech, and would have remained speechless were it not for the same. Every man was without schooling, and would have stayed unschooled. And so on. No man was ever born into a so-called state of nature, as first imagined by Thomas Hobbes, even if this be helpful as a conceptual threshold for the understanding that the closer a society comes in breaking down towards that threshold, the more brutish it becomes. It is nevertheless a figment which has led to misunderstanding and mischief, and it is from it that individualism has grown. Man’s state of nature is the state of society. Man has never been in the so- called state of nature; for he is by nature a social animal and always in fellowship. Individualists, having thoughtlessly taken all social things for granted, and having for the most part imbibed unawares some old spirit of seventeenth-century philosophy, often speak as though they rose out of the ground and shaped themselves in isolation, wherein we glimpse also the drunken idea of self-creation born of Romanticism.

But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. [1]

The liberal concept of man as selfstanding being, free to set his own moral ends, is one of the biggest untruths ever told — and yet folk swallow it whole, whereat we might take it that they are greedy for something.
 
Individualism is an emptiness which blights the field of personhood, turning men, if they can still be called such, into mere units of the mass to be gathered up in the total state. Man is a social animal; society is required to actualise a man’s potential as a person. There are no pre-social individual persons. In the light of this, we may see individualism as some deeply primitive recrudescence, the tendency of which is to destroy the very conditions by which one can become a human person. A man cannot be a person without the fellowship, community, or society that made him. Un- socialised, man’s potencies are not activated, and he stays at a level close to a beast, bereft of speech and reason, let alone partaking of the higher arts and sciences.
 
Individualistic societies are decomposing social bodies in which kinship-ties are loosened and even cut, and which can be held together only by an all-pervasive and socially-alien bureau-technocratic power — the “coldest of all cold monsters”. In defence of these societies, and, by extension, willing or not, of this bureau-technocratic power, liberals, who sometimes call themselves libertarians, claim the greater freedom of these societies, where the largely unexamined and fuzzily-held concept “freedom” is a multivariate reference, unspecified of what, for what, and to what. In individualistic societies there is more freedom in the direction of baser and thrilling appetites, non-specific to mankind, hence the appeal of this freedom to the mass of baser men; and it is these appetites which dissolve kinship and personhood, bringing even greater demands for individualism, which brings greater freedom in the direction of baser and thrilling appetites, and so on, in downward spiral. In individual- istic societies freedom in personhood is much lowered, whilst freedom in beasthood is heightened; and the bonds of kinship are cut whereby men would be men.
 
Liberals and libertarians, being the fiercest enemies of the freedom of personhood, and the strongest friends of the freedom of beasthood, that is to say, of the liberal haze-ideal of the “individual” whatever that individual may be, must be defeated if the freedom of the person as person is to be upheld. Liberalism, or rather its essential individualism, has a gut-feeling and a canny nose for the breaking-up of everything, even of the person, and it knows nothing of creation. The ideal of individualism can only belittle persons and bring to the fore a bulk of fittingly-blank individuals of the mass — fittingly blank for bearing the stamp of the bureau-technocratic regime.
 
                      libertegalfrat

The conformity that is forged today through the atomized individualism that strips men of their personhood has little to do with the collective identity for which men have always yearned. The conformity today is stopgap and takeover of this natural yearning. The atomised individual is stripped bare of his humanity —which has hitherto been actualised in society —and left adrift with his “freely-formed” and “chosen” opinions, which are in truth nothing of the kind. He cannot think for himself, only of himself, as he is suffering a loss. He rebels against conformity in conformity with everyone else.                         

As the subversive mind is essentially individualistic and isolationistic, so is it essentially collectivistic and identitarian: on the view inherent in it, the curse of division and of being ‘set against one another’ cannot be surmounted except by a ‘fusion into one’; an actual identification of consciousness, of qualities and of interest. In fact, individualism (tending towards egalitarianism) prefigures collectivism from the outset, and again, collectivism is only individualism raised to the high power of an absolute monism centered in ‘all and every one’. [2]

Individualism foreshadows mass-collectivism and the herd of ersatz ‘individuals’. With authorities and societies broken down, nothing stands between pressing individual units of alienated humanity, hitherto existing as persons, into mass, each homogenised unit shaped to fit and imprinted with a set of political ideas and economic desires.
 
The pluralism which accompanies individualism is a social dysfunction built on subject- ivistic-irrationalistic ethics. It denies that mankind has a nature and thereby a natural end to be fulfilled. Only by that denial does it make sense to say that everyone has a right to pursue any goals and practice any values which he pleases so long as he does not seek to foist them upon others. And how is that disorder to be managed? Why, by the totalitarian bureau-technocratic state of liberaldom! But of course it isn’t true that under liberaldom one can believe whatever one likes, nor especially what’s ratio- nal to believe. In liberaldom one can believe anything so long as it makes no odds against liberaldom; one’s unliberal beliefs, if they can still bear the name, are to be mild quirks of self, slight hues in otherwise grey smears of bureaucratic massification.
                     
The task of liberalism from its beginning, namely, the search for neutral ground whereon the life of all mankind can rest, and whereupon everyone can seek his own ends, can find its end only in a true neutrality and indifference, and that is nowhere to be found in man except in his unpersonhood. Wherefore it is that liberalism’s struggle to settle the life of mankind can find its end only in the death of personhood; and it is for this reason that the struggle against liberalism is the final and most profound one. Liberalism is the greatest evil that mankind has yet faced, and there is almost no-one to withstand it. That lack of withstanding, owed to liberalism’s having swayed almost everyone to its side, is partly why it is the greatest evil.

1] Aristotle, Politica, Bk.I: 1253a:28-9, tr. B. Jowett, in The Works of Aristotle, Vol.X (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921).
[2] A. Kolnai, “Privilege and Liberty” (1949), in Privilege & Liberty & Other Essays in Political Philosophy, ed.D.J.Mahoney(Lanham, Maryland:Lexington Books,‘99),p.21-2.

“The modern world demands that we approve of what it should not even dare to ask us to tolerate.” - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

Liberal Mockery of Rights and Duties. — The odd thing about liberals is that they believe they are being magnanimous and not absurd or malevolent in seeking to impose on everyone the non-existent duty of defending the non-existent right to falsehood, stupidity, vice, or whatever other depravities they cannot be bothered to oppose. [1] From their featherbrained credal belief that everyone has the right to believe whatever he wishes, it follows that everyone has the right to false and vicious beliefs, from which it follows in turn that everyone has the corresponding duty of defending the right of their maintenance and growth. Naturally there is no such duty and therefore no right to impose it. Given that every man has the duty and the right to pursue and uphold the true, the good, and the beautiful, it follows that he cannot also have the duty and the right to the contrary. [2] Where morality by reason imposes a duty, liberalism by whim imposes a mockery of it. In seeking to impose the mock-duty of defending the mock-right to the false, the bad, and the ugly, such that they flourish thereunder, liberalism shows itself to be the enemy of the true, the good, and the beautiful, that is to say, of knowledge, culture, society, personhood, and mankind itself, and it is consequently the duty of every man to oppose it.

[1] An example: Rod Liddle, “We must defend the right to be stupid, vile and obnoxious”, The Sunday Times, 17th January 2010. Tim Worstall calls Mr Liddle’s screed “impeccably liberal”, and he is right to do so: it is stupid and smug and seeks to spread its own miscreancy as widely as possible. (Tim Worstall, “One for the anti-Liddle crowd”, Tim Worstall (weblog), 17th January 2010.)

[2] For more depth and discussion, see: David S. Oderberg, “Is There a Right to be Wrong?”, Philosophy, 75 (2000), pp.517-537.10

From the psychological-engineering point of view, the liberal’s idea of tolerance is a remarkable one. It encourages him to feel magnanimity in upholding his own beliefs (however absurd or vile in reality) whilst damning all others, with little or no care for the truth or reasonableness thereof, which is to say, it encourages him to feel magnanimity in bigotry. Liberal bigotry is that wonderful state of mind in which one is compelled to call a bigot anyone who stands at odds with it, which is to say, it is bigotry made sublime. Or: the typical liberal is so great a bigot that he feels magnanimous as such.
 
There is, to be sure, much trouble with the use of the word “bigot” and its cognates: it has always been a word ripe for abuse, it is often used question-beggingly, and so the word has long been a favourite insult cast by bigots; and now, since it has been redefined in many minds to mean someone who does not hold liberal beliefs, the word has become even more fraught with communicative difficulties.



Comments:


1

Posted by 293 and counting.. on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:42 | #

This article has 293 comments (so far) at Morgoth’s

http://nwioqeqkdf.blogspot.com/2015/03/individualisms-wake-abyss-by-dr-graham.html#disqus_thread


2

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 21:51 | #

I thought I was being kind in inviting James to a proposed interview with Kevin MacDonald.

James said:

Lister’s (and your)

Stop there.

Jim, I hate to say this, but this is not the first time that you have been dishonest in representing where I am coming from.

You say, “And your” as if I have a firm commitment to fixed algorithms of non-individualism, like some mis-entered computer program which might go on imperviously.

In fact, Jim, you have done it a few times.

stance that “individualism” is best thought of as a pathology

As I said, what, a million times? I believe in paradigmatic conservatism - conservative borders and relatively free individualism within.

Have your state and all the individualism that you want. You are free to your experiment - see? show us how well that works.

It is too simple and too self serving of you to say….

caused by “modernity” or “liberalism” is a very blunt instrument

Did I ever say Jews had nothing to do with it?

You are the one being blunt, Jim.

“with which to attack the problem and indeed is anti-intellectual.”

Nonsense. I proposed nothing so simple. In Leftism as a Code Word, for example, I argue that Jewish antagonism is a key pole of consideration; along with our susceptibilities. I did not discuss positive attributes of individualism there because it was not a part of that discussion. Although I have, and will again (taking Harre’s position that there is both a corporeal and a narrative self).

“Lister is an intellectual thug and I don’t think it advisable to expose KMac to his thuggery.”

So you will protect him against GW, me and in fact, you (as the proposed lead interlocutor), because we were going to do something that he could not handle?

Nor do I think that Lister would be a thug to KM, but you know, Jim, the main idea of inviting you was to ensure KM the feeling of protection against any “thuggery” (and feeling would have been all it was, because no thuggery was forthcoming; of course, no protection was necessary except in your egotistical imagination).

Not only do I like him and his scholarship; he and his work were the reason that I came into the open in the struggle.

I am not obligated and would not be correct to adhere to the falsity of the Nazi beliefs of some people who tarry with him.

Hadding accused my mother of indoctrinating me against Germans.

Who is the thug?

Still, not an issue that I wished to broach.

—Jim

Sorry that I asked you.

Jim, sorry to say, but this is a dishonest assessment - at least of my position. You have done that too much. It stinks.


3

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 23:03 | #

It is entirely accurate to state that you and Lister see “individualism” as a pathology caused by “modernity” and “liberalism”.

No it isn’t (for me) because I believe we have more possibilities than to be caused.

The fact that you understand the Jewish contribution to this pathological “individualism” via “modernity” and “liberalism” is a given, is accurate and I never meant to imply that you ignored that contribution.

A close reading of your recent post of Lister’s “critique” of individualism shows it to be utterly without evolutionary referent.

Well, I posted it with the comment section there, in ready acknowledgement that it may not be a perfect statement.

There is absolutely no recognition that a predisposition toward individualism may be part of the biological inheritance—the DNA of Euroman—let alone that it may be a valuable part of that inheritance, however subjected to abuse and distortion by inimical forces.

Per has been emphasizing that, and I have not only congratulated him for that emphasis on northern evolution, but have encouraged him to make more contributions discussing this emphasis.

Which totally belies this:

This refusal to address scholarship in the area of individualism—scholarship that is now decades old—sets back the intellectual discourse by decades.  That is what makes it anti-intellectual.

As I said in my last sentence. But maybe you just see what you want to see.

It is a big problem with the habit of computer people. I have been through this. If you set something down, even as a sketch to think about, it becomes a permanent vacuum packed record of your thought to be condemned and pummeled in a test of its errant pathway, a fixed pathway, as opposed to something human and subject to joint correction.

That is thuggery and that is a projection.

Worse, I have already paid too high a price giving computer people the benefit of the doubt only to have them imperviously apply theoria to praxis.

Please point to a passage—even one passage—in the Lister critique that shows my close reading to be in error.

I put it up for consideration, not having scoured the corollary of its every word.

As I said, there was the comment section, there for critique. In my opinion, it is a good corrective opinion of America’s over emphasis on abstract individualism.

Eusociality and loss of individualism is a valid concern but not in the near term and especially not with our being as conscious as we are of the value of individualism - even if only recognized as an emphasis of some nations as an option against nations which would prefer to treat people as humans and honestly in relation to one another, instead of shield maidens beckoning to some 88 red ice god in the sky..


4

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 28 Mar 2015 07:39 | #

Taking private communications public in the way you have is going to do little to earn you the trust of people you might want to invite to interviews at MR.

Why are you behaving so self-destructively?

How am I going to “earn the trust of people” if you go around telling people not to trust us?

I have made no such promise nor had I intended to do any such thing.

Forgive me then for perceiving you as being a little over-protective of MacDonald.  Which you are, in fact. It is not as if there is no evidence that some people are actively trying to minimize our reach. Ted Sallis explicitly (and wrongly) stated that he would discourage Salter from talking with us.

But do you really think that Graham was going to talk to KM in the irreverent way that he spoke with you? I don’t.

I thought an interview between you and KM would be good, appropriate, and of interest to many (myself included). And if you think the struggle can use a little tweaking, perhaps your talk would help.

You have as much as said that you would actively discourage MacDonald from talking to us.

No I have said that I would not want to be a party to subjecting him to abuse.

You are wrongly assuming that he would be subject to abuse.

First of all, I wouldn’t allow for it, but secondly, I don’t believe Graham would talk to him the way that he did with you.

  I found that enormously unfair, especially when I proposed YOU to be the interviewer.

  Just WHO, then, was supposed to conduct the interview in an untrustworthy way?

Like I said, the prominent place you gave Lister’s anti-individual polemics—combined with Lister’s reappearance recently—leads me to believe that KMac would risk public humiliation at the hands of Lister, with your and GW’s tacit approval, of the kind that drove me away from MR.

Absolutely not true.

I will repeat:

You are wrongly assuming that he would be subject to abuse.

First of all, I wouldn’t allow for it, but secondly, I don’t believe Graham would talk to him the way that he did with you.

If you get KMac to do an interivew, far be it from me to go behind your back and warn him of the danger.

However, your public posting of my thoughts on the matter has made that a moot point, hasn’t it?

Jim, while previously misrepresenting what I have been saying as against empiricism, you said that the idea of participating here caused you “revulsion”. I thought that I disabused you of your misunderstanding.

Another time you went on to say that GW and I were “egregious” for treating you as if you were antagonistic. The reverse, treating us as if we are against European interests and gratuitously antagonistic to you is what is egregious - some sort of errant projection.

Let me come back to what you said here, because you left off the response that I’d given to it:

Like I said, the prominent place you gave Lister’s anti-individual polemics—combined with Lister’s reappearance recently—leads me to believe that KMac would risk public humiliation at the hands of Lister, with your and GW’s tacit approval, of the kind that drove me away from MR.

You, yourself have said that I should encourage Graham to come back to MR because you have gigs elsewhere.

That was part of the reason for my entering his comments as a post.

Not that I minded..Bye the way, Morgoth liked it, re-posted it, and got over 400 comments along with it.

You said its Lister or Bowery at MR

He came back and then so did you..

What gives? I should encourage him to be here and then here you are as well.

At any rate, I was/am happy to see him back.

I was happy to see you back. It seemed like an interview with KM was in the air. Still could be as far as my wishes go..

I honestly thought/think you’d be an excellent interviewer for MacDonald.

It is absurd to assume that GW and I would approve of a public flogging of MacDonald. A lot of good that would do us, or anybody.

It is mistaken to believe that Graham would flog him as he did to you and that we would just allow him to do that to MacDonald.

And especially with you there as added, but really unnecessary, insurance of that.

However, your public posting of my thoughts on the matter has made that a moot point, hasn’t it?

And, as I have said, if you are putting across the idea that I am a liability to trust - it really has to do with my stance against Hitler people who also like KM (to them, I am unreliable, but it is they who are the traitors); and for not necessarily having made my case that I was not antagonistic to KM where I attempted to show how Jews had distorted certain otherwise proper language games - I needed to bring my position into the open so that my position toward him can be defended. You are saying that I want to tacitly approve flogging him and that is absolutely untrue to what I intend and what I would have happen. I know that my position toward him is ethical and I value his work very much.

At one time, he may have mis-perceived certain of my critiques as attacks on him and his work, but if he hasn’t come to see that is not true yet (he may have) that could be clarified pretty easily.

It was also a good occasion for you to be the one to talk to him because I have, of necessity (from my point of view) been hard on Duke and others that circulate with MacDonald while you and GW don’t carry that weight. You also share KM’s scientific predilections and his American perspective. Thus, I thought it was appropriate that you interview him, that it would be fascinating and important.

The idea that the purpose was to subject him to flogging and humiliation is totally wrong.

I was looking forward to it as a teen fan might look forward to a great group in concert.


5

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 28 Mar 2015 10:16 | #

stance that “individualism” is best thought of as a pathology


I have never said anything like individualism is a pathology.

I have argued that we have susceptibilities. And rule structures which exaggerate the importance or the truth of individualism (which take no account of evolutionary and developmental positions in protracted systems, for example), can leave our systemic homeostasis susceptible.

I then invariably argue that Jews, in particular, and especially, have ways to take advantage of this, but so do other races and quite importantly, our own disingenuous traitors.

As I said scores of times, I believe in paradigmatic conservatism - conservative borders and relatively free individualism within.

Have your state and all the individualism that you want. You are free to your experiment - see? show us how well that works.

It would be too simple and too blunt an investigative instrument to say…

caused by “modernity” or “liberalism” is a very blunt instrument

IF that was all and characteristic of what I am saying.

But it wasn’t and isn’t

Did I ever say Jews had nothing to do with it?

You are the one being blunt, Jim.

“with which to attack the problem and indeed is anti-intellectual.”

Nonsense. I proposed nothing so simple. In “Leftism as a Code Word”, for example, I argue that Jewish antagonism is a key pole of consideration; along with our susceptibilities. I did not discuss positive attributes of individualism there because it was not a part of that discussion. Although I have, and will again (taking Harre’s position that there is both a corporeal and a narrative self).

I will discuss positive aspects of individualism along with anti-social and systemic disintegration, when I pick up the issue of the dark side (and the positive side) of self actualization again, refining it through what I have learned since initial permutations of those essays.

And again, that corresponds with a way to frame and negotiate gender relations in a good way all around.


6

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 28 Mar 2015 11:55 | #

Look I don’t have the time nor inclinations to point out the half-baked thinking of MRs commentators or interviewed guests (if I think them to be in error). Kevin McDonald can defend himself can he not? After all if his ideas are completely robust how can he be subject to a ‘humiliation’? All ideas, political, philosophical and scientific, have to be stress tested in order to investigate their validity. Why anyone is so much of a ‘special snowflake’ that they get a priori an exemption from this process is beyond me.

Now no-one that’s sane thinks the individual per se can or should be ‘abolished’ but people have very odd and damaging ideas about what ‘the individual’ is and what it represents - such that over the longer term the ideology of ‘individualism’ has extremely deleterious effects as its model of reality is not in alignment with the true social ontology. Human beings, including Europeans evolved in small, highly social/group orientated bands. It’s really not rocket science to understand that variation in fitness is partitioned into a group element and an individual element (whilst obviously selecting for or against specific alleles and associated phenotypic traits). In fact such an observation mathematically and logically flows from basic population genetics, which Hamilton when on to describe as ‘inclusive fitness’ and the importance of relatedness to the evolution of behaviour and life history traits (like female biased sex-ratios in the Hymenoptera etc). Price simplified inclusive fitness theory with his work. And it’s developed since. Steven Frank’s book on social evolution is still the best starting point for anyone seriously interested in the topic.

Returning to the politics and philosophy parts of the discussion Aristotle is my favourite thinker in these areas. First of all he would suggest that a proper balance between the ‘parts’ and the ‘whole’ (individuals and the group) is necessary for both to fully flourish. There is a mutual interdependence and reciprocity between the two levels of social reality. Secondly Aristotle would suggest that their may be many ways to live (like being a Lockean liberal perhaps) but many ways to live are ultimately suboptimal with the goal of full and genuine human flourishing. And this true at both the individual level and the group level. And yes the interests of a given individual and a given group can be conflict (again this flows from very basic evolutionary biology and the gane-theoretic issue of ‘free-riders’). Thus there must be mechanisms for maintaining the health of both individuals and the collective. It starts by the recognition of the fact that the individual is social and utterly dependent upon the collective in numerous ways that liberal ‘individualistic’ ideology willfully ignores.

Ultimately I reject liberalism as a set of false ideas about the human world - it has the ontology of humans both as individuals and as communities wrong. Bad ideas eventually result in bad consequences and one hopes vice versa. Thus I am broadly an Aristotelian communitarian. And I think that must incorporate the realities of human nature (groupishness) and our bio-cultural differential status regarding different groups of human beings. Note it’s a political axis of differences (bio-cultural) that ultimately ends up in the Schmittian friend-enemy distinction, not some bullshit about equality vs inequalities except that I very naturally value my own well being and life more highly than a random stranger’s and I also value the life of my extended community both today and tommorow (the idea of an intergenerational ‘moral economy’).

Being a non-liberal I am against cheap all-encompassing forms of universalism or the moral plateau as philosophers call it. Rather I believe in a nested hierarchy of moral responsibility. I have much more moral duties to my own children than my next door neighbour’s kids, let alone some family in China (that of course does not imply I, by default, hate people in China or wish them harm just that I feel I have minimal moral responsibilities towards them). But I do have some properly warranted moral responsibilities to my neighbourhood and my community. Moral responsibility varies with proximity (properly understood).

Roger Scruton writes about a hierarchy of moral responsibility often. Here he speaks about in the context of the absurd (and liberal) idea of ‘animal rights’ - https://philosophynow.org/issues/27/Roger_Scruton

OK I have previously attempted on many occasions to write abour and explain my thoughts on topics such as societal homogeneity and social capital etc. I will not endlessly repeat myself.

As for the idiotic paranoid reaction by some to my reappearance it was simply a function of me taking a quick look at MR in a quite moment and seeing folks speculation about my death! And I posted some chucks from an essay I had been reading. I am starting to get to grips with using a tablet and MR as a site isn’t the easiest to use and so out of laziness I didn’t put the comments in quotation marks. Only when someone posted them to the front page as my own did I feel duty bound to privately point out that fact. But they are still good points about 90% of I agree with.

No coordination with Danny or GW etc. Seeing a conspiracy at every turn is how Jews think - they project onto others their own deeply ingrained mindset. It’s both pathetic and undignified to follow that way of thinking quite so slavishly.

Speaking of slaves can anyone seriously doubt the USA is a vassal state of Israel? The best superpower money can buy? And yet Americans still persist in their hurbris they are the model Europeans ‘must’ follow? Look if KM or indeed anyone else is pushing that as some sort of ‘idea’ they can go fuck themselves. Savvy?

If Mr Bowery wishes to contribute to MR go for it. Really who the fucks cares either way?


7

Posted by Dugin contra liberalism on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:30 | #

Dugin discusses his strategies and concepts for combating world liberal hegemony.

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/03/RIR-150327.php

Alexander Dugin - anti-liberal “tradtionalism” without race or “racism” ????

He does make a very good point about gender identity, that homo advocacy is not an arbitrary advocacy, as it is a point of attack on the last group attachment (gender) which might oppose liberal-individual “self creation.”

...and he started off showing some hope of understanding what White post modernity means, but then reverted to his prior acceptance of the Jewish “da da” definition of “post modernity”

A darling, clever, bullshit artist - anti-liberal “tradtionalism” without race or “racism”??? - while having some good and extensive feral roots to his thinking; has nevertheless become, I suspect, a hope primarily among those who long for something like a return of “Molotov-Ribbentrop” to oppose England and the USA.


8

Posted by Be there to love me on Mon, 18 May 2015 07:33 | #

Documentary about Townes Van Zandt

http://ffilms.org/be-here-to-love-me-a-film-about-townes-van-zandt-2004/


9

Posted by melvin polatnick on Thu, 21 May 2015 00:37 | #

Beautiful prostitutes get paid well by their wealthy customers, but often they become pregnant. Most are wives whose husbands raise the children while their mothers continue to work. It is not surprising that due to their wealthy clients the children inherited genes that got them to be shrewd and smart.
“Jewesses were prominent in the practice of prostitution. Thus, of 5127 licensed prostitutes in 1889, 1122 or 22 per cent were Jewish. Prostitution was very prevalent in the impoverished Habsburg province of Galicia. According to Rabbi Rosenak of the German Union of Rabbis, in 1902”
Owing to widespread poverty in the Jewish community many Jewish wives resorted to prostitution in order to live. The upside is that their children often came out with blond hair, blue eyes, and were smart and shrewd.
That is the reason why many Jews today are millionaires.
By MELVIN POLATNICK
May 2015


10

Posted by Prostitutes of the Chosen / not their Choice on Thu, 21 May 2015 04:35 | #

I guess their SHREWD trafficking in the WHITE SEX SLAVE TRADE of Ukrainian girls accounts a great deal for their meddling there. These filthy pig Jewish men in Israel, with its legal practice of prostitution, get poor and beautiful Ukrainian girls pregnant. With Ukrainian mothers, the bastard children cannot have Israeli citizenship. So, where do they go? Of course, they take political power in Ukraine and colonize its vast and fertile land for their pig selves, buying off the true native nationalists with the monies that they SHREWDLY stole from the rest of the world in its true, long evolved and earned productivity.

Including the stolen capital and gene hijacking of Europe that the Jewish virus has SHREWDLY perpetrated.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-myth-of-consensual-prostitution/

The average age of entrance into prostitution in Israel is 14. While most people would consider child prostitution non-consensual, adults that have been trapped in the sex trade since childhood are often overlooked. Adults in the sex trade are also made vulnerable by pimps, poverty, drug addiction, and ongoing sexual abuse – an Israeli social worker estimates that upwards of 95% of the prostitutes with whom she works were sexually assaulted as children by men who should have been looking after them.

When looking at prostitution in Israel, the first article that I came across was by Miriam Herschlag, who edits The Times of Israel’s Ops & Blogs section. It was a piece she’d written complaining about prostitution being legal in Israel, its practice that ought to be criminalized. The article doesn’t show-up in Google search now, but prostitution has been legal in “the holy land.”

Indeed it has a long history among the chosen, to where it is a part of their evolutionary fabric.

Some prostitution/prostitutes were even considered “sacred” in the temple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution

 

 


11

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:30 | #

The culture of MR may find it gratifying that this response I made to PRINCIPLE INTEREST [PODCAST] at Kevin MacDonald’s blog has been deleted (or, at least no longer appears when I look):

James Bowery
February 16, 2016 - 11:38 pm | Permalink

Understanding what our interests are starts with understanding what distinguishes us — understanding our essential nature. This idea that we are just another group with group interests as legitimate as any other and we are therefore just as entitled to behave as a group with interests is, itself, a principle and a flawed one at that. No, we, as a group, are morally superior to other groups precisely because of the value we place on the individual — and that moral superiority is bred into our genes by our ancient, pre-civil, culture that turned away from the long slide into eusociality starting with a common ancestor between chimps and humans. No other group — no other “ethny” — had such a culture, in the original sense of the word which is to cultivate a breed of organism: eugenics. The failure to understand that Man does have the potential to become The Moral Animal and thereby realize an estate superior to other sexual species, is the failure of all cultures that select for group integrity over individual integrity.

Our essence is an evolutionary direction toward realizing Man’s potential. This individuality will _always_ be exploited by ethnies that cultivate the opposite direction so long as we “tolerate” their presence in our societies as though their presence among us — even if “peaceful” — were anything but the continuation of war by other means. Our weakness is not that we are individualistic nor even that we are unaware we are at war — but, most fundamentally, because we have forgotten that to be at peace means the eugenics of upholding individual integrity over group integrity. The longer we permit the state of war — including politics — to continue, the more dysgenic degradation we will suffer.

So, yes, an urgency exposed by the Trump campaign expresses as warrior-like enthusiasm. This is a bringing to consciousness that we are in a state of war. What it fails to do, however, is declare that war in terms that define the state of peace, hence when we can continue to cultivate individual integrity.


12

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:17 | #

Well, Jim, regarding the “culture” here, for my part of it anyway, perhaps I am expressing atavistic merging of my u5b1e1 haplogroup.

The Human Genome Project says that I am entirely European (no African, no Jewish or East Asian), 36 percent Northern European, 43 percent Mediterranean (and the rest is stuff all Europeans have from around 10 - 20%, i.e., South West Asian: Germans, English and Finnish have 17%, I have 20%, i.e. quite nearly the same).

Anyway, I believe that the individualism, intelligence and creativity that you value in Europeans - and which I value too, except where it would be used against us and to betray us - is born in the first place and evolved of sublimation for the compelled necessity think beyond asserting gratification in moments and episodes and into cyclical patterns.

If I am expressing the atavistic form of the oldest group to come to Europe and then the first to mutate in the far north moving upward after the glaciers receded, then I would still perhaps have some intuitive calibrative barometer which would respect the natural grounds of our individuality as something precious and precarious as I had not taken it so far as to be armored in and laden by my individually differentiated fruits, attending instead as a bare control variable to bring to bear vigilance and tribal gauge of outgroups who might seek not only to pick such fruits, but to consume us entirely.

Ok, you may say that my hypothesis of sublimation is not enough to distinguish us as Europeans, since Orientals have that too - in fact have apparently taken it farther to where they are “more intelligent on average but less creative and more herd-like.”

Perhaps that is true but I hypothesize that in the state of war that we are in, they are the best allies as they can be reasoned with that they too are better off with our survival and in alliance against Middle Easterners and Africans. I believe that their sublimation and intelligence will allow them to work with accountability to the DNA Nations so that our qualities (including individuality) and numbers are assured - that capacity for easy and genetic accountability and place, without fiery contesting, is the state of peace.

My respect for an intellectual processing capacity that exceeds my own is in significant part due to the fact that they can empathize in turn with our own sublimation and need to protect it and its bounds. In my primitive form, you mistake me for a creature evolved if not for liberal indifference then for mere tribal collectivism, rather than as I am, naturally concerned to protect our quantities and qualities (that’s why I don’t play a numbers game to shrug-off mudsharks), including the individualism of our kinds, even if I don’t measure up to the heights of individual differentiation and do not want to be crushed because I may not - but believe honestly, that on the contrary, I am performing a valuable service in my vigil - which guards against outside infiltration and contamination and protects our people as they are evolved - sublimated as the grounds for our intelligence, long term planning, creativity and individuality, particularly as that individuality stops short of full sublimation and asserts significant creative difference from destructive runaway patterns and into innovations enjoyable and necessary to the individual’s survival which can be exchanged to benefit the individual’s wider genetic kin - the ground from which he/she sprang and owes some debt of gratitude.

At any rate, I don’t have a problem with individualism, but wish rather that my fellow Nordics would show a bit more respect for the atavistic necessity to retrace where it was that we took a wrong turn, or were given a bum steer, such that they fail to feedback from individualism to border control within the calibration of social group maintenance - where is my vigil. It is a thankless job particularly given the egos of the individualist right-wingers who permeate and misfit within the struggle for the social systemic defense of European people and our distinct kinds (hopefully cooperating with each other).


General U5 map (parent group of u5b)



Heat map of U5b, parent group of my u5b1e1 - which is not Saami

u5b1e1 is a distinctly European mutation:

It is found in central Europe and Scandinavia and north-west Russia.


13

Posted by milootwo on Tue, 31 May 2016 08:48 | #

i just know it from this article, awesome. I have learn this submit and if I may I desire to counsel you few fascinating things or tips.
Maybe you could write subsequent articles referring to this article.
I desire to learn more things about it!



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: Trout Mask Replica
Previous entry: The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 1

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

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

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:36. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:50. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:00. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:02. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:46. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:42. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:14. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 05:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:42. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:41. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:21. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:50. (View)

affection-tone