Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 01:51 | #

I’ve been pondering Greg’s comment to the effect that contingency is prior to necessity; and wondering whether this lofty and detached framework is really appropriate to discuss the prior.  If a state of nothing needing to happen precedes a state of something - indeed, something particular - needing to happen then life must be absent from it.  For life cannot be characterised by a condition of relinquishment of interest.  It must, in it first arising, do so with interest, or it could not keep pushing into each new vivifying evolutionary event.  Even as a consequence of pure function, still its original state must be one of interest, and the content of that interest must be continuity.

If we call the very first, fleeting appearance of the most basic form of life a life, then even that life had an interest in being and in continuing to be.

Of course, a philosopher will argue that “prior” does not really have temporal implications but propositional ones, and so it may be.  But if the result of propositional thinking is that it takes us beyond the point of the arising of Life itself, yet makes a general claim for Life, the disconnect has to be questioned.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:12 | #

I have not listened to the podcast yet but will shortly.

First, preliminary reflections.
​
I agree that it is imperative to assert an accurate reading of our people and our physical constraints, not only the possibilities, let alone the bizarre distortions that the misrepresentation of social constructionism would propose. Greg’s emphasis on the permanence of what has transpired is excellent. However, I maintain that where matters of race, gender, etc are proposed as “mere” social constructs, that is not social constructionism but (largely) Jewish abuse of the idea, obviously motivated to subvert our people and our warrant.

The designation of social constuctionism as “mere” ought not to be accepted as representing social constructionism as it betrays the whole anti-Cartesian purpose of the discipline. “Mere” means not beholden to physical reality, whereas a non-Cartesian discipline, such as social constructionism, must be beholden to physical constraints. Not only is it untrue to the discipline to associate it with “mere” social constructs, but importantly - and this is why we should not let Jews dissuade us from the discipline - it denies us its corrective properties to the anti-social and arbitrary upshot of Cartesianism and scientism, as social constructionism affords us with coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.

Thus, coming back to Greg’s example of the factual permanence that has transpired of potentiality, there remains the socially constructed aspect of “how those facts count.” It is incumbent upon us, as agentive creatures, to assert the importance and reality of our peoplehood; and, at the other end, to literally reconstruct our people - by having babies, raising them European, etc.

Regarding the privileged position of objectivism, I might suggest that the naive (but valid) perspective that we ought not to shun is not only preliminary first to second or third person, but also the significance of ourselves as second person others, viz. the second to first person address of “you” that Shotter underscores (It is no coincidence that our first spoken word is often our own name). Whereas the exaggeration of the first person perspective to its Cartesian sine qua non in scientistic rational blindness is a perspective prone to bypass social accountability and, as such, in need of the corrective of second* and third person perspective and hermeneutic process more generally - gauging observation against broader human ecological systems and historical process.

* Unlike the transmission model of traditional media, comment sections of on-line activity are beautifully suited to this corrective, joint construction of knowledge.

I don’t know if the vivification of which GW so incisively speaks corresponds precisely to terms of accountability, coherence, agency and warrant(ed assertability) ...operational verifiability - but matters of authenticity are likely to be gauged by the working hypothesis to be verified. Those hermeneutic working hypothesis of the authentic functional range of autonomy are necessary as we have the possibility to live inauthentic lives to an extent (until, at least, it leads to our extinction). By contrast, legitimate and verifiable working hypotheses of peoplehood are social classifications circumscribing legitimate prejudices and discrimination - again, imperative to accountability, human ecology, coherence, warrant and agency.

Socially approved, accountable and verifiable working hypotheses are to be distinguished from “you can do just anything”, e.g., with gender and race; and are necessary as we can’t continually investigate everything or each individual perfectly anew but must instead classify patterns and be able to take for granted these working hypotheses, discriminating to a safe extent on the basis of their prejudice.

Heidegger sought to correct the Cartesian relation of knower to known, taking us from its detached perspective toward theoria and into the existential world of praxis and poesis. That’s how he considered thinking more like poetry than science.

He did not take this process of taking thinking and inquiry into praxis far enough into our social world and its service, but he did bring forth the process of hermeneutics (as opposed to impervious technology and other non-accountable Cartesian detachment).

Our race is maintained in hermeneutics as a working hypothesis, which is verified as empirical fact wherever need be. That is hermeneutic process. It is not against science, it complements science and corrects of scientism and its ill effects.

As for my having thought of, and having treated, his student Gadamer as Jew, I had thought so because of the esteem with which he was held by Jewish academics that I knew, because of destructively liberal abuses of hermeneutics by the “Jew thinking” in Gadamer, or by his Jewish and Jew thinking students. Nevertheless, his not being Jewish would not change the essence of my arguments of his providing an example, either by his Jew thinking liberalism or by his Jewish interpreters, of abuses of hermeneutics and what not to do with it.

However, there is a particularly salient gem to be found in Gadamer: The term he applies to the Enlightenment/Cartesian text - “the prejudice against prejudice”

That critique and its validation of prejudice as oppose Cartesian objectivity and its impossible pretense of non-prejudice and non-discrimination is THE turning point.

Posted by Counter-Currents on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:00 | #

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/02/greg-johnson-on-heidegger-at-majority-rights-radio/

Posted by Watson on Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:12 | #

I’ve been pondering Greg’s comment to the effect that contingency is prior to necessity

That is sort of Heidegger’s point, although I don’t think he would formulate it that way since contingency and necessity are terms from propositional logic, and he is trying to depart from such language.

The familiar existentialist formula devised by Sartre, “Existence precedes essence”, conveys sort of the same idea and Sartre credits the general idea to Heidegger, although I think Heidegger would deny any such notion of “essence” as Sartre understands it. In Being and Time Heidegger writes, “The ‘essence’ of human-being lies in its existence.” “Human-being” here is Dasein, which means something different from the typical metaphysical, scientific, religious, or ordinary conceptions of human being.

For life cannot be characterised by a condition of relinquishment of interest.  It must, in it first arising, do so with interest, or it could not keep pushing into each new vivifying evolutionary event.  Even as a consequence of pure function, still its original state must be one of interest, and the content of that interest must be continuity.

If we call the very first, fleeting appearance of the most basic form of life a life, then even that life had an interest in being and in continuing to be.

Heidegger’s entire project is devoted to attacking the view derived from traditional metaphysics and modern science that defines Being as beings with certain definable essences such as “life”.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:18 | #

My dear Watson, regardless of all philosophical speculation, and all “prior” definitional frameworks for terms such as “life”, “existence”, and “beings”, and stating plainly that evolutionary facts have to be respected in any and all matters of human life and human experience, or falsehoods must arise, life comes with a certain bias; and the successful application of this bias is the difference between a serial flow of singular and disconnected, ultra-transitory chemical (but organic) “lives” which cannot develop and the entirety of Nature in Earth’s history - and, therefore, between no human being and human being.  The name of this bias is “interest”.  It is an inherent property of a being and is present in and deterministic, ie, prior, to witness, to experience, and to meaning.

It is not too strong to say that being, in any meaningful sense, is conditional upon it too - if one accepts that being in continuum, that is, having the possibility of experience by a subject, is the action of beings, and not the ground for them.

Posted by Watson on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:47 | #

Well your argument is with Heidegger, not me. I’m simply presenting Heidegger’s views.

Heidegger argues against defining Being according to the inherent properties of beings, whether those properties are derived from evolutionary facts, metaphysics, science, religion, etc. Such properties are ontical, not ontological. When one deals scientifically with a being by, say, considering its mass or its evolution, one is taking for granted, one presupposes, that there are beings in the first place. One is dealing ontically, not ontologicaly, in this case. This is fundamental to Heidegger’s thought.

Posted by Gorgonzola on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 06:49 | #

It seems to me that Johnson makes an enormous category error at the beginning of this interview.  He identifies liberalism as a characteristic of white people, rather than a culturally-based outlook that is characteristic of whites during a particular historical epoch.  It is hardly true that liberalism, or even the qualities that Johnson identifies with liberalism, were true of whites during all period or even across all groupings of whites.  For if, liberalism is of the nature of whites, then Johnson’s whole project is absurd, as he is trying to fight against that very nature, which he claims is so determinative of life.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 07:07 | #

Ok, I’ve finally screwed up the courage to listen to this - concern over my own performance, of course, being my trepidation.

Greg, thank you. That was quite well done.Though I stand by my positions in my initial comment and in the podcast, I hope that you can see that they are not necessarily at odds with your descriptions and prescriptions - I fundamentally agree.

GW, well done too.

..............

Speaking of my own part in the podcast, I was surprised to not be too bothered. I was a bit rushed past indicating some historical precedents to Heidegger which I would not belabor and which are necessary to proper understanding. Only one mistake in that hurry - a misstatement at 48:56 - where I argue that hermeneutics allows us to “make our people the center of concern rather than ‘objectivism’ which is where we begin to veer into authenticity.

Of course I meant to say that is where we veer from authenticity.

................

GW and Watson, your comments above are brilliant, thank you.

 

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:26 | #

Watson,

Certainly, there is a debate to be had about the editorial aspect of Heidegger’s general organisation - about the way he completely eschewed some matters that are key to identity, in particular, and for my money compromised and limited the utility of his work for us, as identitarians, today.  If, as planned, we interview Greg again in a few weeks, these will likely be explored.

Ultimately, definitions are intellectual constructs, and never escape their propositionalism.  I have not read philosophy of science, but doubtless people regularly make the point that while scientific thinking - guilty as charged - has a reductive and fracturing, ultimately life-denying effect, the standard philosophical modus, especially in metaphysics, ends in self-referentialism because thought alone has only its own operation, based in modelling and association, and no source for Truth as such.

Where to seek coherence, synthesis, product?  Only one candidate: in a turn (or step-back) which is practical and psychological in character, but which Heidegger ruled out from the beginning in B&T.  This, alone, is liberating, indeed is liberation.  Under its spell perhaps even the division of ontical and ontological does not have to be understood in the sense of outright, sealed categories.  I am put in mind of Aldous Huxley’s experiences with mescalin, when the “is-ness” of the physical world before him melded with all but his own state of witness ... Dasein as experience rather than just a dull exercise of the intellect.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:54 | #

To be mischievous, what is, say, “English identity”, “Polish identity”, “white identity”?  Is each a factic, ontical “being” ... an object in the world with particular qualities.  Or are they hazy and uncertain extrapolations from a non-conditional ontology?

Posted by R1a on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:27 | #

One thing about Polish identity that does not seem fuzzy is that it apparently has the highest percentage of R1a of anyone, more than Russia, more than Belarus, more than Ukraine, Slovak, Czech.

Poland R1a 57.5 %

Dr. Alexander Jacob claims R1a is “the Aryan DNA”

% R1a
Poland 57.5  
Belarus 51  
Russia 46
Ukraine 45
Slovakia 41.5
Latvia 40
Lithuania 38

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:19 | #

Regarding the false and exaggerated plasticity of our potential (which Greg sees as a key problem to un-do in favor of the idea of limits), I attributed its promulgation as an idea largely to Jews, and I stand by the claim of their being the main perpetrators of these falsehoods - of course they are.

Yes, there were precedents, such as Lamarck, and going back to antiquity, the Sophists, of course. But for Europeans these outlooks have long been looked upon as discredited, if not objects of derision - sophistry has a long history as a pejorative word.

Posted by Greg Johnson on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:49 | #

RE necessity and contingency and life:

1. The necessary has to happen. The contingent does not have to happen. The necessary cannot be otherwise. The contingent could have been or can be otherwise. These are ontological not just logical categories.

2. For a Darwinist, life arises from non-life through contingent processes. The emergence of life, however, creates certain necessities: if life is to persist, certain things must happen; if other things happen, life cannot persist. Once there is a determinate identity, there are certain necessities that go with. But determinate identities can emerge through essentially random, contingent, material processes.

3. Another classical philosophical issue has to do with the eternity of species or natural kinds. Plato and Aristotle both held that species are eternal. Eternity = necessity here, because eternal beings cannot be otherwise: they cannot come into being or pass away.

4. For a Darwinist or an existentialist, species (essences) are not eternal/necessary; they did not have to exist; nor will they always persist; their coming into being and passing away is contingent. However, once a species comes into existence, it has an identity, and that imposes a certain necessity on it.

5. This is equivalent to the existentialist notion that existence (brute contingency) precedes essence (determinate identity, with a host of necessary traits). Heidegger is an existentialist in this sense. Specifically, he is a historicist, in that he believes that brute historical contingency imposes identity and necessity upon us. He did not broaden this to nature, but he could have. Darwin, if you will, is a “natural historicist.”

Posted by Greg Johnson on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:23 | #

RE: Man’s plasticity

This has been recognized since the Ancients. Herodotus speaks of the permanency of nature and the changeability of human things. The Sophists made a great deal of the distinction between nature and convention, and claimed that the human realm is mostly a matter of convention, and that what is natural in us are our animal desires.

But it is only with modern philosophy, with its idea of history and progress, that the plasticity of man becomes a central issue. Marxists simply take this notion over from Hegel who was influenced by Rousseau and others. Thus there is nothing distinctly “Jewish” about the notion. Indeed, it is as old as the Western philosophical tradition.

Posted by Greg Johnson on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:28 | #

RE Gorgonzola

I don’t think that liberalism is merely historical. I think it is rooted in European biological identity, although it only emerged as a philosophy and a way of life at a particular point in time. I see nothing absurd about the attempt to reign in our liberal universalism now that it is dysfunctional. Alcoholism is also runs in the European gene pool. Do you think that a genetic basis for alcoholism makes it impossible to combat it?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:18 | #

Greg,

Some criticisms of this contingency/necessity paradigm.  Notwithstanding its neatness, as thinking is it not borrowing, even against its own desire, from the religious model?  Does it work if the universe is mechanical?  Does not contingency/necessity lose all purchase on the real when what happens is based on fundamental laws, and indeed did have to happen down to the smallest detail?  When something can only happen one way ... when all outcomes are physically determined ... how does anything, certainly outside Life, not have to happen?

The flaw in your analysis is that “have to happen” implies an extant regimen of some sort, some noumenological overview which can be applied to the mechanics, and out pops Accident; and there is none.  Accident is already a view from consciousness and really only means non-calculable.  Life did not arise simply from the accidental proximity and combination of elements and forces.  To say otherwise is to borrow from the flexibility which exists after the event ... after the moment of life’s creation, when there is sufficient freedom of choice for natural selection to operate.  Actually, that is the point when contingency, within it’s very narrow evolutionary remit, enters the equation.  Like Herr Heidegger, you have it the wrong way around.

To be exact, the real ontological paradigm ... the grand landscape ... is mechanics/consciousness, and consciousness is a property of beings, limited, imperfect (thus Accident), and unstable though it is.

Posted by Gorgonzola on Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:25 | #

Would Mr. Johnson then say that liberalism is in the Jewish gene pool also as Jews seem to thrive within liberal regimes?  While I would not disagree that behavior is a function of both biology and breeding, it is all too convenient to take behaviors from a particular epoch and assign them to the biology of a race, especially when opposite tendencies are observable during different times and within different individuals within a race. 

If we assume that liberal tendencies can be altered, which I agree with Mr. Johnson that they can, then we must also make way for the adaptive possibility toward change in all races and certainly among individuals within these races.  While I agree that humanity is not infinitely malleable, it seems to me that the arguments being made often suffer from selective hearing. 

In other words, I think the worldview is sound.  But its application is used toward pre-selected ends, where differing conclusions are also quite valid.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:59 | #

RE: Man’s plasticity

This has been recognized since the Ancients. Herodotus speaks of the permanency of nature and the changeability of human things. The Sophists made a great deal of the distinction between nature and convention, and claimed that the human realm is mostly a matter of convention, and that what is natural in us are our animal desires.

But it is only with modern philosophy, with its idea of history and progress, that the plasticity of man becomes a central issue. Marxists simply take this notion over from Hegel who was influenced by Rousseau and others. Thus there is nothing distinctly “Jewish” about the notion. Indeed, it is as old as the Western philosophical tradition.

Greg, these ideas and their erroneous adherence have precedent in European philosophical history, yes. But the vast distortion, its implementation and insistence to the point of enforcement and prevention of correction is Jewish.

It is normal for Europeans to correct things like this unless under Jewish coercion, whether in Academia, Christianity Money, Law, Media, Business or Political control.

Plastic People

Posted by rhondda on Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:08 | #

rhondda http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/02/greg-johnson-on-heidegger-at-majority-rights-radio/#comments

Posted February 11, 2015 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

A very interesting conversation. I would like to ask the gentleman who said love was the answer to define love, as there are very many different kinds of love and the word has basically become meaningless in today’s world.

Posted by Nick Dean on Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:11 | #

Or is the proper response just common sense? This is our land and naturally we’ll fight for it? Say no more.

No internal contradictions or needless spiritual B.S. unlike etc.

Posted by The status of common sense on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:04 | #

In point of fact, Hiedegger calls “common sense” the refrain of the intellectually jealous. However, I know that you are no so bereft. I hear your point, the normal response to invasion is to hate and to fight, not necessarily to love (one’s own, even). However, it is usually mistaken to dismiss GW on grounds of factual rigor. Here too, I believe he is referring to the natural linking to one’s own EGI.

Common sense is an interesting topic of itself when what is “common sense” is enmeshed in the now pervasive language games of the YKW and other discursive runaway.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:27 | #

A definition is a tough ask.

Love is the value properly ascribed by the human emotional system to attachment, typically to a person or group of persons or place.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:21 | #

GW says:

Where to seek coherence, synthesis, product?  Only one candidate: in a turn (or step-back) which is practical and psychological in character, but which Heidegger ruled out from the beginning in B&T.

I don’t agree with this. That one candidate can be of help in providing structural feedback at one end of the systemic loop; but our psychology is forever interactive. The practical acknowledges interaction but is narrow, normally episodic in focus - too narrow to provide coherence. Rather, the synthesis and coherence to be engaged is in hermeneutics, through communication and in feedback with the historical/sociological scope and hypothesis of the group system.

Posted by NickD on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:59 | #

“The status of common sense”—I look forward to the day when GW is finally able to prolong to peak-experiences and Greg Johnson is able to travel back in time and persuade Heidegger that race really does exist. No jealousy, nothing to be jealous of.

Posted by NickD on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:06 | #

What is the purpose of promoting non-racial emphases in racial movements if not diversion?

Posted by NickD on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:09 | #

I am neither leftist or rightist, just normal, so why, then, should I get drawn into a ‘New Right’ or ‘New Left’ argument? Unless of course, as it always has been, to divide Whites against ourselves?

Posted by NickD on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:17 | #

I look forward to the day when GW is finally able to prolong his peak-experiences

The most advanced Tibetan-Tantra masters seem to possess the self-consciousness that GW thinks is important for the longest periods - about 30 minutes per whole body orgasm on average. It is not known to be associated with English nationalist sentiment.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:36 | #

Nick, I believe that GW sees (correctly) that consciousness of interests (in survival, first of all) as bespeaks life’s guiding force, is necessary to keep closely abreast; and that with that light, a great deal of diversionary muck (such as to be found in Christianity) is more easily cleared away to prepare a better ground for an authentic way of life for our race.

While he has drawn upon some eastern sources, the non-Cartesian philosophy of the west, including that begun in Heidegger has kindred aims. That is to say, it is not an alien aim of itself

I don’t think that any of us are saying that Heidegger is perfectly suited to our aims, but he does help in undoing some of the estrangements of philosophical wrong turns, and in directing us to a workable project of our own racial reconstruction, governance, homeostasis, autonomy, growth etc.

GW has an significant point. However, I suspect, that similar as Greg, as KM, as just about everybody in WN, that he has been so turned off by Jewish abuse of the sociological perspective (and plastic distortion of possibilities, presented as “social concepts” and then absurdly applied to reality) such that the social connection of consciousness has been set aside - probably as suspect and unreliable for now.

This connects with the project that I have been cultivating these past several years in pursing the question of how we connect, in authenticity, to the social, group, racial consciousness as a part of our life force interests.

In addition to Jewish chimera, Cartesian mystification is a part of that social estrangement.

You raise an interesting contention in chiding peak experiences, and their impossibility of continual maintenance (as opposed to optimal and deliberate reconstruction of “lower” experiences as I will recommend; the social and being among them, along with ordinary/sacral routine/practice). I believe that popular notions of self atualization hold some of our fundamental and anti-social (for us) problems. Correction of that seems to point the way to some of the remedy. I will be writing about that shortly, revising some of my first thoughts on the matter (though they were fundamentally ok) with what I have learned since then on the matter, including from Greg.

While I take pride in having originated observations such as regard that, it is far from the whole ball of wax, of course. Much as I have prodded him, Matt Parrott has a bead on an important problem for the reconstruction of our race, namely, the mercantilism, middle class and other, that arose after priestly authority was subverted by the enlightenment. What to about that? That is a humdinger.

I know that you are averse to the word “left” and I can understand that (I was as well), but it works too well as an organizing framework for our people -it circumscribes our necessary outlook too well to dump: it circumscribes our accountable groups, keeps an eye on elite traitors, requiring accountability of them and of the rank and file as well, providing them and all in the class with motive and accountability to participate.

Accountability is very different from divide and conquer. It is the right which typically seeks to avoid accountability and to divide and conquer.

The White left can be distinguished as an accountable union of White unions - and from the typical pejorative things that Jews have associated with “the left” - centralized control, no private property, no wealth, incentive and reward and so on.

Hitler gained popularity early on as a leftist. That is certainly part of how he set the people alight. Speaking to the concerns of the rank and file - e.g., “to most men the most important thing in the world is his woman and matters of her sex, but a Jew will sell this for 20 pieces of silver”....  or in other examples, in doing away with class divisions ..making the race the class and providing mobility through the race/class as people find their proper niches..

His underlying right wing tendencies, a form of no account might makes right, and ultimate right wing manifestation, is where the Jew disease of divide and conquer found a place to set in.

14

Posted by Nick D on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:22 | #

The internet is fluid and I’m always slow on the uptake ... Where are Majority Rights readers and commenters c.2005-10 hanging out now?

Posted by Where have they gone? on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 05:54 | #

For more day to day British stuff, some may have gone to Morgoth’s or Western Spring; those with still more affinity for Hitler, but otherwise fairly grounded despite the slight cultish feel, might like WIN.

Soren’s fans may have gone to his twitter; he may have taken some “NS” people there. As I recall, he said that he felt a close affinity to Captain Chaos’s thinking and to that of Anglin, both of whom are “NS” (politely said). Soren might give some furtive support to Anglin’s site, I don’t know. I have reason to think he might, but don’t believe that he should.

I don’t think JB has totally abandoned us but he is busy with work. Same with Soren.

Soren and JB both might like Red Ice for its Germanic/Noridic bias and sci-fi predilections. Not sure about that, but maybe.

There seems to be some polemic being taken against MR by sites like Red Ice and others who want more strongly to argue the innocence of Nazi Germany - that seems to explain their programming much more than their purported concern for free speech and truth.

The people who like Uncle Adolf will go where people who like Uncle Adolf will go.

A few people who insisted upon Jesus, (or both Jesus and H) have gone to Anglin’s. I guess that you know that, and also know that a few like that, such as DanielJ/ ClassicSparkle/ DanielA may have gone to Tan’s site. Tan doesn’t have many, but takes a few of this kind. A also has his own site listed somewhere in the sidebar (Ironically, he condemns people as “boring” if they don’t believe in Christianity and some kind of traditionalism).

The troll Silver seems to be frequenting Alt Right and maybe Radix. I haven’t looked at Hunter Wallace’s site much, nor for some time, but that got a few at one time.

I don’t know where Leon Haller and Thorn have gone, but couldn’t care less so long as it is not here. Thorn has tried to troll again recently, as has Haller under yet another pseudonym on less frequent occasion. Our current resident troll is JamesUK.

I believe the ones who were loyal to Alex Linder (like Jimmy Marr) have remained loyal. Jimmy had Lurker make a post here at MR called “Poland” and it amounted to Alex Linder reading about how stupid Poland was through a journalists’ reports of Poland during the depression era - during the depression and after Poland had regained its nation for a few years following imperialist occupation for over a century; reports aimed at appealing to Germanic cultures that made anti-Polinism their armchair sport - and the post at MR was called “Poland” as if that summed it all up. So, I changed the content of the post, putting up the story of the Polish cryptographers who first cracked enigma and left the title, “Poland.”

Maybe Linder and Jimmy want to push a “Nazi Germany was perfect” angle. Jimmy tried to say that I was too sensitive, but in truth, to make a post like that and call it “Poland” (the definitive case) was ridiculous. Had it been labeled differently, I probably would have left it and responded differently.

If they had posted an article addressing the problem of Poles being in Britain, I would have been happy to have that issue raised again, as I believe it needs more addressing. Perhaps we should soon raise the issue again.

Matt Parrott and Bugs people may have directed their swarm away from MR and toward Renegade or Rodney Martin and some of the other pro-Nazi or pro-Jesus, i.e. right wing or “neither right nor left” sites.

Gregor, who used to champion my work at Voice of Reason, may still be frequenting TOO. He once asked me to spread some of the Bugs work. I told him that I couldn’t do it..and what I meant by that is that I couldn’t endorse Tim Murdoch automatically - for two reasons. Though I do respect the large percentage of his effort he spoils it for me by getting into nutty conspiracy stuff. I know that can be popular, but for me it lacks integrity. More importantly, I may be mistaken, but it seems that Murdoch takes a position that “wink”, we smart people know that Uncle Adolf really had it all right, that he didn’t do nothin’ wrong, but the masses, they don’t know that so we got to keep it cool.”

I can’t endorse the “Nazis just have an image problem” theory.

Red Ice, Renegade, Rodney Martin, Anglin and others are trying that angle. More generally, that may be a Regnery thing.

But it is evident that Murdoch has some influence on that - most recently, Angelo John Gage was taking that angle having recently spoken to Murdoch (people just don’t understand Hitler “like we intellectuals do”).

Both Greg Johnson and MacDonald take some of the Hitler friendly people. KM takes both Jesus and Hitler people if they can present themselves in a public face, even hardcore Nazis, like Hadding Scott. I am a little disappointed, but Americans are swimming in a German/Jewish diatribe to an extent that they might not be aware.

There is a liberal type that looks upon Atzmon and Gotfried as ok, because they more or less give a pat on the head to Nazism, there there, its those xenophic Eastern European Jews to watch out for, those Zionists. Fooled or coddled by their conservatism/liberalism, some will endorse them and their kind of neo liberalism - Radix, Richard Spencer, David Duke.

In sum, the Hitler, Jesus and “Jews (and others) are us (provided they talk conservative/liberal/NS) people” have gone where they might.

Perhaps some who might find affinity with us have gone to “White Tribalism”, the blog of John Londen - who claims to be more different in aim from MR than I think he might be, but he wants to distinguish himself. GW remains concerned to tarry with normal political expression and Londen may not see our underlying point for that reason.

Other than these platform issues, there can be a few reasons for people to shy away - Perhaps both GW and I can be too critical for some, but we are accountable and we advocate all Europeans and their discreet kinds.

I do miss “Wandrin”... but he did not only seem to indicate agreement, but also a need to be discreet from his part.

“Wobbly” was good too. Don’t know what happened to him.

James Bowey and Frosty Wooldridge have prepared for another interview of Frosty, but perhaps Frosty has gotten cold feet: I don’t really know what’s up there..

Today we will be talking to Dr. Christian Lindtner.

I’m looking forward to it, others should be too.

Posted by darmian on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:00 | #

Other than these platform issues, there can be a few reasons for people to shy away - Perhaps both GW and I can be too critical for some, but we are accountable and we advocate all Europeans and their discreet kinds.

That could be your problem right there. At this point, I’m more inclined to trust the EU in fostering European identity than I am any of the pseudo-White (but really ethno-sectarian) movements with narrow views.

Historically, any European cooperation had to be brought by the sword or the church. Expecting proles to see the big picture is pointless.

 

Posted by Red Ice Speaking Puerto Rican on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:46 | #

Red Ice, speaking like true Puerto Ricans:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2015/R314-150227.php

Justin Garcia comes to Red Ice to pander to a universalist, female point of view, so that we can all learn how to act like Peurto Ricans or Brazilian Mulattoes.

At least in terms of a point that I am trying to make, a point is missed in all of this by both GW and Bowery (I bring Bowery into this in particular, because this Garcia guy apparently came to Red Ice by way of him): GW has said that men becoming more masculine and women becoming more feminine is ideal; Bowery would apparently say something similar.

Here is what they are not seeing in what I am saying - Aristotle’s recognition that as biological creatures, lets say systems, that we are evolved for optimal levels of need satisfaction.

Thus, GW’s and Bowery’s prescription would not be correct as it would call strictly for maximization of the gender/sex roles.

Now hear me: I am not saying men should be effeminate, and that there should not be some very masculine men; just that that is not the whole deal in terms of optimal systematization of European masculinity in particular.

It is not only my own father and older brother’s taking the masculine bit too far that causes pause for reflection, but they did, to begin, because, like Bowery, they were against words and talking; this begins to obstruct necessary intellectualism even, not nonsense. I suspect Bowery takes being able to talk for granted.

Another clue that males can be too masculine came through my experience with blacks. Do women like confidence, as Elana says? Yes. Are they inclined to black men? Apparently a percentage are. Nobody is more confident than black males.

Does that mean White men should become like blacks? Obviously not. Is the problem strictly with White men not being as confident as blacks?

Obviously it is all far more subtle than that, and confidence requires more social confirmation of our somewhat more circumspect form of masculinity as European men; and a way to get women to appreciate that or at least be accountable to it as it has been good enough for 41,000 years.

Suddenly it is not and it is all the fault of White men? The food we eat? They don’t appreciate Karate movies enough, the way that Puerto Ricans do? I don’t think so.

Confidence might be maximized in some universalized sense that Elana might suggest, and that is the royal road to mudsharkdom - Puerto Rico and Brazil.

You are going to be “confident” when woman after woman that you talk to in initial interaction cannot fathom how anyone could be so “racist” as to not want to be involved with blacks?

Jews pander to a puerile White female predilection as such, to be sure.

But as Europeans, as intelligent people, confidence is subject to the strictures of optimality - should we be confident about something? Should I be confident that it is necessary to talk about how Heidegger was playing a game against Aristotle’s “theoria, praxis and poesis” when trying to bring it up to Greg Johnson? Yes, but it is hard when I have to fight to make this fundamental point because Aristotle is not recognized as being of central importance here.

Quite unlike Nietzsche, and his homosexual infatuation with masculinity; quite unlike Jack Donovan, whom Garcia also mentions a few time as a level headed proponent of masculinity, and his similar homosexual infatuation with masculinity.

And ultimately, there is no mention in this conversation of the special quality of European masculinity, which is in an optimal range of the most creative intelligence. Authentic European masculinity has to be in balance with the empathy and intellectual forethought and planning that is native to our masculinity, in addition to sufficient self assertion.

Nor is there any critique of a tendency in some of our co-evolutionaries to go along with Jewish pandering, prescriptions to have them acting like black women, acting like aggressive and hostile pigs. Our women are most amazing as they naturally are, as are our men, if understood properly.

It is our group and its optimal range that has to be appreciated and defended in its optimal form - not masculinity, of itself universalized and maximized.

Fuck Puerto Rico, Fuck Africans and Fuck Jews - you want me to fight? yeah, I’ll fight, but not for some dumb bitch who only cares about some slavishly maximized, a-historical, universalized form of “masculinity”

Posted by On Graham Lister on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 14:12 | #

Perhaps it is premature to suggest and wrong to pre-empt GW in relating the NEWS, but Graham Lister may have taken the step beyond.

We hope that we are mistaken, but unfortunately, there are clues to believe that it may be the case that he is not merely gone from MR.

Posted by Try read manosphere on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 01:14 | #

Does that mean White men should become like blacks?

My personal go-to site is therationalmale.com, but essentially all these issues have been covered in depth.

In relation to the specific audience, say 20-40yo White males that want to acquire White women… then unfortunately the answer is kind of yes.

We’ve created a society where prime females are free to “express” their sexuality without any of the traditional consequences for doing so and are in fact supported/subsidized by the State. So essentially, a female in her prime sexual years (16-33) only desires to ride (what is called) the c-ck carousel until she starts reaching her epiphany stage whereby she thinks it time to settle with a beta-provider… one which she can no-fault divorce at any time and take half his assets. 

So if a White man wants a piece of the prime White female, then yes, he better act like the alpha buck (negro) _or_ he can simply become a beta-provider, i.e. wait for the 30+ woman (who’s already given away her best sexual years) and be content with that.

As you can see, it’s not a pleasant reality.

Posted by NO to assimilating Negro behavior on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 02:43 | #

Wrong.

As true European men, we do not imitate or worse, become like Negroes. Let alone to ingratiate ourselves to a puerile White female mentality and behavioral pattern that has been conditioned by the pandering of Jews and other muds within and of the disordering of modernity’s rupturing of racial classificatory borders.

On the contrary, we begin the hard work of giving them a hard choice - if we are to have choices and they are going to go slutting then we have to change the meta political rules which sanction that behavior without accountability. First of all by institutionalizing the option of sacrament and monogamy - outside of traditional religion but nevertheless on European grounds as an option, a “control group” and relief against the abuse of social capital by promiscuous females; along with the havoc they wreak with the reward system and more.

White communities may set up standards where these females might be ostracized.

But particularly if they are going to breed with non-Whites then they are going to have to live with them and White nations/communities need the prerogative to revoke their citizenship to force them out. There is no way Whites should have to pay for the consequences of the choice of these women, especially when the consequences and impact on social and evolutionary capital (EGI) are known.

That is what a real man does - creates a society where these women must bear the consequences of their unjust behavior, where by contrast there is accountability to our systemic evolution, its social capital and where good men may be rewarded according to virtue.

It is a hard road: undoing the tangled Judaic rule structures of Christianity, then of how they exploited the de- sacralization of the enlightenment to instigate the predominance of a borderless, mercantile culture; where we must overcome the blindness of our own naive/disingenuous proclivity to sheer objectivism (exacerbated by the puerile female tendency to incite genetic competition), which would perhaps have us take the conclusion of assimilating the “objective” winner - Jews and blacks. Which, in turn, has left us susceptible to the Marxist Frankfurt school’s coalition building of advocacy groups - including our co-evolutionary females - against us as White men.

Posted by What is phenomenology? on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:47 | #

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/03/what-is-phenomenology/

In Being and Time Heidegger transforms of the central question of metaphysics–the so-called “ontological” question “What is Being?”–by the application of the phenomenological method of investigation developed by Edmund Husserl. So, to understand the project of Being and Time, we should answers two questions: “What is phenomenology?” then “What is ontology?”

The Phenomenological Revolution

The guiding slogan of phenomenology is “To the things themselves.” Husserl called this slogan “the principle of principles.”

For Husserl, the things themselves are not, however, the Kantian “thing in itself” that lies beyond the realm of experience. Husserl’s principle means that the only authority for phenomenological philosophy is direct and immediate experience or intuition. Phenomenology takes what is given, simply as it is given, and tries to describe it carefully in its own terms.

Phenomenology is resolutely opposed to any form of reductionism. Reductionism is the view that one kind of thing is “nothing but” another kind of thing.

The reductionist method is to take two realms of experience–say matter and life–and declare that there is no ultimate difference between them. Life is “nothing but” matter, which means that the fact that living things appear to be different from inert matter is just an illusion; it is just “mere” appearance.

Phenomenology rejects on principle the attempt to claim that what appears to be different really isn’t; it rejects the attempt to elevate some realms of experience to true reality and demote other realms to mere appearance. Phenomenology takes appearances seriously; it takes them at face value and simply describes how they are given. If living things appear to be different than inert matter, then that is good enough for phenomenology. The phenomenologist then tries to articulate the precise manner in which life appears to be different, and leaves it at that.

So, the phenomenological method is the attempt to carefully describe and catalog the different ways in which things appear.

Presence and Absence in Husserl’s Phenomenology

Now, although Husserl was concerned to discover the different ways in which things show up to us, and then just leave those differences alone, he did notice a number of patterns the cut across the different ways things show up to us. The most important of these patterns is what I shall call, following Robert Sokolowski, the interplay of presence and absence.

Husserl claims that all objects of consciousness are given to us through an interplay of presence and absence. Consciousness, or experience as such, can be seen as the interplay of presence and absence. What does it mean to say that beings are made present through presence and absence? How does absence come into the picture?

The wonder of consciousness is the ability to establish and maintain cognitive relationships with absent objects.

The claim that beings become present through presence and absence can, therefore, be understood as the claim that consciousness is most properly understood as an interplay between, on the one hand, the sensuous presence of the objects around us and, on the other hand, the faculties of memory, imagination, and speech that allow us to deal with beings in their absence. Thus cognition, for Husserl, always has an element of re-cognition, i.e., the experience of present objects as intended in their absence through language, memory, and imagination.

How Phenomenology Might Save the World

At this point, one ought to be wondering just why phenomenology was viewed as such an earthshaking philosophical development. Hans-Georg Gadamer recounts an amusing story in his memoir Philosophical Apprenticeships:

I still recall how I head the term [phenomenology] for the first time in 1919. It was in Richard Hamann’s introductory art history seminar, where a kind of club came together for an exchange of views…[1]

Phenomenology was remarkably popular for several reasons, all having to do with the fact that it stands as a corrective to the pervasive scientific reductionism of the time. Scientific reductionism has two dimensions.

First, there is the position known as scientific realism, which is the claim that the ordinary way people see the world is false and the way science sees the world is true. For instance, we experience a table as a solid object, whereas the physicist knows that the table is “really” nothing but a cloud of atoms and subatomic particles. It is more empty space than extended matter, and our perception of the table as solid is simply a naive and mistaken theory.

We experience the table as colored, whereas from the physicist’s perspective the table has no colors in itself and the color we perceive is a product of the interaction of our sense organs and the light reflected off the table–and the physicist’s perspective is “true” and ours is “false.” The table has no color in itself; it just has “reflectance properties” and our experience to the contrary is simply naive.

Scientific realism devaluates these kinds of experiences as mere illusions because they do not show up on objective scales of measurement. We should not feel any different if the same living space is on the ground floor of a house or small apartment building or on the top floor of a high-rise together with a thousand other identical units.

The result of scientific realism is the devaluation of the specifically human way of experiencing space and time, solids and spaces, colors and textures and their replacement with an so-called “objective” view of things that defines its objectivity precisely by the extent to which it abstracts away from the human way of experiencing the world. A world driven by scientific realism is a world in which human beings construct artifacts–and especially buildings and cities–that no longer bear any relation to the human way of experiencing the world. It is a world in which human beings feel dwarfed by and alienated from their own creations.

Husserl’s phenomenology rejects scientific realism and treats the human way of experiencing the world as having its own dignity and integrity, which must be taken into account. In his last work, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, Husserl even argues that the world of lived human experience–which Husserl calls the “lifeworld”–has primacy over the world as it is modeled by science, and that science must ultimately tie its abstractions back to the lifeworld if they are to have meaning. A clear implication of this view is that technology must also tie itself back to the world of lived experience if it too is to be meaningful.

A second element of scientific reductionism is the reduction of human existence as such to non-human or sub-human phenomena. This kind of reductionism has many forms. Human behavior and experience have been reduced to the mere manifestations of hidden psychological, technological, economic, political, social, cultural, biological, and racial causes.

In each case, these forms of reductionism deny our experiences of such specifically human features as rationality, creativity, freedom, and responsibility–our ability to discover how the world works, to bring new things into the world, and to take responsibility for them. Phenomenology cuts this kind of reductionism off at the root, simply by delegitimzing the denial of the truth of our experiences of freedom and responsibility, rationality and creativity.

By undercutting scientific realism and reductionism, phenomenology undercuts some of the most militant and destructive ideologies of our time, such as Marxism and the cult of technological Titanism and unlimited progress–all of which depend upon forms of scientific reductionism and realism.

Another reason for phenomenology’s importance is specifically philosophical. Reductionism is not just a staple of bad science and bad ideologies. It is also a feature of bad metaphysics.

  Many metaphysical systems argue that change is less real than permanence, or permanence less real than change.
  Some privilege sameness and deny the reality of difference.
  Others privilege difference and deny the reality of sameness.
  Some privilege mind and deny the existence of matter.
  Others privilege matter and deny the existence of mind.
  Some philosophers claim that intellect is primary and that sensations are but faint echoes of intellect.
  Others hold the exact reverse.

All of these positions use the same reductionist technique of taking one realm of experience, treating it as privileged, and treating all others as merely illusory projections or decayed versions of the privileged realm. So phenomenology has radical implications for the critique and refashioning of metaphysics, which brings us to Heidegger.

 

Posted by Metaphysics, Being, part 1 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 19:31 | #

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/03/what-is-metaphysics/

A Prelude to Being & Time
What is Metaphysics?
Greg Johnson

The best way of understanding what metaphysics is, is to understand what it is not. Metaphysics is not a specialized discipline; it is not a theoretical or practical inquiry that deals with a specific set of facts, or tries to change the world in a specific way. Every kind of fact and every kind of activity has some specialized discipline correlated to it. No matter what kind of facts you name, no matter how trivial, chances are that someone has written a doctoral dissertation on it — or will write one someday.

Metaphysics begins by taking a step back from action, from attempts to change the world. It is a reflective, contemplative activity that leaves everything as it is. Metaphysics also takes a step back from the specialized sciences and disciplines. And in taking this step back, metaphysics notices that each specialized discipline, because it is specialized, has two blind spots. These blind spots are, moreover, not merely accidental. Rather, they are essential to any specialized discipline as a specialized discipline. One’s attention cannot be in two places at the same time. Therefore, in order for the specialized disciplines to catch sight of their specific objects, they have to be blind to other things. Specifically, the specialized disciplines are blind to two things: (1) they are blind to where and how their subject matter fits into the whole; and (2) they are blind to their own methodological and cognitive presuppositions.

First, because each specialized discipline focuses on its delimited subject matter, it overlooks the question of how its domain of facts is related to other domains of facts within the whole. For instance, biologists, insofar as they are biologists, deal with living things.

In short, specialized disciplines deal with the parts of the world. Metaphysics deals with the whole. Metaphysics deals with how things — in the broadest possible sense of the term — “hang together” — in the broadest possible sense of that term.

Thus metaphysics gives us a sort of map of the whole, showing how all of the parts are related to other another within it. And, because no map is useful unless it has a little “You are here” sign that allows one to orient oneself in relation to it, metaphysics is especially concerned with the place of man in the cosmos.

The central question of metaphysics is the so-called “ontological” question, the question of “Being as Being,” which Aristotle, in his Metaphysics (the first book to bear that name), describes as follows.

The question that has always been asked and is still being asked today, the ever-puzzling question, is “What is Being (ti to on),” that is, “What is Beingness?” (1028b)

In Greek, the question of Being is “ti to on.” “On” is Being.” So the science of Being is “ontology.” Ontology is the central branch of metaphysics. Aristotle arrives at the question of Being as Being by noting that the entire world of facts has been parceled out among specialized and partial disciplines.

As Aristotle puts it, the sciences deal with delimited realms and modes of being–fish being, frog being, physical being and chemical being, social being and psychological being, etc. — but none of them deal simply with Being as such, abstracted from all the different concrete ways of being.

The topic of ontology is Being as such — not being as fish, frog — but Being as Being: “What is it to be — to be anything at all?”

It is Being that lies concealed in the blind spot of the sciences. It is ontology that disengages our attention from the objects and practices that absorb the specialized disciplines and everyday awareness. It is ontology that opens our eyes to their concealed background.

Ontology disengages our attention from the parts and turns us toward the whole.

Ontology disengages our attention from the beings that are present and turns us toward their presence as such.

Ontology disengages us from being absorbed in beings, and turns us toward: Being.

Phenomenology and Ontology

Now, at this point, you should be wondering, “What’s the difference between phenomenology and ontology?” Phenomenology, after all, deals with how beings show up to us. It deals with the presence/absence interplay through which beings become present. And ontology deals with the presence of beings and its basic structures.

Phenomenology takes a step back from the partiality and blindness of the specialized disciplines and asks how they and their different domains fit into the whole, how the whole hangs together. And ontology takes a step back from the partiality and blindness of the specialized disciplines and asks how they and their different domains fit together, how they fit into the big picture.

Phenomenology gives man a central place within the whole, for it is man to whom the world shows up. And ontology gives man a central place within the whole, for of all the beings in the world, only man asks the question of Being. It is man who notices the different kinds of beings in the world and thus divides the whole up into parts. It is man who then wonders how the parts fit together in the big picture. And if ontology deals with the presence of beings, then it must deal with man, for it is man to whom beings are present.

So, again: What’s the difference between phenomenology and ontology?

This question is Heidegger’s question as well. And his answer is: There is no difference between phenomenology and ontology, if we understand each of them properly. Heidegger claims, moreover, that phenomenology was implicit in ontology from the very beginning. He writes:

Already in the beginnings something remarkable comes to light. Philosophy seeks to elucidate Being via reflection on the thinking of beings (Parmenides). Plato’s disclosure of the Ideas takes its bearings from the soul’s conversation (logos) with itself. The Aristotelian categories originate in view of reason’s assertoric knowledge. Descartes explicitly founded first philosophy on the res cogitans [thinking substance]. Kant’s transcendental problematic moves in the field of consciousness. Now, is this turning of the gaze away from beings and onto consciousness something accidental, or is it finally demanded by the specific character of what has been constantly sought for under the title “Being” as philosophy’s field of problems?[2]

Heidegger’s thesis is that the phenomenon that Plato and Aristotle called “Being” is the same phenomenon that later philosophers came to call “consciousness.” It is the phenomenon that Heidegger calls “presencing” or the interplay of presence and absence, which is the topic of phenomenology. In the Introduction to Being and Time (81–82 in Basic Writings) Heidegger states — first elliptically and then straightforwardly — the identity of Being and presencing, of ontology and phenomenology. He writes:

What is the phenomenon studied by phenomenology?

Manifestly it is something that does not show itself at first and for the most part, something that it concealed, in contrast to what at first and for the most part does show itself.”

That is: the phenomenon studied by phenomenology is not readily apparent; it is first and for the most part hidden or concealed. By contrast, the things that are readily apparent make up the world around us.

But at the same time it [this concealed something] is something that essentially belongs to what at first and for the most part shows itself, indeed in such a way that it constitutes it sense and ground.

That is: The phenomenon studied by phenomenology may be hidden, but it is essentially connected with those things that are not hidden: the things that fill the world around us. The phenomenon that phenomenology studies is the “sense” and the “ground” of the things in the world around us. By “sense and ground,” Heidegger means that the phenomenon studied by phenomenology is that which makes it possible for things in the world to show up to a human knower.

Heidegger then goes on to reveal that Being is the phenomenon studied by phenomenology:

But what remains concealed in an exceptional sense, or what falls back and is covered up again, or shows itself only in a distorted way, is not this or that being but rather, as we have shown in our foregoing observations, the Being of beings. (81–82)

For Heidegger, the Being of beings is that which makes beings present to a knower.

Metaphorically, the Being of beings is the “light” in which beings show up to knowers.

Being is the process by which beings are disclosed or made manifest to us.

Being is the presencing of beings, the presence/absence interplay through which beings are given.

If Being is that which allows beings to show up to us, and if phenomenology is the study of the way in which beings show up to us, then Being is the object of phenomenology.

Posted by Metaphysics, Being, part 2 on Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:56 | #

A Prelude to Being & Time
What is Metaphysics?
Greg Johnson

Part 2

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/03/what-is-metaphysics/

If phenomenology studies Being and ontology studies Being, then phenomenology and ontology are simply two different words for the same thing: the study of Being.

Heidegger writes:

Phenomenology is the way accessing, and the manner of demonstratively determining, what is to become the theme of ontology. Ontology is possible only as phenomenology. The phenomenological concept of the phenomenon, as self-showing, means the Being of beings . . . . (82)

Thus far, we have covered what phenomenology is and what metaphysics — or ontology — is. Phenomenology deals with the presencing of beings. Ontology deals with Being. We have also seen that Heidegger identifies Being with the presencing of beings through the interplay of presence and absence. He identifies phenomenology and ontology. Now is the time to make clear some of Heidegger’s key terminology.

Ontological Difference

Central to Heidegger’s thought is the idea of the “ontological difference.” The ontological difference is the difference between Being and beings. We are beings; the things in the world around us are beings. But Being itself is not just another being. It is not a being in the world. No matter where we go, we are not going to find a particular being which is also Being itself.

Translated into the language of presence and absence, the ontological difference is the difference between presence and what is present, between absence and what is absent. The difference between a being and its presence and absence can be appreciated through the fact that the being remains the same, whether it is present or absent; thus it cannot be identified with either of the two. Being is the presence/absence of that-which-is-present/absent. Presence/absence is always the presence/absence of that-which-is-present/absent, but it cannot be reduced to that-which-is-present/absent. Presence/absence is different from, but inextricably tied to, that-which-is-present/absent.[3]

The Metaphysics of Presence

The central thesis of Being and Time is that throughout the history of ontology, the understanding of Being is determined by a particular understanding of time. Heidegger’s task is

. . interpreting the very basis of ancient ontology in light of the problem of Temporality. Here it become evident that the ancient interpretation of the Being of beings is that it is oriented toward the “world” or “nature” in broadest sense and that it indeed gains its understanding of Being from “time.” The outward evidence of this–but of course only outward–is the determination of the meaning of Being as parousia or ousia, which means ontologically and temporally “presence.” Beings are grasped in their Being as “presence”; that is to say, they are understood with respect to a definite mode of time, the present. (69–70)

The “presence” in the metaphysics of presence has three dimensions. First, there is temporal presence, the present as opposed to the past and the future. Second, there is spatial presence, as opposed to absence. Third, there is cognitive presence, presence to a knower. The metaphysics of presence defines Being as that which is (spatially and cognitively) present to a knower in the (temporal) present.

The metaphysics of presence is an error, simply because it is a form of reductionism. Again, for Heidegger, Being is the presentation of beings to a knower through an interplay of presence and absence. Furthermore, Heidegger holds that this process is temporally dynamic. We make beings present in light of our projects for the future, which are based upon our pasts. The same world looks very different to us when we are running to and fro trying to meet a looming deadline or when we have no pressing engagements and a lot of time on our hands. So the way things show up in the present is determined by our expectations for the future, and our expectations for the future are determined in large part by what has happened in the past.

The metaphysics of presence seeks to eliminate this dynamic temporal dimension from Being, conceiving being as enduring, unchanging presence or substance. The metaphysics of presence also excludes the dimension of absence from Being. But this is an error, because time and absence are real aspects of Being, thus a good account of Being has to take them into account, not just leave them out.

Dismantling or “Deconstruction”

By “deconstruction” Heidegger means the task of taking metaphysics apart brick by brick and working his way down to the foundations of Western metaphysics in the lived experience of the Greek philosophers.

Deconstruction does not mean destruction. It is not an attempt to raze metaphysics to the ground and start over. Rather, it is the attempt to recover the original motivating experiences that got metaphysics going in the first place. Specifically, it tries to recover the temporal dynamism and absential aspects of Being and to try to figure out why they were later passed over.

Dasein

Now to the question that most of you have been wondering about. Who is this Dasein person? The answer is: you are Dasein. Heidegger interprets Being as the manifestation of beings to a knower. Dasein is the knower to whom beings are manifest. Dasein is the one to whom beings are present.

But why does Heidegger use this word “Dasein?” why not simply use the word “knower” or “subject” or “human being”? Dasein is a German word for existence, for concrete thereness. Heidegger, however, hears Dasein as a compound of two other German words: Da and Sein. “Da” means both here and there. It means the place or the whereabouts of something. Sein is the German word that we translate as “Being” with a big “B.”

Putting the two together, Heidegger uses the word Dasein to mean the place of Being or the whereabouts of Being. Dasein, as the one to whom beings show up, is the place of this showing. This showing is Being. So Dasein is the place of Being. If you are looking for Being, then look for Dasein, for Dasein is where Being is to be found.

Being and Culture

I want to conclude by saying a few words about the relationship of Being and culture. Heidegger holds that Being is the interplay of presence and absence through which beings show up to the knower, Dasein. The element of presence in Being consists simply of any form of direct awareness. The element of absence is any cognitive commerce with beings in their absence.

Now, Heidegger held that our capacity to deal with beings in their absence is grounded in the faculties of memory and imagination, in language, and in the various meaningful practices and attitudes that make up a culture. Our culturally rooted attitudes and practices are an absolutely crucial element in our experience of the world.

One of the first things that one notices about a different culture is its different attitudes toward space and time. All human societies have a sense of the appropriate personal space that each person occupies and that cannot be transgressed without some sort of violation of propriety. All cultures also have their own characteristic perceptions of time. Cultures with cyclical conceptions of time tend to be extremely conservative and also very close to and rooted in nature. Such cultures are less likely to regard change as progress and more likely to regard it is degeneration and eccentricity. Cultures with linear conceptions of time are much more comfortable with change and liable to describe it as progress rather than decay or eccentricity. Some cultures take things at a more leisurely pace than others.

These different cultural attitudes and characteristic practices allow the world to show up in a different ways. Thus, when we take a culture as a whole–looking both at its characteristic practices and attitudes and at the different ways they allow the world to show up to us–it is perfectly legitimate to identify Being and culture, and different cultures with different ways of Being.

This is an important point to keep in mind if we want to understand the connection between metaphysics and nihilism, for nihilism is a form of culture or anti-culture. Nihilism, therefore, is a mode of Being, a way of Being. And, if metaphysics studies Being, then metaphysics studies nihilism.

And, if one wishes to understand how the nihilistic way of Being has come about and how it can possibly be overcome, then one must understand how different modes of Being come about and pass away. This is Heidegger’s ultimate question: What gives us different historical modes of Being, and what takes them away? How did nihilism arrive, and how can it be overcome?

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 01:52 | #

Jimmy asked me (on Disqus) to post that Poland thing on MR. I try not to encourage infighting, but, well, it’s done now….

JamesUK has trolled here for years already, I’ve long since stopped reading anything he writes.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 02:02 | #

I understand that Lurker. I didn’t hold it against you and have already considered it forgotten.

Posted by voznich on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 08:20 | #

Posted by On Graham Lister on March 04, 2015, 09:12 AM | #

Perhaps it is premature to suggest and wrong to pre-empt GW in relating the NEWS, but Graham Lister may have taken the step beyond.

We hope that we are mistaken, but unfortunately, there are clues to believe that it may be the case that he is not merely gone from MR.

What are the clues?

Posted by clues on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 12:22 | #

Battled a serious heart condition…

With no indication that he had misgivings with correspondents and wished to stop talking, a sudden and total end to email communication which had, until then, been very regular.

Posted by confidence on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 14:26 | #

Coming back to the matter of confidence and how there needs to be a critical platform of this characteristic which females no doubt admire (too much).

You hear females admiring “strong men and strong women.”

Well, it can be said of black men and women that they are “strong.”

Nobody is more confident than black males and what kind of society does their confidence create?

Sheer confidence doesn’t think ahead, isn’t intellectual, doesn’t have empathy

The Confederates who went into Pickett’s charge were also acting confidently…

Yes, men need to be manly, masculine, strong and assertive - to fight goddamn it! but not to the point, in a way, or for a purpose that it is stupid, as it can be.

A stupid reason to fight would be for the sake of masculinity alone.

Again, we should be critical in the sense that it is not something to be quantified, but stood in optimal balance with empathy - particularly with social concern of our group(s) - planning and calculation.

As it corresponds with masculinity, our European kind is more calculative and circumspect, taking into account broader patterns, the seasons and scarce periods, etc, as opposed to the more hyper-assertive masculinity of Africans.

I believe that when Bowery thinks about blacks, he is mostly thinking about their proclivity for forming into gangs - to him, this is not being “manly.”

Bowery is concerned that we not lose our distinctive Northern European individuality, particularly by dint of traditional collectivized war. That’s valid.

However, neither should we lose our particular and optimal quality of European masculinity by treating as prescription what is a description of the black male one up position as “alpha”, by the gamers, who look upon the disorder of modernity, and the Jewish role in creating that disorder by rupturing racial classifications and pandering to female inclination to incite genetic competition, and pandering to blacks, their episodic assertiveness in the disordering of broader patterns to create opportunism for them, and say that is “the way reality is, adjust to it or perish.”

Hence talk of an unfortunate return to tribalism on the show of 3/6 by Truck Roy:
http://renseradioarchives.com/stormfront/

I think Roy’s marking too neat a distinction between nationalism and tribalism, even as it has been, but particularly in making it more clean a distinction than it will be..

While it may be true and bad that Sub Saharans are gang like, it is not what I mean by the hyper-masculinity of sub-Saharan Africans, but rather their proclivity for hyper-assertivity on an episodic and even an impulsive basis.

While we may need to cooperate more, and assimilate “non-White” ways in compromising some of our individualism provisionally in favor of cooperation, at least until our borders are secure, that is not the same as being hyper-assertive without a sense of context.

To be in a situation as many of our men are, inundated, surrounded by blacks and other non-Whites, and to be told, to have it insisted upon by females in fact, that White men should be “confident” and assertive in some highly physical, episodic way - while immersed in a rule structure that inundates our people with black torrents, forces blacks upon us and enjoins fighting back on severest penalty, disparages our worth, ties our hands behind our back, encourages puerile White females to denounce “racism” and vehemently reject “racists”, beatifies them for becoming mudsharks - is disingenuous of the female who blames White male lack of confidence; it is disingenuous in the extreme. 

In this situation, you may want to give fair warning to the female that you’re getting out and that she’s in danger, but after that, you don’t have confidence, stand and fight, you hunker down or better, engage in tactical retreat to a Whiter place

But as a European, you do not assimilate, reconstruct and participate in black evolution, no matter how “confident” they are

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 01:04 | #

Greg and/or Herr Husserl “appear” to be using presence and absence in a non-productive way.  “How objects show up” is an uninteresting and barren epistemological project.  To understand human being requires understanding of the dynamic of consciousness, and what it means for the subject, be it individual or collective.  It is the subject which suffers absence in ordinary waking consciousness - the flawed, low-amperage state that passes for an acceptable level of mental output.  But it is also the subject which finds itself with itself, to bowdlerise Heidegger, in (let us say) normal waking consciousness - the level of output we should experience all the time but, for reasons deep in the human evolutionary past, only do so through an exercise of the attention.

When phenomenologists focus not on the difficult, up-raising, practical work of attention but, very boringly, on the mechanical process of intention, they immediately lose the possibility to think about the true structure of the dynamic of human consciousness, which is something thus:

absence ◄ habituality (mechanicity) ◄ immersion ◄ negation ◄ reverie ◄ sloth ◄ passivity ◄► intent ► attention ► stillness ► detachment ► affirmation ► appropriation ► presence ► non-ascription of identity ► self-annihilation ► Being

Posted by voznich on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 11:00 | #

Posted by clues on March 07, 2015, 07:22 AM | #

Battled a serious heart condition…

With no indication that he had misgivings with correspondents and wished to stop talking, a sudden and total end to email communication which had, until then, been very regular.

How do you know that? Were you a friend in real life? Did Lister say that somewhere?

Maybe he just got bored.

Posted by How we know on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 13:33 | #

GW said it, had contact with him. Only a disingenunous asshole would claim to be “bored” by the discussions here. Now please, Haller, Voznich, whomever you are, find a site somewhere else to take your trolling, or a site that makes you happy.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 14:52 | #

Leon, I can confirm only that Graham has dropped off the edge of the world from my perspective, suddenly and without reason or warning.  The same happened with Fred Scrooby, whose obituary, in his own name, is on the net.  Likewise, Lister was not Graham’s surname.  It might, at a pinch, refer to the father of modern surgery, Joseph Lister.  But he was English and a renowned Christian; and Graham is/was very definitely neither of those things.  I tend to think the name had family connections.

However, we are left in the dark.  A Scots nationalist, a very fine critic of liberalism, and a cutting scourge of religious thinking and shallow thinking everywhere is lost to us; and it is no small loss.

Posted by Daniel A on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 16:35 | #

A few people who insisted upon Jesus, (or both Jesus and H) have gone to Anglin’s. I guess that you know that, and also know that a few like that, such as DanielJ/ ClassicSparkle/ DanielA may have gone to Tan’s site. Tan doesn’t have many, but takes a few of this kind. A also has his own site listed somewhere in the sidebar (Ironically, he condemns people as “boring” if they don’t believe in Christianity and some kind of traditionalism).

I think Anglin is a little over the top. A lot over the top. But apparently there’s a demand for his writing. I dunno. I don’t read his site.

I post occasionally at Tan’s and occasionally at Greg’s. I’ve been working on essays that I’m going to post soon. They are really a bunch of book reviews: Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals by John Gray, 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep by Jonathan Crary, a book that demolishes Ayn Rand’s ‘philosophy’ from a Christian perspective, and other stuff in that vein. I’ve been really interested in post-Keynesian economics (Steve Keen and Philip Pilkington got me into it) lately and I have been working on finishing CLEP testing thru a silly B.A. I’ve been working on in my spare time for years. Just been busy. I like to think it was my pushing Anthony Migchels spurred by Greg’s pushing rethinking economics for our ‘circles’ that was the reason he even appeared here at MR.

I will submit all of this writing to MR, Counter-Currents, and Alternative Right. Other than the Ayn Rand book review it is Jesus and Hitler free. I’m not an ideologue or a Hitler worshiper and I’m certainly interested in plenty besides NS Germany.

I’m not sure I’ve ever claimed someone is boring if they don’t believe in Christianity. If I did I can say now I certainly don’t believe that without serious qualification. I’m very interested in many things. I’m pretty eclectic in that regard. I do and will continue to claim that only the Christian view can make sense of the world. Any philosophy that doesn’t presuppose the facts of historic Christianity (we could call it Augustinianism) ends in skepticism and the entire history of Western philosophy attests to this very plain fact. Empiricism is doomed to failure and always has been. Rationalism is doomed to failure and always has been. Only dogmatism solves the philosophical problems of universals, other minds, the external world, etc. Daniel and GW have decided that these subjects are not up for debate anymore. No Christianity and no Jesus is the official editorial policy. Debate about those two subjects was what made this site interesting to me. It doesn’t interest me anymore because of the way the debate has been restricted. That’s all there is to it.

Hitler? I think he did some good things and most of the economic good he did was a result of liberalizing the German economy in the capitalist direction rather than the socialist direction. It was really a form of welfare-state communitarianism. Nationalist communitarianism with some socialist leanings and sprinklings is a pretty reasonable position as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t believe in homicidal gas chambers. I believe it is so absurd on the face of it that it would be laughable except that German (read: White Christian Male) evilness is the central and organizing myth of our time (although I’ve softened here because it seems to me that things can continue apace without this myth).

I believe England felt threatened by any competition from their brothers on the continent and threw away their empire when they could have just showed a little love to the Germans.

I love England. I love English history. It’s MY history. It’s OUR history. They were the single best thing we’ve achieved as a people. And now it’s all gone except for their financial hegemony manifested in the neo-Babylon that is London (particularly The City).

I think the best outcome would have been averting war with Russia and negotiating some colonies and lebensraum for the Germans. We didn’t get that though. What we got instead was a fucked up disaster of a worldwide war that destroyed our collective spirit.

I refuse to believe that the Germans were somehow more responsible or more evil than anybody else involved. War is hell and all. Big events like WWII have big causes that are beyond individual actors.

Anyway, I still read MR. I just don’t comment because I’m not welcome to comment in the fashion that I would like to. Also I’ve been busy bouldering, mountain biking, and studying to switch careers. I’m tired of building power lines.

Pace brothers.

Posted by Daniel A on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 17:09 | #

And, I should also say, that I love Poland and Polish history. It is MY history. It is OUR history.

In fact, it was the Crosswind Collective’s When Victims Rule that provided me with my first moment of ‘racial empathy’ and started breaking me of my ‘anti-racist’ delusion.

The chapters in the book that deal with Poland (especially Chapter 7) were truly formative for me. Reading about the way the Polish nobility allowed the Jewish inn-keepers to demoralize the Polish people provided me with one of my biggest ‘moments’ in my deconversion. I felt for my Polish brothers and sisters in that moment and it was the first time I felt truly ‘European’. I was always interested in ancient Greece (even as a sixth grader) but in that moment the history of Europe stretching from Minoa/Egypt/Greece all the way up to Hitler/Churchill/Roosevelt thru that poor and despised Polish peasantry became mine.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 19:05 | #

Well I am still around thanks everyone. My health is good but sadly an immediate family member is critically ill hence I have not the time, nor the emotional energy, to comment here or anywhere else.

Posted by All victims of "szlachta" now on Mon, 09 Mar 2015 06:00 | #

Graham, glad to see your resurrection

_______________________________

Daniel A,

Christianity is not the only nor the best means to anchor and gird our moral orders against the arbitrary vicissitudes of empiricism or unnaturally imposed concepts.

As argued previously, a place is needed (such as MR) to serve those who hope to realize for Europeans, moral orders that are up-to date, appropriate to our nature and conducive to our reality.

There are places and sites for those who wish to practice Christianity.

Those of us who do not believe in Christianity (perhaps even see it as counter productive) deserve moral consideration and a place to rethink how our moral orders should be.

Necessary “dogma”? Indeed, for one thing: “these genetics” can have citizenship among this or that species of our genus.

Regarding your empathy for Polish peasantry, it is perhaps a bit eschewed of quaint and anachronistic, but tilting beyond condescending. When we are discussing the exploitation of the peasantry by Polish nobility using Jewish tax collectors, we are talking when? 1650? Yes, oligarchy, not only Polish, has cast shadows and analogies more recently, like szlachta in cahoots with Jewish interests against our common interests. But if we do not need guilt trips regarding Nazi overreach circa 1939 - 44, we certainly don’t need it regarding corrupt rule circa 1650. Peasants?

It is not exactly condescending, but perhaps worse, a perspective colored by those, like Dr. Pierce, who might try to portray Hitler as a “liberator” of Poland (yeah, right).

I notice you stay with the American WN Nazi view that the invasion of Russia was a mistake, but Poland, that was ok.

Germany was enormous even after Versailles. And as for negotiating “lebensraum”, the Sudetenland (the most valuable part of Czech) was conceded to Hitler and still he would not stop. So much for negotiations with Hitler. You know better than that. Regarding “lebensraum”, America’s biggest White demographic has been far and away German (that accounts for much of the distorted bias of WN); but still I would not object, but would in fact favor setting up German identitarian (and other European identitarian) communities in the Americas and elsewhere.

I will not argue that the Poles are and have been perfect (as the Nazis tend to do of their own) in fighting to get their nation back.

Nevertheless, I would not wish to disregard your gesture of good will toward Poles as a part of our European family and history.

Still, you might consider GW’s angle that while Germans are our family, there were significant elements of the Nazis which were not representative of our people but affectations of reaction. 

.........................

Speaking of thoughful voices who have been known to post at MR, I see that “Trainspotter” is posting at Parrott and Heimbach’s “TradYouth”.

He seems to be pushing the Bugsers line. It’s kind of a shame that he is posting alongside the likes of “BlutundBoden” there, but that makes the point again of some tainted edges in American WN.

- also see Trainspotter at the gamer thing, Chateau Heartiste: a blog probably scientististic in its treatment of description as corollary to prescription.

Posted by Daniel A on Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:07 | #

Christianity is not the only nor the best means to anchor and gird our moral orders against the arbitrary vicissitudes of empiricism or unnaturally imposed concepts.

I disagree. We used to be able to have that discussion here though and now we can’t. But that is GW’s prerogative and I respect that so this will be my last comment on the issue.

As argued previously, a place is needed (such as MR) to serve those who hope to realize for Europeans, moral orders that are up-to date, appropriate to our nature and conducive to our reality.

MR already was that and more. It was inclusive and interesting because of it. Now it isn’t inclusive and because of that it doesn’t interest me anymore. Those of us who believe that Christian dogmatics are the only true and sure foundation are no longer welcome. So we are no longer here.

There are places and sites for those who wish to practice Christianity.

So? This was one of them. And there wasn’t this kind of discussion in those places. It isn’t necessarily about “Christianity” (as in the WCF or Christian living) but about the philosophy undergirding it and it’s intersection with Europe. Nobody was commenting or writing about the power of prayer at length.

Those of us who do not believe in Christianity (perhaps even see it as counter productive) deserve moral consideration and a place to rethink how our moral orders should be.

You already had it here.

Regarding your empathy for Polish peasantry, it is perhaps a bit eschewed of quaint and anachronistic, but tilting beyond condescending. When we are discussing the exploitation of the peasantry by Polish nobility using Jewish tax collectors, we are talking when? 1650? Yes, oligarchy, not only Polish, has cast shadows and analogies more recently, like szlachta in cahoots with Jewish interests against our common interests. But if we do not need guilt trips regarding Nazi overreach circa 1939 - 44, we certainly don’t need it regarding corrupt rule circa 1650. Peasants?

Ok. Overinterpret and miss the point if you like. I was just using it to describe my position (and part of my ‘awakening’). I want the best for all of our brothers and sisters. I’m not trying to resurrect the SS and Hitler. It wasn’t for export then and it certainly won’t work in the American situation. Nor will it work in England. But what England and America are doing now aren’t working either.

It is not exactly condescending, but perhaps worse, a perspective colored by those, like Dr. Pierce, who might try to portray Hitler as a “liberator” of Poland (yeah, right).

I didn’t do that.

I notice you stay with the American WN Nazi view that the invasion of Russia was a mistake, but Poland, that was ok.

I didn’t say it was ok to invade Poland. Neither do I retroject my quaint bourgeois morality backwards in time to judge anybody involved in an over simplified way. That said, my hesitant (and always subject-to-revision) opinion is that although the Poles behaved stupidly Hitler didn’t have the right to carve up the country with the Russians. But these things and these forces were bigger than Hitler. Nor were Hitler and the boys worse or better than the English, the Americans, the Russians, etc.

What I was getting at with the comment about Russia and Germany was that a negotiated peace with the all the big players (respectfully considering the small players) would have been the best thing for Europe. It probably would have contained communism and attenuated it.

Germany was enormous even after Versailles. And as for negotiating “lebensraum”, the Sudetenland (the most valuable part of Czech) was conceded to Hitler and still he would not stop.

Land mass wasn’t the issue after Versailles. Crushing debt (although it was just as bad for England) and quite a few other issues took precedence over land. You know that man.

Living room wasn’t meant by me to be taken literally anyway. The issue was territories where sizable German minorities (or majorities) lived under hostile, non-German governments without adequate representation. In the case of the artificial and misdrawn borders of the Czechs, the Sudetenland was German. In fact, there were far more Germans in the newly minted Czech republic than Czechs! The Germans were not allowed autonomous development in the country. The Slovaks, Hungarians, and the Czechs themselves broke their republic apart. It was actually a decent and relatively peaceful settlement. Still, I’m not arguing that this gave Hitler the right to invade Poland.

The issue with Poland was Danzig (which they didn’t truly need after the construction of Gydnia) and Upper Silesia (which I believe Hitler was willing to cede if he could have a narrow strip of land to build the autobahn out to Danzig). The very deep rooted anti-Polish sentiment in Germany (which bordered on irrational) enabled the leadership to use those two issues as a pretext to behave drastically differently from the way they did solving the Austria and Czechoslovakia issues. Poland’s own behavior (toward its sizable German minority) didn’t help and neither did France or England’s behavior help.

So much for negotiations with Hitler. You know better than that.

Based on what I’ve read I went from the opinion that they (the Germans) were insatiable monsters to ‘they were pretty fair’ but made some serious errors with regard to Poland (and others as well). That’s where I’m at right now and probably where I’ll remain. But again, we aren’t supposed to have that position here in the combox. So that’s why we aren’t here.

Regarding “lebensraum”, America’s biggest White demographic has been far and away German (that accounts for much of the distorted bias of WN); but still I would not object, but would in fact favor setting up German identitarian (and other European identitarian) communities in the Americas and elsewhere.

Well I would. America is ‘white’ or ‘European’. We’re pretty mixed. I’d say even the German areas are mostly mixed now (probably German and English). Or perhaps it is me projecting my own experience beyond justifiable boundaries. I have lived in the Southwest, the Northeast, and the South however and that has been my experience in all those places.

I will not argue that the Poles are and have been perfect (as the Nazis tend to do of their own) in fighting to get their nation back.

Nor will I argue that the Germans are perfect. They aren’t. In fact, I think Germans are a little weird personally. I can’t imagine feeling very comfortable there based on the Germans I’ve met.

Nevertheless, I would not wish to disregard your gesture of good will toward Poles as a part of our European family and history.

Thanks. And I was only using the Poles as an example. I take the broad view. We are a global minority in some type of crisis. I don’t want to take the alarmist position that we are going to disappear by 2050 but we certainly need to radically adjust soon or we might not make it in a meaningful way past 2200.

Still, you might consider GW’s angle that while Germans are our family, there were significant elements of the Nazis which were not representative of our people but affectations of reaction.

Well I look at it like everything we do is ‘us’ really. How can we be anything but ‘us’?

Certainly going full Nazi was in some respects a bad idea whether or not it was ‘us’. What I do take away as important was the focus on public health, the KDF (the actual KDF and the ‘ethos’ behind it), the promotion of the ‘best’ and hardest working in society (in California they spend like 90 TIMES as much on ‘special’ education rather than on gifted students), a strong social safety net, the control of the banking class (even though there was much to be desired in practice in Germany in that regard), etc.

That’s why I identify with Christopher Lasch’s communitarianism here. Radicalize Lasch a bit or tone the Nazis down some and you have my position. Left wing on finance and public health, but right wing on family formation and religion.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 09 Mar 2015 18:59 | #

Daniel A, how can you have acquaintance with Mein Kampf and Table Talk and still argue about the borders as they are now and expect people to feel sorry about it? It is f-ing ridiculous!

You are not hearing me or reality.

They got the Sudentenland. After that, Hitler carped that he wanted a road to Danzig and did not think he should have to share the city as the free city it had been at times in history; failing that, he should bomb Petersberg, Moscow, Volgograd, Kiev, Minsk, Warsaw etc etc. kill anybody who stood in the way…

Are you crazy?

Just so happened the idea of replacing the Slavic populations with Germans in those places “emerged” along the way,, right.

Can you hear what I am saying? Does something get through? Anything?

You quote me:

“Christianity is not the only nor the best means to anchor and gird our moral orders against the arbitrary vicissitudes of empiricism or unnaturally imposed concepts.”

Yes, I stand by that. It is totally irrational, smoke and mirrors convenient to put across bs such as what you are attempting right here.

There needs to be place spared from the endless nonsense and debate about this stuff. Even if there are those who will not take advantage, there are those who will, and it is an utter waste of time. Christianity isn’t true and it is essentially unhelpful. We have too many important things to do rather than waste our time with it.

You say:

“I disagree. We used to be able to have that discussion here though and now we can’t. But that is GW’s prerogative and I respect that so this will be my last comment on the issue.”

I don’t feel the least bit sorry for you that you are not encouraged to advocate Christianity here. Enough of that yoke. Not a chance.

You quote me as saying:

As argued previously, a place is needed (such as MR) to serve those who hope to realize for Europeans, moral orders that are up-to date, appropriate to our nature and conducive to our reality.

and reply:

“MR already was that and more. It was inclusive and interesting because of it.”

To you, maybe. To the thoughtful world, debate about Christianity is an interminable bore. There was no debating with Christians, it goes on in futility. And yes, as a matter of fact, I did go back and readily see a comment of yours calling someone who was arguing against Christianity “boring”, so it wasn’t just me.

You say:

Now it isn’t inclusive and because of that it doesn’t interest me anymore.

Good.

It isn’t inclusive of people who insist upon Christianity or Hitler or Jews. If that doesn’t interest you please find somewhere that does. No time for nonsense.

DanielA
Those of us who believe Christian dogmatics are the only true and sure foundation are no longer welcome. So we’re no longer here.

Good. Stay away.

It’s best that people who insist upon Christianity not be here. It is a massive relief that they are not here.

There are places and sites for those who wish to practice Christianity.

You say:

“So? This was one of them.”

And it is not any more, just as it is not a place for Nazis, and Jews, thank goodness. A waste of time in endless “debate” about nonsense.

MR is ten thousand times better to be without it.

“And there wasn’t this kind of discussion in those places. It isn’t necessarily about “Christianity” (as in the WCF or Christian living) but about the philosophy undergirding it and it’s intersection with Europe. Nobody was commenting or writing about the power of prayer at length.”

We have other things to think about here.

Those of us who do not believe in Christianity (perhaps even see it as counter productive) deserve moral consideration and a place to rethink how our moral orders should be.

DanielA

You already had it here.

No. We had interminable interference.

You quote me saying:

Regarding your empathy for Polish peasantry, it is perhaps a bit eschewed of quaint and anachronistic, but tilting beyond condescending. When we are discussing the exploitation of the peasantry by Polish nobility using Jewish tax collectors, we are talking when? 1650? Yes, oligarchy, not only Polish, has cast shadows and analogies more recently, like szlachta in cahoots with Jewish interests against our common interests. But if we do not need guilt trips regarding Nazi overreach circa 1939 - 44, we certainly don’t need it regarding corrupt rule circa 1650. Peasants?

And say:

Ok. Overinterpret and miss the point if you like.

I don’t miss the point. It is clear that you are overly sympathetic to Nazi Germany’s arguments; that is typical of Americans in a very German America.

DanielA:

I was just using it to describe my position (and part of my ‘awakening’). I want the best for all of our brothers and sisters. I’m not trying to resurrect the SS and Hitler. It wasn’t for export then and it certainly won’t work in the American situation. Nor will it work in England. But what England and America are doing now aren’t working either.

And you are leaning into the typical false either or – its either that or Nazism. Its a false either or.

It is not exactly condescending, but perhaps worse, a perspective colored by those, like Dr. Pierce, who might try to portray Hitler as a “liberator” of Poland (yeah, right).

DanielA

“I didn’t do that.”

I notice you stay with the American WN Nazi view that the invasion of Russia was a mistake, but Poland, that was ok.

DanielA

I didn’t say it was ok to invade Poland. Neither do I retroject my quaint bourgeois morality backwards in time to judge anybody involved in an over simplified way. That said, my hesitant (and always subject-to-revision) opinion is that although the Poles behaved stupidly.

Hitler behaved stupidly. He had the power to not go to war. He should not have gone to war. He did not have to go to war. The idea that Germany was vulnerable to a Soviet invasion is a sham. All nations between were against the Soviets. The Poles knew what Hitler had in mind, he wanted the lands up to the Urals and the Slavic peoples out of the way. Fuck Hitler and fuck anyone who likes him.

DanielA

Hitler didn’t have the right to carve up the country with the Russians. But these things and these forces were bigger than Hitler.

Poor baby. Made a little error.

DanielA

Nor were Hitler and the boys worse or better than the English, the Americans, the Russians, etc.

They were bad, very. Don’t kid yourself.

DanielA

What I was getting at with the comment about Russia and Germany was that a negotiated peace with the all the big players (respectfully considering the small players) would have been the best thing for Europe.

Typical American after the fact bullshit.

There was a peace and Hitler broke it. Understand? The guy was a war monger. His words breathed of it.

DanielA

“It probably would have contained communism and attenuated it.

The Poles, Belarusians and Ukrainians were already totally intent on containing communism. Hitler didn’t care because he wanted their lands and their people out of the way. I understand that you haven’t read a word that I’ve written and that you know nothing about the countries between Germany and Russia, but do you have to make it so obvious?

Germany was enormous even after Versailles. And as for negotiating “lebensraum”, the Sudetenland (the most valuable part of Czech) was conceded to Hitler and still he would not stop.

DanielA

Land mass wasn’t the issue after Versailles. Crushing debt (although it was just as bad for England) and quite a few other issues took precedence over land. You know that man.

What is this bullshit, land mass is not what its about? Have you read Table Talk? Hitler’s plans for Ukraine, etc.? Get real.

You have not been following things here but just believe what you want to believe. Regarding Versailles and hard economic times, there was a depression for every nation, Germany didn’t repay the reparations, it wasn’t really believed that they could and they wound up paying less than they made France pay after the war int the 1870s.

What you are saying makes no sense. They had a difficult financial situation, so they had to flatten Warsaw, turn Zamosc into Himmlerdstadt? Bomb Kiev, Minsk and Volgograd, plan to destroy Petersburg and Moscow, take over Crimea for a German resort?

Why don’t you get real?

DanielA

Living room wasn’t meant by me to be taken literally anyway. The issue was territories where sizable German minorities (or majorities) lived under hostile, non-German governments without adequate representation.

Bromberg and Thorn. And you only hear the German/Nazi perspective, not about how perhaps they were developing a fifth columns in these places, etc.

DanielA

In the case of the artificial and misdrawn borders of the Czechs, the Sudetenland was German. In fact, there were far more Germans in the newly minted Czech republic than Czechs! The Germans were not allowed autonomous development in the country.

Again, they were given the Sudetenland and you expect me to feel sorry for them after what they did and what they planned to do. Forget it.

All you do is make clear what garbage Christianity is.

DanielA

The Slovaks, Hungarians, and the Czechs themselves broke their republic apart. It was actually a decent and relatively peaceful settlement. Still, I’m not arguing that this gave Hitler the right to invade Poland.

The issue with Poland was Danzig (which they didn’t truly need after the construction of Gydnia) and Upper Silesia (which I believe Hitler was willing to cede if he could have a narrow strip of land to build the autobahn out to Danzig).

Nonsense. All just a pretext and not a fully justified one at that.

The Poles knew that Danzig, like Bromberg and Thorn was just a beachhead for further incursions. A normal regime might have been satisfied with its being a neutral city. Poland’s sea access was precarious but particularly given Hitler’s true intentions.

DanielA

The very deep rooted anti-Polish sentiment in Germany (which bordered on irrational) enabled the leadership to use those two issues as a pretext to behave drastically differently from the way they did solving the Austria and Czechoslovakia issues. Poland’s own behavior (toward its sizable German minority) didn’t help and neither did France or England’s behavior help.

So much for negotiations with Hitler. You know better than that.

DanielA

Based on what I’ve read I went from the opinion that they (the Germans) were insatiable monsters to ‘they were pretty fair’ but made some serious errors with regard to Poland (and others as well). That’s where I’m at right now and probably where I’ll remain. But again, we aren’t supposed to have that position here in the combox. So that’s why we aren’t here.

Right. Because what you’ve read are words that do not take into account Hitler’s true intentions, made clear in Table Talk if not Mein Kampf.

You can’t come here and lie, just because you want Hitler to be “the good guy.”

Regarding “lebensraum”, America’s biggest White demographic has been far and away German (that accounts for much of the distorted bias of WN); but still I would not object, but would in fact favor setting up German identitarian (and other European identitarian) communities in the Americas and elsewhere.

Well I would. America is ‘white’ or ‘European’. We’re pretty mixed. I’d say even the German areas are mostly mixed now (probably German and English). Or perhaps it is me projecting my own experience beyond justifiable boundaries. I have lived in the Southwest, the Northeast, and the South however and that has been my experience in all those places.

I will not argue that the Poles are and have been perfect (as the Nazis tend to do of their own) in fighting to get their nation back.

DanielA

Nor will I argue that the Germans are perfect. They aren’t. In fact, I think Germans are a little weird personally. I can’t imagine feeling very comfortable there based on the Germans I’ve met.

Nevertheless, I would not wish to disregard your gesture of good will toward Poles as a part of our European family and history.

DanielA

Thanks. And I was only using the Poles as an example. I take the broad view. We are a global minority in some type of crisis. I don’t want to take the alarmist position that we are going to disappear by 2050 but we certainly need to radically adjust soon or we might not make it in a meaningful way past 2200.

Still, you might consider GW’s angle that while Germans are our family, there were significant elements of the Nazis which were not representative of our people but affectations of reaction.

DanielA

Well I look at it like everything we do is ‘us’ really. How can we be anything but ‘us’?

Certainly going full Nazi was in some respects a bad idea whether or not it was ‘us’. What I do take away as important was the focus on public health, the KDF (the actual KDF and the ‘ethos’ behind it), the promotion of the ‘best’ and hardest working in society (in California they spend like 90 TIMES as much on ‘special’ education rather than on gifted students), a strong social safety net, the control of the banking class (even though there was much to be desired in practice in Germany in that regard), etc.

That’s why I identify with Christopher Lasch’s communitarianism here. Radicalize Lasch a bit or tone the Nazis down some and you have my position. Left wing on finance and public health, but right wing on family formation and religion

Daniel A, a bit of left wing economics and racial solidarity yes, the nation as one class, with mobility for its members, yes, but after some of that kind of thing, you don’t need to tone down the Nazi sympathy some, you need to tone it down a lot. You’ve drunk the cool aid, as you have with Christianity.

 

Posted by Daniel A on Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:05 | #

Daniel A, how can you have acquaintance with Mein Kampf and Table Talk and still argue about the borders as they are now and expect people to feel sorry about it?

I’m not expecting you to feel sorry. Nor do I feel sorry. I also don’t happen to consider one’s opinion on WWII, 9-11, or the moon landing as a litmus test for anything.

You are not hearing me or reality.

Indeed I do despite the awful way you try to get your point across. I’m open minded. I’m not intransigent on the point.

They got the Sudentenland.

As they should have.

After that, Hitler carped that he wanted a road to Danzig and did not think he should have to share the city as the free city it had been at times in history;

I’m not sure where I stand on the issue. Yes he wanted Danzig and it was, at that time, very German.

failing that, he should bomb Petersberg, Moscow, Volgograd, Kiev, Minsk, Warsaw etc etc. kill anybody who stood in the way…

Of course not. But it doesn’t make him a monster for doing so. Just devoid of a complete perspective and caught up in the times.

Are you crazy?

I don’t think so. I think your zeal is more indicative of instability than my desire for more dispassionate viewing of the subject.

Just so happened the idea of replacing the Slavic populations with Germans in those places “emerged” along the way,, right.

And the English and the Irish? Fights and the genocidal impulse crop up in us weak humans occasionally. I’m not saying it is ok or using the naturalistic fallacy. I’m just saying it happens.

Can you hear what I am saying? Does something get through? Anything?

I think so. I think you’re the only that fails to see that I’m not hearing you.

Yes, I stand by that. It is totally irrational, smoke and mirrors convenient to put across bs such as what you are attempting right here.

There needs to be place spared from the endless nonsense and debate about this stuff. Even if there are those who will not take advantage, there are those who will, and it is an utter waste of time. Christianity isn’t true and it is essentially unhelpful. We have too many important things to do rather than waste our time with it.

And you have it. It’s yours now. Nobody is bothering you.

I did go back and readily see a comment of yours calling someone who was arguing against Christianity “boring”, so it wasn’t just me.

Maybe he was boring. That isn’t the same thing as saying anybody that argues against it is boring. Isn’t it obvious I don’t believe that? Not to mention I retracted it above if in fact it was what I said.

I don’t miss the point. It is clear that you are overly sympathetic to Nazi Germany’s arguments; that is typical of Americans in a very German America.

I don’t think so. I think I’m pretty balanced. Nor is it my biggest interest. Never has been.

And you are leaning into the typical false either or – its either that or Nazism. Its a false either or.

No. I’m not. I don’t have an either-or litmus test. I think there a multitude of reasonable opinions and even more so when we consider the various things people have read or been exposed to.

Hitler behaved stupidly.

Everybody did.

He had the power to not go to war.

I don’t know about that. It depends what you mean.

He should not have gone to war. He did not have to go to war.

The Germans should have been treated better. The English shouldn’t have controlled so much of the globe. I don’t really like to traffic in this kind of discussion to begin with.

The idea that Germany was vulnerable to a Soviet invasion is a sham.

I agree. I also think it is stupid to go to war with your biggest trading partner.

All nations between were against the Soviets. The Poles knew what Hitler had in mind, he wanted the lands up to the Urals and the Slavic peoples out of the way. Fuck Hitler and fuck anyone who likes him.

Sigh.

They were bad, very. Don’t kid yourself.

Everybody is.

Typical American after the fact bullshit.

That’s what all this. After the fact.

There was a peace and Hitler broke it. Understand? The guy was a war monger. His words breathed of it.

There were of course reasons for all of it. Behind the scenes things going on on all sides.

What is this bullshit, land mass is not what its about? Have you read Table Talk? Hitler’s plans for Ukraine, etc.? Get real.

Not the entirety of it.

You have not been following things here but just believe what you want to believe. Regarding Versailles and hard economic times, there was a depression for every nation, Germany didn’t repay the reparations, it wasn’t really believed that they could and they wound up paying less than they made France pay after the war int the 1870s.

Indeed. Germany paid far less than France and England.

What you are saying makes no sense. They had a difficult financial situation, so they had to flatten Warsaw, turn Zamosc into Himmlerdstadt? Bomb Kiev, Minsk and Volgograd, plan to destroy Petersburg and Moscow, take over Crimea for a German resort?

No I’m not saying that.

Bromberg and Thorn. And you only hear the German/Nazi perspective, not about how perhaps they were developing a fifth columns in these places, etc.

Sure they were. That’s how diversity works.

Again, they were given the Sudetenland and you expect me to feel sorry for them after what they did and what they planned to do. Forget it.

I don’t expect anything from you.

The Poles knew that Danzig, like Bromberg and Thorn was just a beachhead for further incursions.

Well now we are getting into the 3rd degree which opens up game theory and the whole can of worms where anybody can justify anything by imputing motives to people.

A normal regime might have been satisfied with its being a neutral city. Poland’s sea access was precarious but particularly given Hitler’s true intentions.

I’m sure it was.

You can’t come here and lie, just because you want Hitler to be “the good guy.”

I’m not lying. Nor do I think Hitler was the good guy. I don’t believe in good guys.

Daniel A, a bit of left wing economics and racial solidarity yes, the nation as one class, with mobility for its members, yes, but after some of that kind of thing, you don’t need to tone down the Nazi sympathy some, you need to tone it down a lot. You’ve drunk the cool aid, as you have with Christianity.

Well when you can convince me that Gordon Clark, Van Til, the Reformers, and Augustine are wrong I’ll change my mind. From my vantage point it is you that has drank the Kool-Aid brah.

Peace.

Keep up the good work fellas.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Mar 2015 03:45 | #

Posted by Daniel A on March 09, 2015, 05:05 PM | #

Daniel A, how can you have acquaintance with Mein Kampf and Table Talk and still argue about the borders as they are now and expect people to feel sorry about it?

I’m not expecting you to feel sorry. Nor do I feel sorry. I also don’t happen to consider one’s opinion on WWII, 9-11, or the moon landing as a litmus test for anything.

Well, I do consider some issues a litmus test, it’s called an editorial platform and we do not have forever to debate nonsense.

You are not hearing me or reality.

Indeed I do despite the awful way you try to get your point across. I’m open minded. I’m not intransigent on the point.

I came home tired and had a lengthy comment complex from you which obliged me to repeat things that I’ve said before, things that are obvious (through Table Talk, for one thing) and having to answer these things (again…and again), I am left wondering how to make these things go away so that I, and this site, do not appear negatively riveted on one or two counter productive issues that could go on to no end and which have other forums.

“the awful way I try to get my point across”.. you want to talk about things that are out of editorial bounds. Again. Its been discussed with you.

They got the Sudentenland.

As they should have.

Maybe a reasonably headed people should have, but you, and most “open minded” WN American Nazophiles, just so happen to be saying the same things as one another (all so open minded and independent thinking).

Germany lost an entire World War which it was held to have been largely responsible for having created and these were the borders that were created. Get it?

After that, Hitler carped that he wanted a road to Danzig and did not think he should have to share the city as the free city it had been at times in history;

I’m not sure where I stand on the issue. Yes he wanted Danzig and it was, at that time, very German.

At that time it was inhabited by Germans. Its neutrality was the determined status of a World War, on the basis of bitter historical dispute and because it had also been neutral historically at times. Not altogether unreasonable as Hitler made it out to be. But a pseudo issue nevertheless. It was clear that he wouldn’t stop there if given this demand against world war one’s verdict as well.

In addition to being in a strategic place around sea access, its being respected as designated by the Allies was a litmus test against Hitler’s military buildup (among key components of Versailles already broken), a military build up that corresponded with known and obvious plans to invade the east, take over sovereign Eastern European nations and replace them with his god awful world view that included talk of treating its people as inferiors and breeding them into extinction where they were not forced down in their resistance.

failing that, he should bomb Petersberg, Moscow, Volgograd, Kiev, Minsk, Warsaw etc etc. kill anybody who stood in the way…

Of course not. But it doesn’t make him a monster for doing so. Just devoid of a complete perspective and caught up in the times.

Of course it made him a monster. Choose a different word of the same level of infamy if you wish.

Are you crazy?

I don’t think so. I think your zeal is more indicative of instability than my desire for more dispassionate viewing of the subject.

Enough of this. We’ve been through this a thousand times. I, and the people I am interested in talking with, want to talk about what is going on now and the future, not about “how right” Hitler and Jesus were/are over and over again.

Just so happened the idea of replacing the Slavic populations with Germans in those places “emerged” along the way,, right.

And the English and the Irish? Fights and the genocidal impulse crop up in us weak humans occasionally. I’m not saying it is ok or using the naturalistic fallacy. I’m just saying it happens.

It happens and as European advocates, it condemns Hitler a bad place in history; it was not only destructive of Slavs, but forced a response against Germans which we do not want either.

Can you hear what I am saying? Does something get through? Anything?

I think so. I think you’re the only that fails to see that I’m not hearing you.

Whatever.

Yes, I stand by that. It is totally irrational, smoke and mirrors convenient to put across bs such as what you are attempting right here.

Nonsense, but I can see that you might be getting tired as well, a good sign.

There needs to be place spared from the endless nonsense and debate about this stuff. Even if there are those who will not take advantage, there are those who will, and it is an utter waste of time. Christianity isn’t true and it is essentially unhelpful. We have too many important things to do rather than waste our time with it.

And you have it. It’s yours now. Nobody is bothering you.

We who do not want to look upon Hitler and Jesus as just great guys and gods have it. You were bothering us and hopefully you will not in the future, try to harass MR’s editorial parameters.

I did go back and readily see a comment of yours calling someone who was arguing against Christianity “boring”, so it wasn’t just me.

Maybe he was boring. That isn’t the same thing as saying anybody that argues against it is boring. Isn’t it obvious I don’t believe that? Not to mention I retracted it above if in fact it was what I said.

He wasn’t boring… I think it was Al Ross and he was making intelligent arguments against Christianity which you simply refused to hear.

I don’t miss the point. It is clear that you are overly sympathetic to Nazi Germany’s arguments; that is typical of Americans who have been pandered to, a convenient position in a very German America.

I don’t think so. I think I’m pretty balanced. Nor is it my biggest interest. Never has been.

You “think”, that’s the operative term. Perhaps it is because it is not your biggest interest that you have simply consumed the standard American WN fare.

And you are leaning into the typical false either or – its either that or Nazism. Its a false either or.

No. I’m not. I don’t have an either-or litmus test. I think there a multitude of reasonable opinions and even more so when we consider the various things people have read or been exposed to.

You say that there are multitude of opinions about historical events and if you were posting under and addressing matters in the Lindtner thread, I might be obliged to entertain some to the extent they help sharpen Dr.Lindtner’s given focus, but as it is the can of worms you would open is a largely unproductive can of worms that I am looking to close here as editorial policy. The last you were here, you held the position that Hitler and Jesus were good and something like the only ways for us. This takes us backwards and side tracks us into a diversionary groove. There are other places for those who wish to endorse them. To say that they had some things right, well and good. Scarcely qualified endorsement (qualified perhaps only by lame excuses), no. That’s a sign of arguing in bad faith.

Hitler behaved stupidly. He had the power to not go to war.

Everybody did. I don’t know about that. It depends what you mean.

It is not nearly as relative as all of that. Hitler had more power and will to initiate a war than anybody.

He should not have gone to war. He did not have to go to war.

The Germans should have been treated better. The English shouldn’t have controlled so much of the globe. I don’t really like to traffic in this kind of discussion to begin with.

The Germans had not been particularly nice to their neighbors either; it is strange how American WNs never seem to see things that way.

The idea that Germany was vulnerable to a Soviet invasion is a sham.

I agree. I also think it is stupid to go to war with your biggest trading partner.

All nations between were against the Soviets. The Poles knew what Hitler had in mind, he wanted the lands up to the Urals and the Slavic peoples out of the way. Fuck Hitler and fuck anyone who likes him.

Sigh.

They were bad, very. Don’t kid yourself.

Everybody is.

Everybody is bad but some are worse than others - intolerably so.

Typical American after the fact bullshit.

That’s what all this. After the fact.

There was a peace and Hitler broke it. Understand? The guy was a war monger. His words breathed of it.

There were of course reasons for all of it. Behind the scenes things going on on all sides.

There was guilt on all sides, but Hitler was not only a war monger, his plans and initiatives clearly condemn him as unacceptable to people who care about all Europeans. Hence the editorial policy of rejecting positions clearly motivated to resurrect Hitler as the leader and admirably correct in his objectives.

What is this bullshit, land mass is not what its about? Have you read Table Talk? Hitler’s plans for Ukraine, etc.? Get real.

Not the entirety of it.

You have not been following things here but just believe what you want to believe. Regarding Versailles and hard economic times, there was a depression for every nation, Germany didn’t repay the reparations, it wasn’t really believed that they could and they wound up paying less than they made France pay after the war in the 1870s.

Indeed. Germany paid far less than France and England.

What you are saying makes no sense. They had a difficult financial situation, so they had to flatten Warsaw, turn Zamosc into Himmlerstadt? Bomb Kiev, Minsk and Volgograd, plan to destroy Petersburg and Moscow, take over Crimea for a German resort?

No I’m not saying that.

Bromberg and Thorn. And you only hear the German/Nazi perspective, not about how perhaps they were developing a fifth column in these places, etc.

Sure they were. That’s how diversity works.

Again, they were given the Sudetenland and you expect me to feel sorry for them after what they did and what they planned to do. Forget it.

I don’t expect anything from you.

The Poles knew that Danzig, like Bromberg and Thorn was just a beachhead for further incursions.

Well now we are getting into the 3rd degree which opens up game theory and the whole can of worms where anybody can justify anything by imputing motives to people.

No, because Hitler’s intentions are perfectly clear.  Hell,they are clear from 1926.

A normal regime might have been satisfied with its being a neutral city. Poland’s sea access was precarious but particularly given Hitler’s true intentions.

I’m sure it was.

You can’t come here and lie, just because you want Hitler to be “the good guy.”

I’m not lying. Nor do I think Hitler was the good guy. I don’t believe in good guys.

Alright.

Daniel A, a bit of left wing economics and racial solidarity yes, the nation as one class, with mobility for its members, yes, but after some of that kind of thing, you don’t need to tone down the Nazi sympathy some, you need to tone it down a lot. You’ve drunk the cool aid, as you have with Christianity.

Well when you can convince me that Gordon Clark, Van Til, the Reformers, and Augustine are wrong I’ll change my mind. From my vantage point it is you that has drank the Kool-Aid brah.

Peace.

We are not going to convince you and the obvious facts suggest that devoting a large part of this platform in an effort to try to do should not be necessary; though you do seem like an otherwise decent, thoughtful person, who is truly concerned for our people; perhaps you are overworked, don’t have time and the horrible stress of American’s demographics and rule structure have had you climb up a tree in order to breath air confirmational of Whites. I can understand that but it is unfortunate, because you have gotten yourself up a tree and I hope that you can climb down and join us on a path that is native (unlike Christianity) and treats all Europeans as brothers in an allied cause (which, by definition, advocating Hitler cannot do).

Posted by Daniel A on Tue, 10 Mar 2015 07:27 | #

Well, I do consider some issues a litmus test, it’s called an editorial platform and we do not have forever to debate nonsense.

I agree that you don’t have to debate anything you don’t want to. MR is private property despite GW’s endless contention that it was essentially public property. There was a running battle where the commentariat pleaded with him to ban certain types of trolls and he would never do it out of respect for free speech. Anyway, I agreed a long time ago when it became clear that GW was essentially giving editorial control to you. I don’t agree that its nonsense but hey. As I said before I don’t bother you and I don’t intend to start.

I came home tired and had a lengthy comment complex from you which obliged me to repeat things that I’ve said before, things that are obvious (through Table Talk, for one thing)

Mein Kampf I’ll give you but the Table Talk is pretty much spurious and worthless as far as I’m concerned.

“the awful way I try to get my point across”.. you want to talk about things that are out of editorial bounds. Again. Its been discussed with you.

You’ve always done it awfully. Even before there were editorial bounds. When it was still my site you did it awfully.

Maybe a reasonably headed people should have, but you, and most “open minded” WN American Nazophiles, just so happen to be saying the same things as one another (all so open minded and independent thinking).

I’m not a Nazophile.

It happens and as European advocates, it condemns Hitler a bad place in history; it was not only destructive of Slavs, but forced a response against Germans which we do not want either.

I don’t condemn anybody. Europeans are great at slaughtering each other. They always have been. Shit happens. I’m living in the here and now.

There needs to be place spared from the endless nonsense and debate about this stuff. Even if there are those who will not take advantage, there are those who will, and it is an utter waste of time. Christianity isn’t true and it is essentially unhelpful. We have too many important things to do rather than waste our time with it.

Empiricism, rationalism, or any mix of the two are not true.

We who do not want to look upon Hitler and Jesus as just great guys and gods have it. You were bothering us and hopefully you will not in the future, try to harass MR’s editorial parameters.

I will not. I was only addressing my name. And you can have the last word. I’m done.

He wasn’t boring… I think it was Al Ross and he was making intelligent arguments against Christianity which you simply refused to hear.

Al is/was one of my favorites so I seriously doubt I called the acerbic old codger boring. Most likely you missed some sort of sarcasm since we had a running thing going. There was mutual respect between us and sharp but good-natured ribbing.

You “think”, that’s the operative term. Perhaps it is because it is not your biggest interest that you have simply consumed the standard American WN fare.

I guess. I’m not sure it is the standard. I think there are multiple standards or strains of thought.

You say that there are multitude of opinions about historical events and if you were posting under and addressing matters in the Lindtner thread, I might be obliged to entertain some to the extent they help sharpen Dr.Lindtner’s given focus, but as it is the can of worms you would open is a largely unproductive can of worms that I am looking to close here as editorial policy. The last you were here, you held the position that Hitler and Jesus were good and something like the only ways for us.

I hold that Christianity is true and it is the only way we can justify knowledge. All other philosophies end in skepticism. Although that is still-in some sense-tangential to everything else. I consider it the only proper epistemology. If you think debating epistemology is unproductive fine.

This takes us backwards and side tracks us into a diversionary groove.

My sure foundation is your sidetrack. Again, I won’t bother. All the MR greats are gone. There’s nobody left to discuss these things with.

The Germans had not been particularly nice to their neighbors either; it is strange how American WNs never seem to see things that way.

I’ve repeatedly agreed on this subject with you. I just don’t think it as big a deal as you do. Nor do I consider King Leopold’s conduct in the Belgian Congo that big of deal. Brutality doesn’t really surprise me. I guess the Calvinist understanding of man leads me to expect nothing less of men. We are evil down to the last. I don’t get queasy because Hitler misbehaved or because the English wanted to exterminate the Irish.

Everybody is bad but some are worse than others - intolerably so.

I think we’re all the same shit but you have your policy. It’s yours. You’ve won.

There was guilt on all sides, but Hitler was not only a war monger, his plans and initiatives clearly condemn him as unacceptable to people who care about all Europeans. Hence the editorial policy of rejecting positions clearly motivated to resurrect Hitler as the leader and admirably correct in his objectives.

Some of his objectives were admirable. So were some of Lord Milner’s Kindergarten and the Rhodes Group. So were some of Stalin’s. Maybe even some of Trotsky’s. Churchill’s, Japan’s, et al. There is no resurrecting Hitler. He’s dead. They’re all dead.

We are not going to convince you and the obvious facts suggest that devoting a large part of this platform in an effort to try to do should not be necessary;

There you have it. Although I would dispute the notion that there is just no room. It doesn’t take anything for heaven’s sake! There is no physical platform! They are just blog posts. There is plenty of ‘room’. That was, in fact, always the policy before you. There was room for everything and everybody because it is just a website and people are free to comment or not comment on any post!

though you do seem like an otherwise decent, thoughtful person, who is truly concerned for our people;

That’s because I am.

perhaps you are overworked, don’t have time and the horrible stress of American’s demographics and rule structure have had you climb up a tree in order to breath air confirmational of Whites.

Well that’s kind of patronizing.

I can understand that but it is unfortunate, because you have gotten yourself up a tree and I hope that you can climb down and join us on a path that is native (unlike Christianity)

Like what? What’s native? Christianity seems pretty native to me. Just as native as paganism at least. Just as native as the path you are on. Just as native as the path the Huffington Post folks are on.

and treats all Europeans as brothers in an allied cause (which, by definition, advocating Hitler cannot do).

Nobody is a package deal. I’m not advocating anything or anyone in toto. I’m advocating nuance and understanding history without passing ridiculous judgments on it. Moralizing about everything. That was what was beautiful about MR. Every view was different and nuanced. At least that was what I say. A lot of smart men (and some really smart ones) who had interesting points of view with no real way to reconcile them.

I find it ironic that the Christian in the group has to chastise materialists about moralizing all the time. It’s all just so many spinning electrons for heaven’s sake!

I get it Daniel. You want your discursive space! You got it man! Eventually I’ll get my MR back in some other ‘place’.

Peace brother. I’m serious. Last word is yours. Thanks for letting me post.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:39 | #

Responding to Daniel A’s sanctimony and “his MR” that was,

I said:

Well, I do consider some issues a litmus test, it’s called an editorial platform and we do not have forever to debate nonsense.

DanielA:
I agree that you don’t have to debate anything you don’t want to. MR is private property despite GW’s endless contention that it was essentially public property. There was a running battle where the commentariat pleaded with him to ban certain types of trolls and he would never do it out of respect for free speech. Anyway, I agreed a long time ago when it became clear that GW was essentially giving editorial control to you. I don’t agree that its nonsense but hey. As I said before I don’t bother you and I don’t intend to start.

There came a point where Jesus and Hitler people were overwhelming the threads and taking us nowhere.

A policy of banning that GW hadn’t practiced previously became necessary to implement.

With that, it became necessary to seize the essential direction and platform of Majority Rights, which was discernible through the myriad and years, and not let it go. It simply was, and is, too precious to be allowed to be derailed by Jesus, Hitler and Jewish people.

I came home tired and had a lengthy comment complex from you which obliged me to repeat things that I’ve said before, things that are obvious (through Table Talk, for one thing)

Mein Kampf I’ll give you but the Table Talk is pretty much spurious and worthless as far as I’m concerned.

As far as you are concerned. A kind of card trick player aren’t you? You are quite devoted to Hitler.

“the awful way I try to get my point across”.. you want to talk about things that are out of editorial bounds. Again. Its been discussed with you.

You’ve always done it awfully. Even before there were editorial bounds. When it was still my site you did it awfully.

When it was still your site. Interesting you put it that way.

Maybe a reasonably headed people should have had (the Sudetenland), but you, and most “open minded” WN American Nazophiles, just so happen to be saying the same things as one another (all so open minded and independent thinking).

I’m not a Nazophile.

Making excuses for Hitler to the extent that you do makes you something like that, yes.

It (genocidal intent against other Europeans) happens and as European advocates, it condemns Hitler to a bad place in history; it was not only destructive of Slavs, but forced a response against Germans which we do not want either.

I don’t condemn anybody. Europeans are great at slaughtering each other. They always have been. Shit happens. I’m living in the here and now.

You are not living here and now, if you were, I would not have to be discussing history and what has been passed-off as history with you.

You don’t condemn anybody? Yes you do. Worse, when you say “things happen (or shit happens)” as you have twice now, you are echoing the line of the sociopaths that I have known and that we all have known in our lives. “It happened (to you)” not I/they/ we did it.

There needs to be a place spared from the endless nonsense and debate about this stuff. Even if there are those who will not take advantage, there are those who will, and it is an utter waste of time. Christianity isn’t true and it is essentially unhelpful. We have too many important things to do rather than waste our time with it.

Empiricism, rationalism, or any mix of the two are not true.

Of course empiricism is true in a moment and rationalism can seize onto a sliver of broader truths, but it takes hermeneutics to put these things in context, and the narrative pattern which connects these facts can be more or less true.

You want to tell a Christian story, most people, myself included, do not think it fits the facts and collates them well enough.

We who do not want to look upon Hitler and Jesus as just great guys and gods have it (this site). You were bothering us and hopefully you will not in the future, try to harass MR’s editorial parameters.

I will not. I was only addressing my name. And you can have the last word. I’m done.

Hooray!

He wasn’t boring… I think it was Al Ross and he was making intelligent arguments against Christianity which you simply refused to hear.

Al is/was one of my favorites so I seriously doubt I called the acerbic old codger boring. Most likely you missed some sort of sarcasm since we had a running thing going. There was mutual respect between us and sharp but good-natured ribbing.

I would have to dig up the quote to prove it, but he, like myself, was suggesting that Christianity is a waste of time here. You held that was “boring” and challenged him as being “smarter’ than him, having a higher i.q….

You “think”, that’s the operative term. Perhaps it is because it is not your biggest interest that you have simply consumed the standard American WN fare.

I guess. I’m not sure it is the standard. I think there are multiple standards or strains of thought.

After surveying the White advocacy sites, yes, it is standard - all are either pro Jesus or pro Hitler except Metzger; and Metzger,  bless his heart, is of course not anti German nor unable to see any good in these things. He just rejects them on balance, which is exactly the point here at MR.

You say that there are multitude of opinions about historical events and if you were posting under and addressing matters in the Lindtner thread, I might be obliged to entertain some to the extent they help sharpen Dr.Lindtner’s given focus, but as it is the can of worms you would open is a largely unproductive can of worms that I am looking to close here as editorial policy. The last you were here, you held the position that Hitler and Jesus were good and something like the only ways for us.

I hold that Christianity is true and it is the only way we can justify knowledge. All other philosophies end in skepticism. Although that is still-in some sense-tangential to everything else. I consider it the only proper epistemology.

That should sum it up for people as to how intransigent that you are and why it is unproductive for non-Christians to talk to you.

But then you play this card trick:

If you think debating epistemology is unproductive fine

Christianity is the only epistemology? No it isn’t.

This takes us backwards and side tracks us into a diversionary groove.

My sure foundation is your sidetrack. Again, I won’t bother. All the MR greats are gone. There’s nobody left to discuss these things with.

Nobody truly great is gone. If they cannot see the point in maintaining a platform that rejects Christianity, Hitler and Jews in service of European interests, then they are not great; if they want a more sublime kind of intellectual parsing of events, facts and philosophy, then they are free to participate and show us how its done.

The Germans had not been particularly nice to their neighbors either; it is strange how American WNs never seem to see things that way.

I’ve repeatedly agreed on this subject with you. I just don’t think it as big a deal as you do.

Well, its a big deal when you only hear about how bad their neighbors are. A very big deal and a very big problem. And very much the case in the culture that WN has created.

Nor do I consider King Leopold’s conduct in the Belgian Congo that big of deal. Brutality doesn’t really surprise me. I guess the Calvinist understanding of man leads me to expect nothing less of men. We are evil down to the last.

Seems some neo Stoicism that the Calvinists are about there. I’ve forgotten their exact trip, but it was something that would have them readily cast aside.

To the point here, it is not for us to feel guilty about history, but neither should we shrug off policies that were unnecessary and do not reflect our better course.

I don’t get queasy because Hitler misbehaved

I do.

or because the English wanted to exterminate the Irish.

That’s what I mean about your Nazophilia, making excuses for Hitler.

Regarding English / Irish conflict, its best I leave that for others to discuss. However, it does raise another problem for WN coordination - America is not only largest in Germans among White demographics, it is second largest of Irish - hence, how their historical grievances with the English and not being in Nazism’s line of fire might make them over-sympathetic with Nazism as well. 

Everybody is bad but some are worse than others - intolerably so.

I think we’re all the same shit but you have your policy. It’s yours. You’ve won.

We all have our feet on the ground and in our struggle for survival, inevitably have some indecency about us but No, we are not the same.

There was guilt on all sides, but Hitler was not only a war monger, his plans and initiatives clearly condemn him as unacceptable to people who care about all Europeans. Hence the editorial policy of rejecting positions clearly motivated to resurrect Hitler as the leader and admirably correct in his objectives.

Some of his objectives were admirable.

I agree.

So were some of Lord Milner’s Kindergarten and the Rhodes Group. So were some of Stalin’s. Maybe even some of Trotsky’s. Churchill’s, Japan’s, et al.

Obviously.

There is no resurrecting Hitler. He’s dead.

Hallelujah Amen.

They’re all dead.

We are not going to convince you and the obvious facts suggest that devoting a large part of this platform in an effort to try to do so should not be necessary;

There you have it. Although I would dispute the notion that there is just no room. It doesn’t take anything for heaven’s sake! There is no physical platform! They are just blog posts. There is plenty of ‘room’.

You are getting ridiculous DanielA. All these mirrors and smoke to obfuscate a basic point. People are having a conversation and you want to come, overwhelm and redirect the conversation your way, when you can have your chosen topic of conversation elsewhere, whereas we do not have another place to have a conversation free of Jesus, Hitler and Jew advocacy.

There was room for everything and everybody because it is just a website and people are free to comment or not comment on any post! That was (just about any and all views), in fact, always the policy before you.

It was and it was productive for a while and predictably it wound up plowing under the best arguments it produced while obfuscating them in nonsense from trolls and zealots. It came time take the best identifiable direction for European interests, since that is MR’s fundamental concern.

Though you do seem like an otherwise decent, thoughtful person, who is truly concerned for our people;

That’s because I am.

You are but there is a mechanism that you adhere to which cannot see the experiment we’ve taken here as a good way.

Perhaps you are overworked, don’t have time and the horrible stress of American’s demographics and rule structure have had you climb up a tree in order to breath air confirmational of Whites.

Well that’s kind of patronizing.

I know what America is like for a White man. I was born there and spent all but a few months there into my early thirties. If anything could make me believe in hell, it is America.

I can understand your gravitating to the positions that you have but it is unfortunate, because you have gotten yourself up a tree and I hope that you can climb down and join us on a path that is native (unlike Christianity)

Like what? What’s native? Christianity seems pretty native to me. Just as native as paganism at least. Just as native as the path you are on. Just as native as the path the Huffington Post folks are on.

The Huffington Post. Do you see what America is doing to you? I hope for your sake that you can get out.

and treat all Europeans as brothers in an allied cause (which, by definition, advocating Hitler cannot do).

Nobody is a package deal. I’m not advocating anything or anyone in toto. I’m advocating nuance and understanding history without passing ridiculous judgments on it.

This is where you are not doing nearly as well as you think. More nuance and less ridiculous judgment, or non-judgments, as it were: “oh, everybody is evil, lets get on with it!”

Moralizing about everything. That was what was beautiful about MR. Every view was different and nuanced. At least that was what I say. A lot of smart men (and some really smart ones) who had interesting points of view with no real way to reconcile them.

That was very good for a time. And now it is time for the best of those roots to take hold, bring forth the strongest position and bear fruit.

I find it ironic that the Christian in the group has to chastise materialists about moralizing all the time. It’s all just so many spinning electrons for heaven’s sake!

Not exactly materialists, hermeneuticists.

But morals are a central matter indeed, and Christianity’s ineptitude for dealing with them a central concern.

I get it Daniel. You want your discursive space! You got it man!

No,we want our discursive space, free of Hitler, Jesus, Jews… might add crazy speculation and scientism to the list too.

Eventually I’ll get my MR back in some other ‘place’.

Go for it (somewhere else).

Peace brother. I’m serious. Last word is yours. Thanks for letting me post.

I think the last word of the prior post (which you barged over) said it well enough:

The horrible stress of American’s demographics and rule structure may have had you climb up a tree in order to breath air confirmational of Whites. I can understand that but it is unfortunate, because you have gotten yourself up a tree and I hope that you can climb down and join us on a path that is native (unlike Christianity) and treats all Europeans as brothers in an allied cause (which, by definition, advocating Hitler cannot do).

Posted by Daniel A on Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:52 | #

As far as you are concerned. A kind of card trick player aren’t you? You are quite devoted to Hitler.

Daniel many people do not consider the Table Talk reliable. Many. They aren’t just American WN’s either. There were no recording devices, there was obviously interpolation, and the English translation is literally fraudulent and based on a bad French translation.

When it was still your site. Interesting you put it that way.

Why is interesting? See my first paragraph. GW insisted that the site didn’t belong to him and that that was the reason he had a laissez faire policy with regard to trollish; i.e. it was ours.

Making excuses for Hitler to the extent that you do makes you something like that, yes.

Everybody has reasons for their behavior. I’m not excusing. I’m just refusing to parse all of history and talk about how guilty people are and who is guiltiest. It’s a silly exercise. What I’m manifestly not doing is saying it was ‘ok’ for Hitler to do this-or-that because I don’t really care.

I don’t mind that the English tried to exterminate the Irish. I think I’ve made that clear. Nor do I somehow wrap that up as justification for Hitler worship. You’re just wrong mate and seriously misreading me.

You are not living here and now, if you were, I would not have to be discussing history and what has been passed-off as history with you.

Living in the here and now does not mean not discussing history at all. Hitler just isn’t alive for me the way he is for you.

Worse, when you say “things happen (or shit happens)” as you have twice now, you are echoing the line of the sociopaths that I have known and that we all have known in our lives. “It happened (to you)” not I/they/ we did it.

Please. Utter tripe. Don’t psychologize this. I’m not saying people don’t act and aren’t responsible for their actions.

I would have to dig up the quote to prove it, but he, like myself, was suggesting that Christianity is a waste of time here. You held that was “boring” and challenged him as being “smarter’ than him, having a higher i.q….

Absolutely ridiculous. I’ve described the running relationship Al and I had. The single quote (if it even exists) is meaningless in the broader context. Not to mention I’ve already stated that I retract it if in fact I said it! What is wrong with you? Seriously?! For the last time, even if the quote is entirely genuine, I don’t consider that my current position.

That should sum it up for people as to how intransigent that you are and why it is unproductive for non-Christians to talk to you.

I’m sorry? Holding to a position and defending it in debate isn’t intransigence. Not to mention I said I wasn’t stuck on any of my beliefs about Hitler and not my epistemology. Beliefs about historical events aren’t central. Christianity is the foundation for my epistemology; it’s how I’m able to justify any knowledge at all. In fact it’s the only way of justifying any knowledge. Every other philosophy ends in skepticism. 2,500 years of Western philosophy attest to this fact. A belief about a historical event is a little bit different.

Would you give up your own epistemology easily or would you seek to defend it? I wouldn’t call you intransigent for putting up a vigorous defense of your most central belief (the beliefs that enable you to believe anything at all).

Christianity is the only epistemology? No it isn’t.

Who said it was? I said it is the only one that doesn’t end in skepticism! There are as many ‘epistemologies’ and ‘rationalities’ as there are people.

Do you understand why people think English wasn’t your first language?! You seize on the equivocation and ambiguity in the language in a manner that normal native speakers just don’t do! It’s quite strange. It is hard having any conversation at all with you because the normal rules of English discourse are thrown out the window.

Nobody truly great is gone.

Notuswind, PF, Wandrin, The Narrator, Captain Chaos, The J Bot, Bowery, Soren, Jimmy Marr, Maguire, GK, Desmond Jones, et al. They are all gone. They are gone because it isn’t just about Jesus and Hitler. It’s about your tone and the tone of the site.

People are having a conversation and you want to come, overwhelm and redirect the conversation your way

That is exactly what you did Daniel. You did that. Not me. You’ve inverted what happened. Of course you had GW’s blessing to do so.

You are but there is a mechanism that you adhere to which cannot see the experiment we’ve taken here as a good way.

Sure I do. Sorta. Obviously I any philosophy that isn’t built on the fact of Christianity I see as doomed to fail. But I see some value in your approach.

The Huffington Post. Do you see what America is doing to you? I hope for your sake that you can get out.

Are you saying the millions of Europeans that read that shit aren’t ‘native’? That they aren’t natural? That they aren’t acting Western?

But morals are a central matter indeed, and Christianity’s ineptitude for dealing with them a central concern.

One cannot have objective morality without Christianity. Period. All we are left with is relativism.

Not exactly materialists, hermeneuticists.

What ‘exists’ Daniel? What existents are there?

GW has repeatedly insisted he is a materialist. Repeatedly. Perhaps you aren’t but tell me what exists (in your worldview) besides spinning electrons and the quantum fluctuations of space?

I think the last word of the prior post (which you barged over) said it well enough:

I didn’t barge over it. It was breathtakingly patronizing. You don’t speak in good faith. You don’t discuss things like you believe you are having a discussion with another fully rational being. There was nothing to even barge over there except your terrible attitude. It was a pointless and disrespectful paragraph. I don’t talk to you that way because it isn’t normal and it isn’t ‘native’.

You barged over my ‘Thanks for letting me post’ as was expected. Not an ounce of humility or respect from you. It’s like bleeding a stone trying to get you to act humanly toward your brothers (let alone brotherly).

If anybody knows where any of the commenters I’ve mentioned are commenting I would appreciate a head’s up.

Thanks again Daniel. I promise that’s it.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:37 | #

Oh my god! will you please go away?!?!

I said:

As far as you are concerned (Table Talk is unreliable). A kind of card trick player aren’t you? You are quite devoted to Hitler.

Posted by Daniel A on March 10, 2015, 11:52 AM | #

Daniel many people do not consider the Table Talk reliable. Many. They aren’t just American WN’s either. There were no recording devices, there was obviously interpolation, and the English translation is literally fraudulent and based on a bad French translation.

You don’t even need Table Talk (any more than you need gas chambers), Mein Kampf is enough for any decent person to reject Hitler.

When it was still your site. Interesting you put it that way.

Why is interesting? See my first paragraph. GW insisted that the site didn’t belong to him and that that was the reason he had a laissez faire policy with regard to trollish; i.e. it was ours.

I’ve explained this and you force me to repeat myself, so how about blast off.

Making excuses for Hitler to the extent that you do makes you something like a Nazophile, yes.

Everybody has reasons for their behavior. I’m not excusing. I’m just refusing to parse all of history and talk about how guilty people are and who is guiltiest. It’s a silly exercise. What I’m manifestly not doing is saying it was ‘ok’ for Hitler to do this-or-that because I don’t really care.

If you don’t care then stop making excuses for Hitler by trying to say that everybody was just as bad and therefore he was ok. Listen punk, nobody said there were no reasons, only that his program was obviously unacceptable to those who care to advocate Europeans

I don’t mind that the English tried to exterminate the Irish. I think I’ve made that clear. Nor do I somehow wrap that up as justification for Hitler worship. You’re just wrong mate and seriously misreading me.

Somebody is grateful for your word play. I am not misreading you, you are playing word games: You snuck in the evil English thing there, didn’t you? Wink.

You are not living here and now, if you were, I would not have to be discussing history and what has been passed-off as history with you.

Living in the here and now does not mean not discussing history at all. Hitler just isn’t alive for me the way he is for you.

Hitler is not alive for me, you wish to make him alive, and perfectly valid, through your deceptions.

Worse, when you say “things happen (or shit happens)” as you have twice now, you are echoing the line of the sociopaths that I have known and that we all have known in our lives. “It happened (to you)” not I/they/ we did it.

Please. Utter tripe. Don’t psychologize this. I’m not saying people don’t act and aren’t responsible for their actions.

It is a very disingenuous game that you are playing, and now I am more glad than ever that I have discouraged you from coming here.

.........
Regarding the quote (of your calling Al Ross boring for not wanting to bring Christianity here), I would have to dig it up to prove it, but he, like myself, was suggesting that Christianity is a waste of time here. You held that was “boring” and challenged him as being “smarter’ than him, having a higher i.q….

Absolutely ridiculous. I’ve described the running relationship Al and I had.

Not ridiculous.

The single quote (if it even exists).

Of course it does, I just saw it.

is meaningless in the broader context. Not to mention I’ve already stated that I retract it if in fact I said it!

You are a sophist.

What is wrong with you? Seriously?! For the last time, even if the quote is entirely genuine, I don’t consider that my current position.

It doesn’t matter. While I have experienced you and seen you call people “boring” for rejecting Christianity it is only one illustration of your intransigent commitment to Christianity.

I hold that Christianity is true and it is the only way we can justify knowledge. All other philosophies end in skepticism. Although that is still-in some sense-tangential to everything else. I consider it the only proper epistemology.

That should sum it up for people as to how intransigent that you are and why it is unproductive for non-Christians to talk to you.

I’m sorry? Holding to a position and defending it in debate isn’t intransigence. Not to mention I said I wasn’t stuck on any of my beliefs about Hitler and not my epistemology. Beliefs about historical events aren’t central. Christianity is the foundation for my epistemology; it’s how I’m able to justify any knowledge at all. In fact it’s the only way of justifying any knowledge. Every other philosophy ends in skepticism. 2,500 years of Western philosophy attest to this fact. A belief about a historical event is a little bit different.

So you say.

Would you give up your own epistemology easily or would you seek to defend it? I wouldn’t call you intransigent for putting up a vigorous defense of your most central belief (the beliefs that enable you to believe anything at all).

I don’t care what you would do. You’re welcome to start up a blog, join a blog that allows people to defend Jesus and Hitler to no end. It’s counter productive here.

Christianity is the only epistemology? No it isn’t.

Who said it was? I said it is the only one that doesn’t end in skepticism! There are as many ‘epistemologies’ and ‘rationalities’ as there are people.

Ok, neither is it the only epistemolgy that ends in skepticism. I am not skeptical and I am not a Christian.

Do you understand why people think English wasn’t your first language?! You seize on the equivocation and ambiguity in the language in a manner that normal native speakers just don’t do! It’s quite strange. It is hard having any conversation at all with you because the normal rules of English discourse are thrown out the window.

You don’t have to get used to it now, because you’re going somewhere else, right?

Nobody truly great is gone.

Notuswind, PF, Wandrin, The Narrator, Captain Chaos, The J Bot, Bowery, Soren, Jimmy Marr, Maguire, GK, Desmond Jones, et al. They are all gone. They are gone because it isn’t just about Jesus and Hitler. It’s about your tone and the tone of the site.

Notuswind - gone before I came.

PF - gone before I came.

Wandrin - don’t know about him, one of the few I truly miss. We seemed to be in agreement; don’t know why he is not here but I certainly can’t take your “unbiased” word as to why. GW offered him to post at one time, but he said that his job forced him to be discreet. Need for discretion might be key with Wandrin.

The Narrator - gone before I came here.

Captain Chaos - devoted to Nazism.

The J Bot - don’t know who that is, but I would guess gone before I came here.

Bowery - I don’t know that he’s gone. He sent Frosty Wooldridge and I a joint email proposing an interview date. He’s very busy with major projects.

Soren - It seems (unfortunately) committed to Nazi apologetics; but I don’t know that he is gone from MR, I hope not. I do know that he is up against challenges and doesn’t need additional stress. He has a twitter account.

Jimmy Marr - definitely committed to Nazi apologetics. When I criticized Dana Antiochus for advocating Hitler, Jimmy called in and cried, “hey, fuck that guy!” (me). Jimmy, like Captain Chaos, is in many ways a nice and intelligent guy but hey, its Hitler or the highway for them, I guess.

Macguire - don’t know who that is. Probably gone before I came here.

GK - ditto

Desmond Jones - in addition to being a special kind of “nordicist Christian” and a nordicist altogether, who did not like Slavs and Southern Europeans (discounts me from his favor), was probably also an advocate of Hitler.

et al. Yes, there are others.. some should not stay away. Again, I’m sorry to not see the likes of Wandrin. His last words to me were kind and I liked his work a lot.

People are having a conversation and you want to come, overwhelm and redirect the conversation your way

That is exactly what you did Daniel.

No, DanielA, this is what you and the Christians (in particular, did), like Thorn and Haller and Joe. Even worse than the Nazis quite frankly.

You did that. Not me. You’ve inverted what happened. Of course you had GW’s blessing to do so.

No, it is what you are tying to do.

There is a mechanism that you adhere to which cannot see the experiment we’ve taken here as a good way.

Sure I do. Sorta. Obviously I any philosophy that isn’t built on the fact of Christianity I see as doomed to fail. But I see some value in your approach.

“Built on the fact of Christianity.” Need I say more?

The Huffington Post. Do you see what America is doing to you? I hope for your sake that you can get out.

Are you saying the millions of Europeans that read that shit aren’t ‘native’? That they aren’t natural? That they aren’t acting Western?

No, I am saying that they are being subject to non-native and unnatural stuff.

But morals are a central matter indeed, and Christianity’s ineptitude for dealing with them a central concern.

One cannot have objective morality without Christianity. Period. All we are left with is relativism.

Ok, well, look. What is the point in arguing with you? You need to go to a Christian site or one devoted to endlessly debating this crap with one, like yourself, who will not be persuaded by reality.

Not exactly materialists, hermeneuticists.

What ‘exists’ Daniel? What existents are there?

Molecules and people in conversation.

GW has repeatedly insisted he is a materialist. Repeatedly. Perhaps you aren’t but tell me what exists (in your worldview) besides spinning electrons and the quantum fluctuations of space?

Molecules and people in conversation.

I think the last word of the prior post (which you barged over) said it well enough:

I didn’t barge over it. It was breathtakingly patronizing. You don’t speak in good faith. You don’t discuss things like you believe you are having a discussion with another fully rational being.

You say the things you’ve said here and you characterize yourself as “rational”?

There was nothing to even barge over there except your terrible attitude. It was a pointless and disrespectful paragraph. I don’t talk to you that way because it isn’t normal and it isn’t ‘native’.

You don’t talk to me that way, you are far more abusive and always have been.

You barged over my ‘Thanks for letting me post’ as was expected. Not an ounce of humility or respect from you. It’s like bleeding a stone trying to get you to act humanly toward your brothers (let alone brotherly).

Obviously I showed you respect, particularly in these concluding paragraphs but because I believe that you are suffering, and that does not make me happy, I recommend to you that Christianity and Hitler are not the best answers; I sincerely hope that you will come to better - and you treated that as condescending.

If anybody knows where any of the commenters I’ve mentioned are commenting I would appreciate a head’s up. Thanks again Daniel. I promise that’s it.

You promised before, and I hope this time you keep it.

Once again:

You said:
Empiricism, rationalism, or any mix of the two are not true.

Of course empiricism is true in a moment and rationalism can seize onto a sliver of broader truths, but it takes hermeneutics to put these things in context, and the narrative pattern which connects these facts to our human interests can be more or less true.

You want to tell a Christian story, most people, myself included, do not think it fits the facts and collates them well enough.

The horrible stress of American’s demographics and rule structure may have had you climb up a tree in order to breath air confirmational of Whites. I can understand that but it is unfortunate, because you have gotten yourself up a tree and I hope that you can climb down and join us on a path that is native (unlike Christianity) and treats all Europeans as brothers in an allied cause (which, by definition, advocating Hitler cannot do).

Posted by Greg and Tito Purdue on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:10 | #

Greg interviews writer Tito Purdue:

Part 1
http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/TitoPerduePart1.mp3

Part 2
http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/TitoPerduePart2.mp3

Posted by repeat on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:24 | #

repeat

Posted by repeat on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:34 | #

repeat

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:37 | #

         
Dr. Margaret Macmillan, researcher of Versailles Treaty

Curiosity having the better of me, I am going to go against one of my own usual guidelines - of not raising old border issues as that tends to agitate conflict.

Nevertheless, as Dr. Macmillan’s view of Versailles does add balance against what has become habit in WN, a few matters taken for granted arise, with borders being a significant component, of course.

3 questions that might be asked from an MR perspective:

Since The Versailles Treaty seems to remain a crux of European dispute, it is interesting to imagine Majority Rights interviewing Dr. Margaret Macmillan, renowned author on the matter. She adds significant weight to the balance that begins to emerge for anyone who looks afresh into this issue - it has been taken for granted by most nationalists as having been overly punitive and, as such, a prime causative factor of the Second World War.

But before posting questions for her on the concrete issues and implications of Versailles from a Majority Rights perspective, one statement that she made to
Max Hastings in “The Necessary War” looms provocative not only post Versailles, but now as ever: “You couldn’t go back to normal.”

Indeed, it seems as if we need the estimable new paradigm.

1. The first issue I would be curious to ask her about would be the matter of The Sudetenland. Why was it given to Czech? Was it a logistical land penalty and buffering zone for the devastation of a war seen as caused by Germany? Was it, in part, an imposed penalty for the Thirty Years War, with its devastation of Czech peoples in mind (Battle of White Mountain)? Just what? All we hear from WN is that this, like other decisions of Versailles, was wholly unjustified (yet we have those who would claim that judgment should not be passed, or not so immediately, for past wrongs, immediately proclaiming - e.g., DanielA, above - that Versailles was wrong, particularly on this matter).

2. The next question, also in regard to a remark from “The Necessary War” would be over her suggestion that all indications are that the Germans would have been even more punitive had they won the war -  maybe true,  particularly with its having been a military dictatorship by war’s end. However, she gives an example of their “over-harshness” which would raise red flags for WN, and perhaps rightfully so: when she observes, “how harsh they were to the Bolsheviks, taking all their gold”, etc.

3.  Finally, in regard to an inference from the article below, she claims that indeed, if the Versailles Treaty were sufficiently harsh, it would have divided Germany in half or even into smaller governmental units; then Hitler would never have risen to such extensive power; at most, he would have been contained to rule a small province surrounding a city such as Linz. Bowery and Lowell make similar arguments, but would provide an answer to the red flag that would once again go up for WN: What would have stopped Jewish power and influence from taking advantage of such a cacophony of small and powerless regional units? We might not have had the World War (surely better had we not) but wouldn’t we be subject to similar afflictions as today through their alien and hostile influence?

“Was Versailles harsh enough?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4725294/Was-Versailles-harsh-enough.html

A study which argues that the treaty at the end of the First World War cannot be blamed for the Second”

“THE final crime,” opined The Economist summing up the Millennium in its December 1999 issue, “was the treaty of Versailles, whose harsh terms would ensure a second world war.” This is pretty much the standard verdict on the conference and treaty which took place after the end of the Great War and re-drew Europe’s frontiers until Hitler violated them two decades later.

It is not, however, the view of Dr Margaret Macmillan, a history professor from Toronto whose scrupulously researched, very fluidly written and closely argued book forces us to re-examine our assumptions about the supposed myopia of Georges Clemenceau, David Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson as they imposed their settlement on the defeated Central Powers and their allies.

The standard view is that because another war broke out 20 years and two months after the treaty was signed in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles, ergo it must have been flawed. Yet as Dr Macmillan points out, Adolf Hitler had plans of conquest and dreams of scourging the Bolsheviks and Jews that would have led him far beyond any frontiers - however generous to Germany - that any peacemakers could possibly have agreed at Versailles.

To blame Versailles for Hitler’s war is to let both him and the appeasers off the hook and, as the author argues, “to ignore the actions of everyone - political leaders, diplomats, soldiers, ordinary voters - for twenty years between 1919 and 1939”.

In a splendidly revisionist and daringly politically incorrect line of argument, the author even goes so far as to state that: “Of course things might have been very different if Germany had been more thoroughly defeated.” When they surrendered in November 1918, Germany’s armies were all on foreign soil. Despite the terrible ravages of the British blockade, the country had not suffered the kind of domestic physical destruction that “Bomber” Harris was to visit upon it in 1940-45.

Because of this a Dolschstosslegende (stab-in-the-back-myth) was allowed to germinate. Yet had the treaty actually been harsher on Germany, specifically if it had divided the country as happened in 1945, then there might have been no via dolorosa - from the Rhineland, to the Anschluss, to Sudetenland and Danzig - for Europe to travel between 1936 and 1939.

The problem with Versailles was not that it was too punitive, or “Carthaginian”, as J. M. Keynes so eloquently argued in his influential philippic The Economic Consequences of the Peace, but that it was not harsh enough. When someone tried to persuade the American general Mark Clark of the dangers of imposing a Carthaginian peace on Germany in 1945, he lugubriously observed: “Well, we don’t get too much trouble from those Carthaginians nowadays.”

A peace which partitioned Germany and Austria in 1919, perhaps even returning Germany to the pre-Bismarckian days of a dozen or so states, or even the pre-Napoleonic days of scores of self-governing entities on the Holy Roman Empire model, would have prevented the Second World War. Adolf Hitler could have ended his days as prime minister of the hereditary fiefdom of Linz, stirring up minimal trouble for the rest of Europe.

The problem with the peacemakers of Versailles was that they were willing to wound but afraid to strike, although admittedly it did not look that way at the time. Dr Macmillan wears her deep research in the archives of Britain, America, France, Canada and Australia very lightly as she defends the peacemakers as far as she can.

Antony Lentin’s Lloyd George and the Lost Peace proposes the theory that if only the Welsh wizard rather than the respectable tendency in British politics - men like Baldwin, MacDonald and Neville Chamberlain - had continued in power in the Twenties and Thirties then the peace could have held.

In a short, intelligent and stimulating study of Lloyd George’s post-Versailles career, Lentin does not quite fall for what he calls his subject’s “self-hero-worship”, but he certainly teeters on the brink. Yet the book ends with the unedifying spectacle of Lloyd George listening to Lord Haw-Haw in his luxuriously furnished private air-raid shelter in Churt, Surrey, during the Blitz, half hoping that he will be called upon to replace Churchill and make peace with Hitler in a bombed-out capital.

“If Churchill should go down exultant to death in the ruins of London,” writes Lentin, “Lloyd George was ready to resurface to do the parleying. The lion might succumb, the old fox was capable of leadership.” Lloyd George, the British would-be Petain, told his secretary he would “wait until Winston is bust”.

Old fox or not, Lloyd George was certainly an old goat. The best gag of the Versailles conference was his reply to a staffer’s question about whether Mrs Lloyd George would be accompanying him to Paris: “Would you take sandwiches to a banquet?”

Posted by racial divorce on Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:32 | #

Good article by Greg on a “divorce from other races” analogy

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/03/irreconcilable-differences/#comments

Greg is softer on blacks than I am. I think there are grounds a plenty for a fault divorce from them.

I also do not agree with taking back people who have bread with blacks.

Further, (depending upon the extent of mixture), I disagree with Greg’s inclination to accept certain hybrids who show elite proclivity.

I am inclined to strongly disagree with that. It is a dangerous precedent.

These are probably expressions of weaknesses in Greg’s right-wing elitism coming through in this article - The inequality argument peeking-in to suggest that it’s all about frustration and jealousy among the minorities. That might explain some, but it is not all of what its about and shows a blind spot of the right.

Along with that comes the patronizing attitude of “we” being responsible to help the poor devils because “we”...what? “brought them here”, “fed them”, “took them from their natural ecological ways”?

No, “we” did not.  Maybe the right did, that’s part of why we reject them.

Otherwise, the divorce analogy of this essay provides a useful way of looking at things. And in the final paragraph Greg brings up the kind of legitimate objection that a Graham Lister might raise - that we European peoples can be too liberal in tolerating divorce as a prerogative of our own people as well. That would be a stronger concern among the still stable older European nations’ native peoples.

Some really good thinking going on in the comments as well; some highlights -

Commentator “K.K.” was insightful enough to observe that blacks are disingenuous in playing the victim card and crying racism. If they truly thought they were victims then they’d be desperate to get away from us rather than following us around to parasite from us.

Greg and “Verlis” responded insightfully as well, that Greg was not addressing blacks or other non-Whites in hopes of persuading them, but was addressing our people and our guilt perplexed motivations on the issue of divorce, so as to begin to summon the will to divorce as a moral option.

Rhonda’s remark was also very perceptive - in White capitulation to integration she notes “The common ingredient is peer pressure.” True.

Posted by “Lichtung” on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:04 | #

Heidegger on Nietzsche, Metaphysics, & Nihilism

Greg Johnson

Heidegger’s central philosophical topic has a number of names: the sense (Sinn) or meaning of Being, the truth (Wahrheit) of Being, the clearing (Lichtung) of Being, the “It” that “gives” Being, and the “Ereignis” (“event” or “appropriation”) of Being, referring to the mutual belonging of man and Being.[1] All of these words refer to that-which-gives and that-which-takes-away different “epochs” in the history of Being, which are comprehensive, pervasive, and fundamental ways of interpreting the world and our place in it.

Heidegger’s topic is shrouded in mystery, for that-which-gives each epoch in the history of Being is hidden by the very epoch that it makes possible. This mystery is built right into the dual meanings of Heidegger’s names for his topic.

The word “Lichtung” refers both to Being (that which lights up beings) and also to the clearing that makes it possible for the light to illuminate beings…

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/03/heidegger-on-nietzsche-metaphysics-and-nihilism/

Posted by Greg, guest, on how to handle "racism" on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:25 | #

Greg and Hugh MacDonald discuss how to deal with the word “racism” and being called “a racist”

They make some arguments that I have made, especially Greg, but that is of course not to say that people cannot come up with the same arguments, especially someone like Greg - it is, after all, largely a matter of logic - and if I have contributed some thoughts on the matter that others are developing, well, that’s good.

In this discussion, I agree more with Greg (though not perfectly with him either) while Hugh makes some good points.

http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/HughMacDonaldRacism.mp3

Posted by Greg Johnson between two lampshades on Mon, 15 Jun 2015 08:53 | #

Greg Johnson interviewed between two lampshades on The Right Stuff:

http://therightstuff.biz/2015/05/21/between-two-lampshades-forced-to-be-free-with-greg-johnson/

Posted by Gorgias on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 06:05 | #

Greg Johnson on Plato’s Gorgias:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/02/pleasure-part-1-plato-gorgias/

Posted by Epicureanism on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 20:39 | #

Both Plato’s Gorgias and the philosophy of Epicureanism are important parts of Western history and I am glad that Greg has been treating them recently. I have spoken of them as key, more or less highlighting aspects which I take to be crucial in terms of the path of Western philosophy. Noting good and bad turns in particular.

I take Epicureanism to be a precursor of empiricism, very good in undoing the more speculative, superstitious and pejorative customs and habits of philosophy, region and ways of life. But negative in being overly skeptical, to the point where it would lead directly into the empirical side of the Cartesian disaster that has us largely where we are now (i.e., in dire need of the White Post Modern, hermeneutic turn). Nevertheless, it is one philosophy that I believe is worth retrieving and revising - with the help of that hermeneutic, post modern turn and social constructionism.

Anyway, I have not listened to it yet, but I am looking forward to Greg’s discussion of Epicureanism:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/02/pleasure-part-2-epicureanism/

I propose Epicureanism as a topic of itself in the new Majorityrgihts FORUM: https://majorityrights.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11

Posted by Greg Johnson talks with Laura Raim on Fri, 04 Nov 2016 00:29 | #

Greg Johnson talks with Laura Raim

Posted by Hangout, Johnson, Lewis, JF et al on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:44 | #

Warski Hangout:

Authoritarian States - The Academic Agent, Todd Lewis, Vee and Greg Johnson.

Todd Lewis argues from a Christian standpoint on the order of Thomas Aquinas at best. On the other hand, he would put homosexuals in jail.

Greg Johnson argues for a paternalism (i.e., enforcement) of classical Greek virtues described by Aristotle and Plato as opposed to the “soft totalitarianism” of liberal society. He would ban many things that people indulge in liberal society “for their own good.”

Academic Agent argues for negative liberty (freedom from).

Vee argues for libertarianism.

JF and Warski argue for a libertarian position as well.

Posted by henry m on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:29 | #

Do you have your parents supervision because i asked my mom if I could create a functional ethnostate with some friends and she said that is sounded like constructive educational fun if their parents were fine with it so I just need to know if your moms said it was okay.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 06:09 | #

My mom is deceased. Her permission (or not) wouldn’t matter anyway as I am an adult; and if she were against the idea, I would pursue functional ethnostates (plural) and their coordination anyway.

I imagine that would represent a consensus of opinion with regard to the matter of parental supervision and ethnonational pursuit for any, but the most irresponsible and absurdly liberal people - people totally destructive of pervasive ecology, human and otherwise - who are, unfortunately, commonplace.

These liberals are commonplace and when they have a mom, it is all too often a woman who is in a charmed loop - R selection and alpha males creating liberalism and liberalism and R selection creating alpha males, bastard children and single moms - both “mom” and “dad” selecting and having been selected for to the short term, opportunistic benefit of puerile female hypergamy; and to the long term destruction of beta correction for ethnonationalism, its human and pervasive ecological circuiting (and circuit breaking) function.

Where mom has made this choice, hence, to out-breed with an alpha male of another race, she is going to be disinclined both for herself and for her mixed children to not give “permission” for ethnonational pursuit.

Where she has not yet out-bred, she might recognize the opportunism for greater power to her person position in liberalism, in playing men off of one another, in gate keeping, in partner selection.  And she might disingenuously, naively or in ignorance thus, refuse “permission” to pursue “ethnonationalism.” And as a gate-keeper, pandered to from all angles, she will refuse to let through the gate any but the most liberal males to power - i.e., those who suit Jewish interests toward ethnonationalism, as that group is the most organized when it comes to controlling narratives - and they, in turn, recognize that pandering to females is key: that they can be pandered to, to pursue their short term gain through anti-ethnonationalism (a.k.a. “anti-racism”).

Hence, those with sense enough to recognize the importance of ethno nationalism will not obey this sort of opinion, recognizing it as an obstruction to one’s best interests, even coming from a parent - they will obey rather the requirements of profound ethnic genetic interests and not the liberal conditioning of their parents. Many of us had the misfortune of parents who were liberal, gained from it, but were not sufficiently confronted with its negative consequences. Thus we had to learn to proceed against the disapproval of our parents. This is a very typical circumstance for the children of parents who have derived benefit and have enjoyed pursuit of material well being in The US and identifying heavily with America.

Even if they came from K selective backgrounds, they have presumed too much K selective responsibility among others; often having relaxing in the objectivist default of America, overly enamored of the arbitrary sort-out of alpha males from just any culture - therefore a woman may seek to maintain the temporary elevation of power that she achieves; and, of course, the liberal condition to empower her offspring in cases where she has been impregnated and abandoned by a dark alpha-male; thus, with half breed, neither the child nor the mom is going to “allow for” a pursuit of ethno states. Hence, their opinion is highly suspect.

But before “mom” reaches the condition of actually having produced a mulatto, the enemies of ethnonationalism and its K selective norm will be reinforced so that she, and any female child that she might have, would be opportunistically empowered by a liberal, R selective free for all, while male children, and their ethno national correction, would be as limited as possible through such “maternal” permission withheld - kosher and right wing liberalism approved though their maternal authorization derives.