Posted by dfsdffd on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:02 | #

Off topic, sorry, but how would I be able to get into personal contact with the MR writers, such as via email?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:13 | #

Mail me through Contact button under the header.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:07 | #

Two of our exceptionally genetically endowed phenotypes are:

1)  Indoctrinability as children.
2)  Independence as adults.

Why we would have these traits is fairly apparent from the environment of evolutionary adaptation in which so much of our biological adaptation is memetic.  This, in a sense, is the origin of our weakness since we by nature can therefore be molded by indoctrination to stand against our own nature in defiance of prior healthy norms, especially if our indoctrination is taken over by those who are adapted to taking over those niches, of story telling, teaching and preaching in our societies.

For us, love of kind must therefore express as love of both childhood indoctrinability and adult individualism, tempered by the same wisdom that accompanies our love of any character that is exploitable.

Posted by PF on Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:50 | #

I liked being able to hear your voice but I disagree with your fundamental point, which I address below.

Also dislike the choice of composers. Telemann, Pachelbel, Bach, Mozart are lighter and more fit to human business which IMO is too flimsy for the grasp of epic monumental seriousness to touch without crushing and distorting. Everything in Wagner is overdone, exaggerated, super monumental. Or do you not find? I can see why Hitler loved him. I dislike him strongly.

Perhaps we succeed in developing a counter-ideology which then gains currency as a political movement. But what we are really delineating is just common sense and strategic thinking on a group level, informed by biology and history, so I dont think the grand trappings of past ideologies will make it more marketable. Its a more scientific version of what all other nation’s arrived at by trial and error anyway– it’s more likely that deteriorating circumstances will be the spark that drives people to realize the obvious– the whole insight on which our thinking is based is generally an obvious one, impossible to miss.

The intellectual tissue obfuscating a clear view of the world must first be pierced– reality will do that gradually, not argument. Post-modernism and perspectivism and relativism have made the playing field for argument too complex to be persuasive or cogent: now what matters is what people feel in their stomachs as they see their nations transformed. That is where our truth comes in, and if I am correct, it will seep in slowly to the minds of people rather than winning all at once. See how racialist thinking creeps into the minds of your family members and friends as society gets more diverse: precisely this is where our movement succeeds.

Common sense and strategy dont need the name of an -Ism- to recommend themselves, nor any grand terminology.

It seems more likely to me, because intellectuals are some of the most enslaved of all moderns, that the character of the revolution will not be ideological-intellectual, nor sudden. I think it will be a gradual seeping in of things previously withheld. Already the purity of discourse in America is totally corrupted– ethnic comedians Dave Chappelle and Garcia are popular; I remember in the mid 90’s when an all-white comedy show (MTV’s The State) wouldn’t dare to discuss differences that are now trivialized.

The scientist in me was offended somewhat by the literary nature of your materialism. Your materialism is still sufficiently metaphysical and spiritual to talk about ‘love’ in the context of political philosophy– an arena by convention too concrete for the introduction of a psychological concept necessarily nebulous. What is love? Where does it start? Where does it end? On what is it based? Where is it and where is it not? Anything we attempt to say about the metaphysics of love at this time will sound in 40 years like Emerson’s discussion of Transcendance. Love is extremely personal and doesn’t make it far outside the circle of a single individual’s consciousness without becoming something else.

What is love? It’s a reaction in the mind of the lover and is based primarily if not entirely on their neurobiology. At the time a precise delineation of the concept is lacking. I therefore don’t see how it can be enlisted in the service of a practical materialist philosophy.

Also, individualism is a road that leads back to communitarianism naturally when group conflict threatens it’s interests: see Scimitar’s evolution from a commentator at The Phora to a distinguished blogger, for an example of how individualism becomes self-effacing out of purely individualistic considerations. Whoever rails at individualism does it individualistically: because the individual self-interest is the smallest unit of the will to which everything reduces. So although I don’t understand the power of ‘individualism’ as a concept over the minds of many writers, or why it needs to be refuted in it’s entirety, its presence as the ‘quantum’ unit of psychology and will cannot to my mind ever be challenged. Everyone at some point faces this question: Should I do what I want or what the group demands I do: and it is resolved as an answer to the question well, what would most benefit me?.
Often enough this choice falls in favor of the group, and in our age, people should care more about the group, because it would benefit them more individually.

Truly renegging on individualism is inconsistent unless you give up all that you got while you were still riding that horse: give up your website, your personal philosophy that you developed on your own on the basis of your own experience, your unique point of view and opinions. Truly abandoning individualism means becoming part of a thoughtless uncritical mass, and even those are torn by low egocentrism on a level invisible to us. Is the Afghan selling a prayer-rug at a Bazaar to a visiting Egyptian, an individualist? He still insists on two shekels more. That he would have given it for free to a relative, and twice as much to a white man, is the measurement of the evolved nature of his individualism. He still functions at every visible level like an egocentric cell as we know from all other observation– and I fear the remove into the Golden Age of pre-Individualism is fraught with the same historicized fantasies that we see so often promulgated on these boards.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:28 | #

James,

If I was a real thinker I would want to begin at the beginning and slowly construct my philosophical model.  The exact path it would take could not be laid out in advance of the mentational process, but I might expect it to heal liberalism’s individualist error by placing our inherent tendency towards individualism in its proper evolutionary setting, as you suggest.  That would mean somewhere beneath or junior to the ruling principle.

Indoctrinability in childhood I don’t know about.  Human suggestibility is an issue at all ages, but allied to innocence and dependency I guess it must be the Stockholm Syndrome on speed.  At a quick glance, though, it does seem to me that indoctrinability would be as benign a facility as the intent of the indoctrinator is benign.  A loving parent seeking to protect his or her child in the European EEA could pass on the fruits of valuable and complex survival experience as, essentially, mental shorthand.  The child could learn the why’s and wherefore’s later.  The main thing would be that it survived to the point where it could learn.

So what we are really concerned about in the present-day is the malign intent of the indoctrinators, no?  Not a philosophical issue, perhaps.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:19 | #

PF,

It wasn’t the composers I was commending, though I have high regard for Richard Strauss.  Nielson I find quite difficult to love.  Wagner I ... respect (can’t summon any affection).  But these are matters of unimportance.

I don’t rely on a popular awakening, since I believe that Man is suggestible.  It is the lot of ordinary men and women to think as a herd.  It is the lot of philosophers to be the shepherd.

Also, the discontent of the masses will never aspire to hit the right targets.  Never forget that discontent and division are profitable for our rulers.  If the enemy is the disorderly negro or the fertile, medieval-minded Moslem, so much the better for them.  No, we have to bring the sheep safely to pasture, and ethnically the rest will follow.

Beyond that, I am certain that a new philosophy must disavow strategy, as I said in the podcast.  The point is precisely NOT to shape the chain of thought to predetermined ends, but to found it on the solid grounding of evolutionary knowledge, and build upward from there.  The new philosophy would certainly have to address the issue of determinism v. will early on, and even in my scarcely useful podcast I have tried to suggest how these selected human faculties mesh.

Incidentally, you might well construe that the result would be “only common sense”, but that would be a by-product, not a goal.  So it is of little disadvantage - and, indeed, appears rather advantageous in terms of popular take-up.

You ask, “What is love?”  The phenotype, I think, of the genes which order our recognition of connectedness.  The more interesting questions are, “Who is loved?” and “Who is the lover?”  This is the direct point of contention with liberal individualism, and also the point addressed in Salter.

You finish with an interesting take on the death of individualism as the death of ego - which I call personality.  No, I am not proposing the death of personality.  That should be clear.  Saints escape, it is said, from the burden of desire and all the mechanicity of personality.  Peoples are not comprised of saints, and they will not be escaping from the Self in this way.  I am trying to give them MORE, not less.

I hope that helps.

Do please probe me further on any of these issues.

Posted by PF on Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:09 | #

Hi GW,

Beyond that, I am certain that a new philosophy must disavow strategy, as I said in the podcast

How do you envision disavowing strategy? I don’t understand.

I thought strategic thinking was the alpha and omega of political thinking.

I don’t rely on a popular awakening, since I believe that Man is suggestible.  It is the lot of ordinary men and women to think as a herd.  It is the lot of philosophers to be the shepherd.

Here is my view: Neither philosopher-kings nor popular uprising will probably have a hand in our future as I see it, but muted elements of both will appear as the movement swells. I see whites of different social classes, education levels and backgrounds, forced against the wall as a result of liberal policy, uniting in a simple understanding of their own interests. Whites will have become like third worlders insofar as they will have unlearned the trust of any ideologues and subsequently, political action will no longer be ideologically motivated, but will be pitched as based on group interests understood in the simplest and most straightforward way. This is the ultra cynical worldview of Asia and Africa– where nobody bothers to ask what the Liberation Army actually intends or believes in.
No one cares what supposed platforms purportedly underlie political action: experience has taught them that interests underlie these actions and platforms are for disinformation. Gradually, I think we will approach this revelation.

The phenotype, I think, of the genes which order our recognition of connectedness.

Yes, but this is a metaphorical-poetical reading of science. Phenotype and genotype for example are being used as metaphors here. Observable behavioural patterns do not immediately become phenotypes and an allusion to genetic similarity theory doesn’t suffice to prove their genetic basis. So I mean, its a literary approach to a scientific topic.

You finish with an interesting take on the death of individualism as the death of ego - which I call personality.  No, I am not proposing the death of personality.  That should be clear.  Saints escape, it is said, from the burden of desire and all the mechanicity of personality.  Peoples are not comprised of saints, and they will not be escaping from the Self in this way.  I am trying to give them MORE, not less.

How would you give them more?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:01 | #

Thanks for the reply, PF.  You write:-

I thought strategic thinking was the alpha and omega of political thinking.

I’m not proposing political thinking.  The alpha and omega of philosophical thinking is truth.

Neither philosopher-kings nor popular uprising will probably have a hand in our future as I see it, but muted elements of both will appear as the movement swells.

You describe what I regard as a popular uprising, without the pitchforks on the steps of the palace.  “Popular reaction”, I suppose, covers it - with its natural centre of gravity in political action.  This is the approach of the small nationalist political parties in Europe.  I have shared it, believing that we will find a way to express our rights and interests, but no longer do.  Even if we can combine somehow it will not make the desired difference.  The energy will be channeled into harmless inter-ethnic conflict.

Therefore, I am looking for a way to address the real enemy.  It isn’t difficult to see what that way is: by replacing the philosophical underpinnings you disaccomodate the power elite.

Thus, once 17th Century thinkers had philosophised the dispersal of power among men, the kings and cardinals were replaced by professional power politics.  German Idealism eventually generated a long-chain reaction to that, both in its Sovietised and liberal democratic forms.  The professional class, being the beneficiaries of universal suffrage, were replaced with a self-proclaimed statist elite, while the people had their suffrage exchanged for a racial socialism.

Ideas lead.

... but this is a metaphorical-poetical reading of science.

I am not a scientist.  Frank Salter relied upon scientists for his scientific grounding in OGI.  That seems good enough to me.

How would you give them more?

I would gladly give them an end to their self-destruction and to the destructiveness of their elites.