|
|
|
Morgoth on Milton, and my reservation After the closing of comments at Klondrive, The Crows Nest is the second site to operate as heir to Morgoth’s Review, allowing the commentariat to continue its labours. Its owner Gentleman Jim posted a fine podcaste from Morgoth, which I now embed here; with some comments below which give my reaction: The initial comment is from a decent poster Tsnamm:
My first reply:
And my follow-up
In other words, our liberation from liberal modernity is also a liberation from Christianity’s Judaic content. What there is in Christianity that is not Judaic is another matter, and one probably best explored by nationalists with religious sentiments. Comments:2
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 03:51 | # Thank you for this , GW . I have watched numerous Morgoth videos and usually find little with which to disagree , although his laid - back delivery lacks the punch one might be entitled to expect , given the passionate nature of our love for “the way things were. “ However , any Christian who decides to investigate the dubious origins of his fiction - based, Miltonian beliefs might do well to look, pre - Milton, to the pure Communism of the early Christian sects like the Ebionites or the Carpocratians. More Hocus Pocus than Focus.
3
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:58 | # “In other words, our liberation from liberal modernity is also a liberation from Christianity’s Judaic content.” GW, I never regarded myself as being trapped by Christianity or it’s Judaic content. Not in the least bit. Whether we like to admit it or not we all subscribe to a belief system; we’re all people of faith—theists and atheists alike. Obviously I’m not an expert in the field of comparative religion, but after my limited research on the subject it led me to latch on to the meta narrative offered by the Jew Book. I find it to be the most compelling. That narrative being the creation, fall, redemption and restoration doctrines. It just makes the most sense to me. Not to mention the end-time prophecies that are eerily taking shape in real time. What makes the least sense is atheistic materialism. An exercise using infinite regress vis-a-vis the origin of the universe / the big bang theory corrected my brief belief in atheism. It all boiled down to the question of first cause. The logical answer to the question of first cause is a conscious intelligent force far greater than man caused it—namely, God. Again my choosing the Jew Book as a main source of truth and revelation is not due to obedience or coercion; it was-is arrived at from a rational choice.
4
Posted by Manc on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 17:38 | # 1 So, when was Morgoth ordained ? 2 Be grateful you are not French… 3 @2 Yes, but there is no need to be so obscure. they could simply read the Sermon on the Mount. 4 @3
Okay, I will not mention them, although they are nothing new. Just more millennial woes.
Blind faith (no, not that Blind Faith ) is what they want Thorn, not rational thought, which, according to Genesis (again, not the band) was the fruity gift in the Garden of Eden. Strange that rational thought should lead you to Christianity but then, the Dark Lord always did have a very dark sense of humour.
5
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 18:09 | # Thorn, faith in deity is a specific evolutionary product involving a complex and all-engrossing inter-action of the higher emotions, including morality, conscience, love, and humility. It is possible that some emotions (there are 28, it is claimed) evolved secondary to it. Reverence is a potential case in point. Faith is not a process in the thinking function of the brain. It is not a thought-out choice, any more than a man can think himself into any other emotional action. The emotions are an older cognitive structure than intellect. About a third of Europeans either do not have the package of genes for faith transmitted at conception, or those genes are not expressed during foetal/child development. Such people cannot “discover their faith”. They cannot feel what the faithful feel. They can mimic religious worship, and have done so for whole lifetimes in the European past in order to fit in. They know belief in facts and theories and so forth, but belief is not an exclusively or even particularly emotional thing. The two should not be conflated. Faith’s fitness gain is not easy to ascertain. Salter associated it with social trust which would bring in common cause, comity generally. It is also associated with reproduction gain. In our time First Cause is a question for particle physics and quantum mechanics. Speaking personally, as one otherwise must, I don’t reason back beyond that integration which gives living matter; because it would be fatuous and dishonest for me to attempt to do so. Christianity’s function as a means of getting the gentile to bring himself under the Judaic deity and create the conditions requisite to the End Times shows through in the absence in it of an esoteric discipline. Islam has Sufism, of which the highest form is that of the Naqshbandi. Hinduism and Buddhism have many and varied ancient esoteric traditions. But Christianity is agenda-heavy and faith-heavy, and simply does not teach such refined and, for 95% of believers, obscure technicalities. 6
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 20:19 | # “In our time First Cause is a question for particle physics and quantum mechanics.” GW, I think the search for the first cause will prove to be an unending quest. The answer may never be found via the scientific method. I base that on the fact man’s intellectual capacity is finite. Finite minds trying to deconstruct and understand an infinite universe is a worthy endeavor but I won’t bet money an adequate answer will ever be found. One discovery will lead to many more questions; and on and on it goes…. At any rate, at the end of the day are not atheist scientists amongst the most faithful? Do they not have faith that science will someday fill the knowledge gap between what they’ve already discovered and what they don’t know about what caused the First Cause? (That last sentence was a bit of a mouthful! lol) “Speaking personally, as one otherwise must, I don’t reason back beyond the integration of living matter; because it would be fatuous and dishonest for me to attempt to do so.” Why would it be fatuous and dishonest? May I suggest you keep delving into the question of who or what created this clusterfuck we find ourselves living in? Maybe, just maybe, after a while you might begin to accept the notion that some sort of a supernatural being, a Devine Creator, an entity beyond our capabilities of comprehending is responsible? That wouldn’t be such a bad place to perch yourself on, would it? As far as the faith genes go, maybe you are correct; maybe a significant portion of the pop doesn’t posses them. Who knows? Or maybe we all posses them; however, and depending on the individual and his or her circumstances, they’re expressed in much different ways I.e. In some individuals they’re expressed as that of typical religious folk whilst in others they’re expressed in the form of atheism, etc….. Two things are for sure: no two people think exactly the same and we’re all ppl of faith. I see no way of getting around that. I do think people must be made to understand the crucial difference between faith and science; they need to understand why those two terms must be kept separated. For example: The Theory of Evolution is based on science. (A theory I believe is correct, BTW). Belief that God set the evolutionary process in motion is based on faith.
7
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 20:22 | # Blind faith (no, not that Blind Faith ) is what they want Thorn, There is no blind faith happening with me, Manc. That I can assure you of. 8
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 17 Nov 2021 04:14 | # The Sermon , sorry , Drivel on the Mount encouraged its bird - brained auditors to ” take no thought for the morrow ” and emulate the intellectual acuity of rocks. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Nov 2021 10:51 | # Thorn,
That is belief, not faith. These are very different. Belief applies to “known unknowns”, to quote the late Donald Rumsfeld. It has a rational basis and can happily be substituted with a term such as “best guess”. Faith is an immersive emotional acceptance of deity-as-fact. It has no rational basis, though faithists routinely attempt to bolster their feelings with (at least superficially) rational arguments. Karl Popper’s falsifiability test applies.
Close. I think there can be five states: a) Expressed genes for faith appropriately attached to a deity. b) Expressed genes for faith inappropriately attached to alternatives, often political and radical, and invariably because the religious system is falling out of use. c) Expressed genes for faith appropriately attached to the life-cause of the people; that being the whole point of faith and a superior attachment than that to a deity (ie, it’s direct). Evidence of the genetic origin of faith-feeling exists; and that existence immediately curtails the notion that deity creates faith in Man. Reproduction is the god of the world. d) Genes for faith transmitted but not expressed. So in familial lines the appearance of faith may be punctuated generationally, since although non-expressed genes cannot be selected they can still be transmitted in a package of other genes. e) No genes for faith transmitted. So, a & b can be mixed; as can a & c. But b and c cannot be mixed. Obviously, d and e stand alone. 10
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 17 Nov 2021 16:17 | # Very good job listing the different categories of where and how the faith genes are expressed, GW. I pretty much agree with that assessment. It makes sense. But is it possible to nudge you out from under the atheistic materialism column to, at least, get you to dip your toe in the deist column? 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Nov 2021 17:22 | # Sorry, Thorn, I have never known what it is to have faith in a god. I remember to this day being in church with my school aged nine or ten. We went there one early-morning each week instead of having assembly. On this occasion, we were all kneeling in the pews as required. The Lord’s Prayer was being said. I stole a sideways glance at those beside me. There they were, hands clenched together, eyes tight shut, saying the words, and I had no idea at all what they were doing that for. That’s a vivid memory. In case you think I am entirely rigid of mind ... I also remember walking home after school one day with my friends Thomas and Shilling (this was the end of the 1950s ... men were men). We were discussing going to war, which we fully expected to have to do . After all, our grandfathers and fathers had done exactly that. This was the age of the black and white WW2 film of British military derring-do. I asked a question: would you die for the Queen? Thomas quickly said yes. Shilling said yes. I said nothing until one of them asked “What about you? Then I realised that it is outrageous to be told one must expect to die for someone else. I said so, very indignantly. Now I am not so sure. 12
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 17 Nov 2021 17:27 | # Just to be clear, my reference to columns was not drawn from your five states outline. 13
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 17 Nov 2021 17:52 | # @11 Oksana Boyko had a very similar worldview as you until she experienced some sort of realization; I think she called it a ‘rapture of conscious’ or some such thing. At any rate, last weekend she interviewed Rupert Sheldrake, the author of ‘The Science Delusion’. Her opening statement was this:
https://www.rt.com/shows/worlds-apart-oksana-boyko/540198-rupert-sheldrake-future-scientific-method/ 14
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 19 Nov 2021 07:00 | # Religion : The final unclutched straw of the Scottish National Party. 15
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:50 | # “I asked a question: would you die for the Queen? Thomas quickly said yes. Shilling said yes. I said nothing until one of them asked “What about you? Then I realised that it is outrageous to be told one must expect to die for someone else. I said so, very indignantly. Now I am not so sure.” GW, Being asked would you die for the Queen is much different preposition than being told one must die for the Queen, no? The former is voluntary the latter is required. Back in the 1950s did not being asked to die for the Queen actually mean would you sacrifice your life fighting an enemy who’s threatening to destroy or conquer England, its ppl, its culture, its future well being? In that case the rational answer would be yes. Fast forward to 2021. The incentive to sacrifice your life and limb in order to protect, maintain even strengthen the current “woke” order is causing incentive to drastically diminish. For example: Why be loyal to a government/ruling-class/Monarchy who’ve blatantly chosen to favor immigrants’ rights over its own native English citizens? From the 1950s to the present day, the cost benefit analysis to the question of “Would you die for the Queen” has been completely reconfigured. So today the more relevant question is: Are you willing to sacrifice your life in the fight against our traitorous ruling-class? 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 19 Nov 2021 13:02 | # Back at the end of the 1950s, among my generation of thinking folk (mostly a bit older and wiser than 10, I confess), there was already a growing sense that the reaping of the deaths of generations of young men could not go on, and that young men also had the expectation that they might survive to become old men. It was a sense that what had been happening during the 20th century was something beyond the necessity to defend life and land. It had a mechanical horror to it, an inevitability that had to be challenged. It did not have to be that way. Of course, that is a more sophisticated description of it than I would have been capable of then. But the next four years of The Bomb and the coming again of war among the superpowers in south-east Asia only confirmed it and brought us to the hippie rebellion (which I was just too young, again, to really experience; being still only sixteen in the Summer of Love). Daniel was very good on that period, and helped me to understand that it was not “the left” that wanted peace but all of us. And that was our right. The left, of course, wanted conquest. Peace was just a means to that, as everything is. 18
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 19 Nov 2021 18:10 | # Yep, the antiwar movement comprised a wide assortment of people on the political spectrum - from left to right. Hippies were a counter-culture which grew out of the beatnik era, whilst yippies were hippies with a hard-left political agenda. The genuine hippie and yippie movement were very small in number. However it was-is the yippies who had, and are still having, the greatest impact on our present day culture. The vast majority of those regarded as late 60s and early 70s “hippies” were nothing more than youth perusing fun and pleasure via sex, drugs and rock & roll. If the guys wanted to date the cool chicks, long-hair, a stache or full beard plus a bag of weed were required. Any sort of politics or ideologies were only a tiny part of it - if at all. Then came ‘Saturday Night Live’ which displaced the hippie phase and ushered in the Disco era….. Then came Urban Cowboy and the country music craze…. But emerging from behind the scenes in the 80s, no longer tucked away in academia’s faculty lounges, the anti-white and gay agenda was steadily and increasingly gaining traction. 19
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Nov 2021 22:36 | # After having experienced it for years, I can’t help but be on guard for Guessedworker to misdirect and try to trivialize my efforts. Naturally, the Thorn committee are eager to compound the burial and obfuscation. Perhaps that’s why comments have been ongoing in my old Trout Mask Post - the old TOP and TOOP business strategy (trivialize/minimize the “product” of the competitor) to have people associate me with that idea only (and of course, not at its most articulate). Or perhaps I should be grateful that people enjoy the post… it does make one (of many) important points that I’ve made. Of course my discussion of hippies was never about peace in any case, but about Being/Dasein and MidtDasen (Being amidst one’s people) where there is no clear and immanent danger to one’s people; when conscription is only a matter of custom and habit, to where men are taken as expendable in unnecessary war. The intrinsic value of White males - Being/Dasein/MidtDasein - was a profound and unarticulated motive beneath the hippie manifestation; and it remains a central concern, unarticulated (pretty much except by me) to this day - i.e., to assert the intrinsic value of White men; a degree in right to life which is not merely expendable, rather to be respected and valued; only called into lethal service where there is a clear and immanent threat to his people. Very much in the manner of Thorn’s Jewish gods, he would obfuscate this profundity of the hippies underlying motive for White men, reducing it to “nothing more than pursuing fun, sex, drugs and rock n’ roll”, taking advantage of the fact that the hippies were in fact inarticulate of their fundamental motive (while Thorn would redirect authority back to his right wing Jewish Abrahamism, and the obfuscating Jewish program that has ever prevailed regarding the motives of that era). As I have noted many times, (((civil rights))) was not a hippie concern, “free love” ((())) was an affectation brought on by the likes of Herbert Marcuse, as that free for all could never be conducive to Being for men. Drugs were another matter; some were conducive to getting in touch with organic Being, others in kind or over use, were destructive. But again, the hippies were inarticulate, by definition almost, as Being is a matter of organic synthesis not analysis. Saturday Night Live was/is a Jewish show. Though it started off hippy-ish, it had nothing to do with the onset of disco; nevertheless more and more showed its Jewishness as it aired through the years, to where it was so obnoxious as to be unwatchable after the first few years. Coming back to GW’s TOP and TOOP business…
Again, the essential motive was not peace at any cost, but against conscription as a matter of custom and habit; and where the draft was invoked in Being toward death, as in the case of Vietnam, it unearthed a call for intrinsic valuation of White male life - Dasein/MidtDasein; not to be expended in war that represented no clear and immanent danger to his people. Count me out of association with the Jewish marketing program of a characterology of “the left”. If you were invoking my name in context and specifying the distinction that I make of an international, Marxist left (and anti-White Left), I’d raise no objection.
20
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 20 Nov 2021 05:42 | # Correction: Especially when attributing “intrinsic value” to White men, it is necessary to discuss, perhaps emphasize emergent qualities (along with the reconstructive Dasein/MidtDasein). Hat tip to GW for maintaining that vigil.
The intrinsic value of White males - Being/Dasein/MidtDasein - was a profound and unarticulated motive beneath the hippie manifestation; and it remains a central concern, unarticulated (pretty much except by me) to this day - i.e., to assert the intrinsic value of White men; a degree in right to life which is not merely expendable, rather to be respected and valued; only called into lethal service where there is a clear and immanent threat to his people. But especially when attributing “intrinsic value” to White men, it is necessary to discuss, perhaps emphasize emergent qualities (along with the reconstructive Dasein/MidtDasein). Hat tip to GW for maintaining the vigil on emergentism.
21
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 20 Nov 2021 12:48 | # Again, the number of genuine real-deal hippies was small. E.g., it’s safe to assume that only a small fraction of the those who attended Woodstock were genuine hippies. OTOH virtually all who attended embraced the antiwar movement. If you look at the big picture and put the genuine hippie movement in perspective, it amounted to a carnival freak show. It may have been interesting ... even fascinating ... but the hippie era borders on being historically insignificant. Not much more than a footnote or two. Yippies, OTOH, adhered to radical leftist ideologies thus pushed a hard left agenda. Much of their ideology was/is base on radical feminism; thus, at the heart of their ideology was anti-whiteness and the white-male was/is the center of their target. Of course it almost goes without saying most leaders of the yippie movement were members of the “tribe”. Namely: Abbey Hoffmann, Jerry Rubin, Bernardine Dohrn and scores of other radical leftist Jews. It’s a given that radical leftist Jews authored most of the radical leftist ideologies. Radical leftist ideologies that have manifest into the anti-white public policies we’re being oppressed by. And yes, ‘Saturday Night Live’ didn’t actually usher in Disco, but is made Disco exponentially more popular than it was before the movie hit the theaters. 22
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 20 Nov 2021 14:08 | #
Those who could be called hippies were many; small by percentage of the general population, but their “genuinness”, appearance, music and drug habits weren’t the point - their underlying, unarticulated motive was the point; and they were many. I have always distinguished hippies, as they were distinguished in their agenda from Marxists, most of those behind the “SDS”, the Yippies, The “Free Speech” guys from Berkeley and other devotees of your anti-White Jewish gods. I am tired of you Thorn, never liked you, don’t respect you and am glad to be onto other ventures. Jesus never existed and you are a tedious waste of time; a useful idiot in diversion for Jewish interests. 24
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 20 Nov 2021 14:59 | # ... and in sum, you are dishonest, a liar. It is to be expected of you. 25
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 20 Nov 2021 15:07 | # ” am glad to be onto other ventures” In your case it’s onto the gay bars and bath houses no doubt. LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOL!!!!!!! 26
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 21 Nov 2021 15:02 | # On the subject of the ruling-class deliberately and methodically defining deviancy down, Tony Soprano, a self proclaimed “strict Catholic” (lol), shares his concerns. Are Tony’s concerns grounded? Should he not be upset by the subversion of traditional Christian values? For all the obvious reasons any reasonable person would conclude the answer is an unequivocal YES!!! 27
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 21 Nov 2021 17:17 | # @23 Yes, I meant ‘Saturday Night Fever’. In the early 80s very swingin’ dick wished they could dance like Tony Manero. FWIW I never thought SNL was funny ... even back in the days of Belushi and Aykroyd. It sucked then and steadily got worse since. 28
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 01:40 | # The Vietnam War engendered a vast , Jew - supported, Leftist wave of dissent. Let’s leave aside the fact they were completely wrong in imagining that their anti - war , stop the Domino Effect , efforts were agin Communism. Vietnamese Nationalism actually won the day but , in any case , the anti - war Jews soon abandoned their draft - dodging , faux - pacificist posturing when Israel went to war . El Al flights were full of “American” volunteers then. Why did “American” Jews protest re the Vietnam War ? Well , because their precious fellow Asiatic “Communists” ( Vietnamese crypto Nationalists , of course ) were being killed. I need not remark that the Jews in question gave no thought for the very many brave young Americans who died fighting in what face - saving, American historians have not yet termed a Pyrrhic draw. I do not have many good things to say about the UK Prime Minister of that time , viz., the socialist Harold Wilson , but at least he resisted American stupidity and refused to send British troops to Vietnam. 29
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 02:54 | #
The Vietnam War engendered a vast , Jew - supported, Internationalist/Marxist/Leftist wave of dissent. Obviously, Al. I never said otherwise. And I have always said that the hippies were inarticulate. They were not politically organized in their motive and tarried some with the (((SDS))) in anti-war protests. Their instincts were still there so as not to want to be drafted into an unnecessary war, supposedly to stop the domino effect and to gain tire rubber for the corporations; nor were their motives Marxist, international leftist. 30
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 03:57 | # Thank you , Daniel S. Your thoughtful addition of International / Marxist to any Jewish movement must surely qualify as the Tautological Augmentation of the Year. 31
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 05:13 | # Inasmuch as it is a tautology, Al, it only goes to show how dumb that Whites have been to act into the Jewish altercast of White identity as right wing, and against a characterology of “THE left”, also obviously heavily marketed by them in their interests since 2008. ...conflating “the left” (paradoxically) with liberalism and with the anti-White social organization and advocacy only, as if there cannot be a White Left Ethnonationalism, dedicated to unionizing our people (you are in a union or not, thus it is the opposite of liberalism, which opens borders and boundaries), organizing our group defense in our interests, in our way ... i.e., with reasoned individual liberty, free enterprise and private property within the class (species of European ethnonation) and class of classes (European genus) that we all share. ..a little less obviously, responses such as “neither left nor right” or “third positionism” are also reactions and rigidities with blind spots that allow for Jewish manipulation and infiltration. Use of the word Left for White interests has many benefits, not least among them as it focuses on the unionization of our people, structuring accountability, correctivity and systemic homeotasis, has the dual benefit of turning off the no/low account (natural fallacy, below praxis) arguments for Hitler/Nazism, other scientistic fuck heads, Christians, Neo-liberal capitalist cluster fucks (who think all our problems stem from “communism” and not unbridled capitalism as well) and other means for Jewish manipulation and/or entryism. .... P.S., I will be having some interesting things to say at my site about the hermeneutic management of individual and group auto/biography/narrative, to wrest and liberate in orientation and transcendence, the first necessary task of being which is coherence and accountability from mere arbitrary facticity and how that must work in tandem with the other White Post Modern, anti-Cartesian concern of emergentism to circulate as often necessary individual corporeality and group corporeal emergence in order to cohere with its natural trajectory, teleology of sorts - in this focus, Heidegger’s use of the word “authenticity” makes sense and coherence coheres to the inborn nature (to which we are well advised to hold fast). 32
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 05:46 | # Duly noted with thanks. Daniel S. I think ( sharp shooting as always ) that the abstruse intellectualism may be more blunderbuss than AR15 . Open mind as always. 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 07:47 | # There are two vast errors with Daniel’s beloved thesis, which isolate him from other nationalists. First, there is no left ↔ right in the form of ethnic nationalism ↔ systemic liberalism. Ethnic nationalism is part of a separate thought-world with its own ontologies and axialities. Doing violence to the standard concept of liberal individualism ↔ universalism for the purpose of imposing a social analytic on nationalism is necessary to Daniel because he is a sociological thinker wedded to the communicationism of his tutors. He is bending everything to fit his personal needs. For clarity, nationalism is not structurally sociological. It is not a potential communicationist project of some kind. Blood and kin are specifically not social entities. Their way of emergence into life is naturalistic, factic and existential, not sociological. In Heideggerian terms, relation arises from Heidegger’s strict orientational application of the term midt-Dasein, which Daniel also abuses opportunistically to fit his thesis. Midt-Dasein arises from Heidegger’s concept of space. Daniel has angrily rejected my entreaties to that effect not because they are philosophically wrong - he doesn’t argue on philosophical grounds - but because they are too inconvenient to his thesis. So his argument turns personal and abusive, which is absolutely inappropriate. Second, his concept of unionisation is again a consequence of his sociological thinking. Self-evidently, it is contra emergentism and contra the standard nationalist model of awakening. Again to rely on Heidegger, he employs the term “unconcealing” to describe from whence comes what comes with detachment from the gifts of our enworldment among “the them” (the denizens of the liberal system of thought and being, for our purposes). The ethnic nationalist model of Man is ineluctably of a being awakening to his or her own existential fact and discovering therein the reality and meaning of kin not just for him or herself but for all. A union in this respect is not there in that truth but afterwards, in the business of forging political force. Again, I have tried to explain to Daniel many times that his thinking enters with the political. But he insists on being the father of us all. Heidegger is the father of us all. 34
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:42 | #
I have ethnonationalism’s axioms right, you don’t
35
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:55 | #
The unit of analysis of sociology is the group. A nation is a group of people. Therefore, nationalism is structurally sociological.
36
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:58 | #
The communications unit of analysis is interaction and it covers the same turf as other disciplines, including of course, relations among a nation and between nations. 37
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:01 | #
How these matters come to count is negotiated in the social realm, through language, rule structuring, etc.
38
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:08 | #
Their naturalistic, factic emergence is subject to at least a minimum of agency as to how these matters come to count. It is exceedingly important that this be recognized, so that rules not continue to be deployed to misdirect our systems into dissolution and runaway and are instead guiding, facilitating the reconstruction of our emergence and in harmony with our nature and nature broadly. 39
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:14 | #
I do not abuse this concept opportunistically to fit my thesis. You want to act like “Being in kind” is a big important innovation on Being amidst one’s people. 40
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:26 | #
It doesn’t matter what unit of analysis it relies upon, it is an important idea for our people and one which our enemies are desperate for us Not to have.
. Absolutely false. It is not contra emergentism and any nationalism is a union. 41
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:45 | #
It doesn’t matter what unit of analysis it relies upon, it is an important idea for our people and one which our enemies are desperate for us Not to have.
. Absolutely false. It is not contra emergentism and any nationalism is a union.
He is talking about holding fast to emergentism and nothing averse to anything that I say.
Its a ridiculously psychologistic take on attention to emergence; unnecessaru ambition that all must understand this at once.
This is a false either or and absurdly presumes that we should only provide the rule structure of nationalism after you, in your grandiosity, get everyone’s head straight. You never will. If for no other reason but that you are too sick and stupid.
You have tried to say many times that philosophy is trivial politics and that your scientistic, philosophical illiteracy is deep.
I do not insist on being the father of us all. I have said factually many times, that I am not Moses on the hill issuing forth edicts, but rather a participant doing my part and my best to advance the important philosophical concepts for our people. Heidegger is not the father of us all. Heidegger is the first major nodal point in post modern philosophy, the hermeneutic turn and concomitant non-Cartesianism of emergentism. Heidegger is reliant on many philosopher’s before him and many important corrections have come after him and are still coming… 42
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 23 Nov 2021 01:59 | # @ 11 & 17 This article is in accord with the theme of your comments. Stop Joining the Woke Military Enough is enough. When the recruiter comes calling, just say no. November 21, 2021
RTWT https://amgreatness.com/2021/11/21/stop-joining-the-woke-military/ 43
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 05:15 | # GW , I incline to your view of the ” no left - right” in terms of our people . These French Parliamentarian terms have been almost politically petrified and serve as markers for the intellectually lazy. I have used them for years so thank you for the clarification. Of course , I am far too intellectually lazy to read the output of Heidegger , so thank you for that too. Post a comment:
Next entry: Parallel paths
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 17:42 | #
The following warning given by Tammy Bruce was written and published almost 20 years ago. Since then we’ve witnessed the Left’s radical gay agenda steadily advance to the point where liberal-elites are at now: seriously debating whether pedophilia is natural thus should be accepted as normal or not.
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Right-Wrong-Exposing-Assault-ebook/dp/B000FC1RQ4