|
|
|
Ocean Frontier Fertility: Globalist Hysteria Breaks Out Over Iron Fertilization An update to my series on Ocean Frontier Fertility started here at MR in 2006. An entrepreneur dumped 100 tons of iron sulphate off the coast of Vancouver, British Columbia, causing a phytoplankton bloom, the purpose of which was to feed algae-grazing sockeye salmon and increase the harvest for Amerindian tribes economically dependent on salmon. The globalist chattering class is in an uproar. To listen to them, this madman is running a substantial risk of permanently damaging the fragile ecosystems being fertilized, if not the entire ocean hence biosphere. What you won’t read in the reports of this event from venerable institutions like the National Geographic and The Smithsonian is that volcanic eruptions, nearby in the Gulf of Alaska—eruptions that dumped hundreds of tons of iron into the ocean—have historically been followed, 2 years later, by surges in sockeye salmon runs. This isn’t even controversial. Indeed, as described in my prior installments on “Ocean Frontier Fertility”, the prospect of iron fertilization for agriculture is so great that it is plausible that much, if not most, of the biosphere’s arable lands could be returned to their natural state—a catastrophically beneficial global environmental change. We don’t even need to discuss whether carbon would be sequestered, let alone whether global warming is anthropogenic to see that conducting iron fertilization tests on this scale is a no-brainer “go” decision from an environmental viewpoint. So what is really behind the globalist hysterics? Why do they hate the environment so much that they would wish to prevent the return of the Amazon rainforest—return the Midwest US prairie and bison—return African habitats to the rare and endangered species—all while feeding the world on high quality, brain-developing protein and fish oils? Is it that they hate African children who would benefit greatly by such nutrition? Of course not. They are afraid that whites might get loose again—this time to the oceans—and avoid the accelerating extinction of their unique genetic endowment of individual sovereignty bequeathed to whites by their “barbaric” culture, the way they almost did in the New World. Its that simple. Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:00 | # They are domesticated whites. Its sort of like Pinker’s portrayal of the medieval practice of blood feud as the dispute processing mode of last resort being the anthropological equivalent of duel: It took some serious group torture and violence to domesticate northern European individualism—and the vast majority of that torture and violence was committed by northern Europeans themselves under the influence of JudeoChristianity’s stratification of society into nobles and commoners where nobles could evade a challenge to natural duel from a commoner by “honorable” payment of gold. Gang violence, including blood feud, then became the norm. 3
Posted by tyler on Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:53 | # According to your view then, aren’t most whites domesticated by now, including white nationalist, right-wing, etc. whites? Most white nationalists aren’t against the current order because they want to return to natural duels. I think you are unique in this regard. 4
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:07 | # [off topic JB - found this recently - 13.10 to 15.00 may be of particular interest - duelling] 5
Posted by tyler on Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:09 | #
A return to individual natural duels isn’t the motivation for most white nationalists. It’s a return to the white group and gang violence on behalf of whites. I’m not saying your personal motivation is wrong or bad but that it is unique. Also “New Right” and “radical traditionalist” thought which is influential in white nationalism tends to promote hierarchy, the stratification of society, and aristocracy as the basis for society. 6
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:27 | # The non-existent “equality” that supposedly holds sway in the modern world is a verbal cover for an even more stratified and hierarchical society than the society desired by the domesticated pseudo-white nationalists. Pseudo-white nationalists have this fundamental flaw in their thinking: They want to be honest about hierarchy—which implies being honest about group force. More “civilized” peoples have progressed beyond such naive honesty. They have discovered how to avoid force by using fraud—how to internalized slavery in their subjects. That’s why Pinker’s video (linked under the word “barbarian” above) is so triumphant. He knows that the pseudo-white nationalist’s honesty can never hold a candle to the Jew when it comes to economy of imposing slavery on the masses. 7
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:15 | # Not this ‘natural’ duel bollocks again…what is natural about pairwise duels under artificial, arbitrary constraints? What’s unnatural about a group getting together and acting as a group to their mutual advantage? Are tribes ‘unnatural’ in Mr. Bowery’s bizarre world-view? Are in-groups and out-groups unnatural? I guess Mr. Bowery really does embrace a ultra-reductionist and deflationary view of the ontology of the social - only individuals are ‘real’ - everything else is an illusion or unnatural construct? Me I’m an ethno-communitarian (not a WN of any type) precisely because I do believe in the reality and value of collective ‘wholes’. Silly me being ‘brainwashed’ and all yes? Europeans need much more groupishness and far less ‘individualism’ - which is the gloom of our collective grave – but try telling an American that. The American ideology (cough cough…radical and foundational individualistic liberalism) is seriously damaging to one’s common sense – but so long as one has the illusion of ‘personal liberty’ then all is well with the world right? And for any and all of the toxic externalities generated by all this ‘individual freedom’ why that can be ignored until it’s far too late, yes? Anyway that’s off topic so carry on and we can discuss these issue at some other time. 8
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:24 | # Nation: People related by consanguinity and congeniality. The deliberate rejection of certain modes of interaction and acceptance of others so as to breed for certain desirable characteristics is called “culture” and it informs congeniality within which consanguinity reserves the breeding. Nations are not only real. They are authentic. 9
Posted by tyler on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:47 | #
Why do you call them “pseudo” white nationalists? I don’t know if there is honesty about hierarchy. I don’t think there is discussion in the “New Right” and “radical traditionalist” literature about group force being behind hierarchy. 10
Posted by tyler on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:31 | #
Do you mean that Pinker is triumphant because whites have been domesticated enough by now that it’s clear sailing for Jews from here on out to control whites? 11
Posted by james wilson on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:42 | # “Environmental” groups are like governments in that they crave power and control. When something is accomplished without their input, they are both offended and threatened. They are not opposed to good deeds in every case, as long as they are the providers of what that is. That is why you see Marxists in other places in the world, including parts of Europe, doing things profitably that are utterly opposed by Marxist in America, such as petroleum and natural gas production. In America they don’t own or profit by the means of production. 12
Posted by tyler on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:49 | # As far as geoengineering goes, the powers that be aren’t against it in general, are they? That’s what “chemtrails” seems to be about. It’s clear they’re spraying something in the sky, and it appears to be for geoengineering purposes. 13
Posted by daniels. on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:08 | # I have a comment that may be crystallizing but is, as yet, unwieldly. Before I get to sorting it out, I’d like to ask Graham, what is supposed to be the problem with White Nationalism? If you’ve answered that before I would look at the link or if you’d prefer, a brief explanation here, please, would be appreciated.
14
Posted by Endangered on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:43 | # Iron Fertilization sounds like something a mentally-ill white liberal would think up to feed all the starving non-whites of the world who can’t feed or edjumacate themselves. Which of course will fuel the non-white population boom. The real problem is non-white overpopulation, not ‘we need more food’. 15
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:18 | # I call them pseudo-white nationalists because the are willing to sacrifice that which makes people essentially white in the achievement of their goals. By “sacrifice” I don’t mean take a temporary hit the way, say, a gene pool takes when a young man of high genetic quality and character makes the ultimate sacrifice during war; that kind of sacrifice can be remediated in a variety of ways starting with ensuring he has had sperm frozen before going into battle and full material support for women who choose to bear children sired by him. By “sacrifice” I mean the genocide of the very characteristics that make whites better than other races in exchange for the “survival” of “whites”. Since they don’t understand “fairness” (a synonym of “white”), “honor” or “valor” or “integrity”, let alone the long-range direction of creation, they are adrift in a turbulent sea without any means of getting their bearings. 16
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:35 | # It’s not clear sailing from here on out for Jews to control Whites, but it is clear that when pseudo-White Nationalists despise the culture of their “barbarian” ancestors—the culture that bred for the essence of whiteness—they are doing the Jews’ dirtywork for them and simply cannot escape that role. They are slaves of the Jews. Since you yourself admit that I am very much in the minority, if not utterly alone in defending that “barbaric” culture and I am therefore similarly despised, there is much for Pinker to triumph over. We can see even here in MR that if the pseudo-white nationalists were ever to establish their “hierarchy” with fixed, insular positions for their “aristocrats” that I would, at best, be excluded if not put to the rack and tortured until I, like so many of our ancestors, accepted Saul of Tarsus (or the equivalent) into our hearts as our savior. 17
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:59 | # Endangered, We need more land. If you not only turn the ocean into the equivalent of land for frontier genotypes, but return vast swaths of land to a natural, from a cultivated state—not as part of an environmentalist movement, but simply because people who like to live in urban areas will go there because they don’t have to work the land to get their food anymore, you have taken a step in the right direction. There aren’t many non-whites who would, given the choice of free, high quality subsistence in the cities, stay in the countryside. Bottom line: Since we are being denied freedom of association, the only way we can have environments in which we want to raise children is to figure out what the people we want excluded want and give it to them—somewhere else. Fantasies of rising up to “kill them all” or impose “population control” are wishful thinking. Perhaps they will achieve their goal, which is to create biological entities with people as components—resulting in those biological entities fighting it out between themselves in a new kind of mass warfare. But they don’t need us as components when they have Jews to run things and enslaved underclasses that breed like cockroaches. 18
Posted by daniels. on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:00 | # Firstly, I am not convinced that northwest Europeans are so much more characteristically distinguished from the rest of Europeans by individuality as opposed to collectivism. I rather wish that Eastern Europeans were not as individualistic as they actually are. That is a long story and a rather unpleasant surprise. In some ways a story uncannily resembling the barbaric societies that Jim describes. I have found southern Europeans to be individualistic too - nuclear family being about as collective as they get. Hence, secondly, even where Europeans are individualistic, I am not sure that it is so great of itself - my experience of individualists, people in my family and others in the US and Europe, has been far less than enjoyable. I rather like to cooperate and to help people; and I do not believe that I do this in an Asian or African way; rather, a characteristically creative, European way. Third, I do not believe that European individualism is mutually exclusive to cooperative ways; nor that cooperation is mutually exclusive to individualism - on the contrary, even where compelled of the rigors of northern Europe, individualism is born of the social and of our proto-European phylogeny - true, some are more independent than others, but we are interactive; our genetics are deep; I would guess that individualism might express itself in one generation, return to seed in another, and resurface in yet another - that may in fact, be a good cycling. Whatever the case may be, we are attempting to preserve our genetic capacities, all of them, not to destroy them. We are concerned to preserve our various European types in their distinctions; along with their discrete habitats - nations and states. Cooperative types are expected to fight and to fight on behalf of our individualistic types as well, no less than individualists are expected to fight. Those Europeans of a more cooperative nature may be more loyal to the European group, more ethnocentric, more combative against non-Europeans. They may have no problem with some European nations being more individualistic; in fact, they may be symbiotic to “northern individualism,” exactly what we need as ecological buffering against collectivist non Europeans.* Far from being fake White nationalists, truly White nationalists and truly what we need. * I’ve hypothesized that American demographics might suffer for a lack of this ecological buffering from continental Europeans; leaving it more susceptible to Jewish, Arab, Black, Meztiso and Oriental attacks. The continent may have evolved some special anti bodies and ways of combating these attacks. I have already been attacked by Desmond on this hypothesis and I fully expect him to do it again, saying that Southern and Eastern Europeans are no better than Blacks, Jews and Meztisos, but what can I do except to reassure that I am concerned to preserve all of our European types as any good person would be. It makes sense, after all, that European peoples and nations evolved in such buffering relations - German ways evolving in fairly close proximity at the same time and yet separately from Italians, etc.
19
Posted by daniels on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:49 | # I do want to say that I can understand Jim’s emphasis on individualism, as he is a rather self sufficient sort, and he sees the best chance of survival for his kind is by taking down civilization as it is the means which holds up collective leaches on his kind along with those who rely on collective war and gang attack of his kind. However, as I have noted in my previous comment, I believe there are some inferences which may not be quite so necessary, which may not follow. 20
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:56 | # Daniel, why do you think the Romans prized northern Europeans in their armies? Was it merely because they were “good fighters”? Or could it have had something to do with the exceptional seriousness with which Germanics took their oaths of service? 21
Posted by italiantrader on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:46 | # Speaking of Romans, “honor” or “valor” or “integrity”, of things like remembering the fallen and so forth, of barbaric culture…. and of disregarding completely the PC mind control system… you can watch this No, it is not GoldenDawn in Greece, it is in Rome, it happens every year, to remember 3 young comrades burnt alive in their home in 1976, they keep doing this march since then and they are thousands of young women and men… I actually did not know myself, even though I lived there for a few years, I wonder how they gather They are the only whites around that keep up with the barbaric side of “honor” or “valor”, sacrifice, fight and die fighting and so forth. Unfortunately, as you can see at the end of the video when they raise the roman salute, they are heirs of those that were defeated by the US and British Army and to associate with them means to trigger an automatic rejection reflex in 9 whites out of 10 Their concerts, marches, websites, and speeches are all about “honor” or “valor” or “fight to die”, courage and sacrifice and this small niche culture has an appeal for some young people here, but in order to survive it has to associate with this past and in doing so it scares everybody else 22
Posted by repo on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:55 | #
Meds aren’t known for being good fighters. Also empires frequently end up relying on foreign mercs because imperial elites can’t trust hired muscle drawn from native, subject populations to attack and suppress their countrymen and completely do the elites’ bidding. 23
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:33 | #
Race, Employment Discrimination, and State Complicity in Wartime Canada, 1939-1945 By: Patrias, Carmela | Labour/Le Travail, Spring 2007 Exclusion is freedom of association…freedom from the malicious assault by government and capital upon the founding people. If in fact, groups of eastern and southern European descent are/were as individualistic as NW Europeans why did they join Jews, Blacks, Asians and Natives to undermine this individual freedom in order to ensure the protection of group rights i.e anti-discrimination? While it is clear that Jewish groups were leaders in the assault on free association it is also perfectly clear that they did not act alone. Group protection from discrimination is that which was desired and that which produced the current malaise. And yet when advocates like Andrew Fraser renew the call for freedom of association for Anglo-Saxon peoples those same white ethnics raise the cry of bigotry. Why? It’s because they still harbor a deep-seated visceral aching resentment for the ‘treatment’ endured at the hands of the founding people. A hatred so intense they would embrace the other to ensure their destruction. 24
Posted by daniels on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:05 | # If in fact, groups of eastern and southern European descent are/were as individualistic as NW Europeans why did they join Jews, Blacks, Asians and Natives to undermine this individual freedom in order to ensure the protection of group rights i.e anti-discrimination? I don’t know if they are as individualistic. Just that I do not find that they are particularly collectivist. Nor has it been characteristic of Southern and Eastern Euros, in the United States, to join ranks with Blacks and Jews against Anglos. They definitely would not join ranks with Blacks and would be represented by traitors aligning with Blacks if anything, in smaller numbers than NW Euros in that context. I think K Mac would back me up on that and that E Michael Jones would take it a step further - that if anything, there was an alliance between Jews an Anglo elites to suppress and break up catholic neighborhoods in US cities. Rights babble in the US has been all the rage by all Americans. It is to cite The Constitution. It is to be American. The Jewish made the civil rights act of 1964, which perverted and took into reverse overdrive the already dubious notion, was basically on behalf of Blacks - not on behalf of Southern and Eastern Europeans (who were classified as part of the White race); later it took on other PC groups, gays, women browns.. As for people discriminating against other Europeans and finding some kinds undesirable, even inferior in some ways, the validity of prejudice is the name of our game. I would not tell people to not discriminate against persons they do or should not want to associate with - I believe that is very wrong. I might try to encourage you to be allies in a common world view and a common fight, where they did not conflict with your interests, however. I do not get angry with Anglos when they do not want to live and intermarry with Southern or Eastern Europeans; I get angry with them when they do want to live and intermarry with Blacks etc and impose that valuation on all Europeans, because they are high on objectivity, religion, Jews or whatever. Canada, of which you speak, is another situation. I believe the situation there of the Anglos may be different and more characteristic of Fraser’s outlook; one based on Throne, Anglo tribalism and Alter and not upon civic nationalism, hence his disdain for America. The French obviously have their tribal enclave as well. Hence, in that case, with Anglos being a bit more explicit about having rules to maintain their own people and to discriminate as such, there may have been more perceived direct conflict between Eastern and Southern Europeans against Anglos. However, it would be a far more provisional antagonism. Some may have been caught up in the obnoxious rights babble disease. They would not side with Blacks and Asians in any profound way (if they did, they would be assimilated by the Blacks and Asians); and Jews would not ally with Eastern and Southern Europeans in any profound way, even if Southern and Eastern Europeans accidentally assumed they were similar enough for a time. They would find that they were not welcome in the Jew club. In the long run, Southern and Eastern Europeans would side with North Western Europeans and probably form distinct sub enclaves; they would not naturally be allies and group with Blacks and Asisans.
25
Posted by daniels on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:10 | # Posted by James Bowery on October 22, 2012, 12:56 PM | # Daniel, why do you think the Romans prized northern Europeans in their armies? Was it merely because they were “good fighters”? Or could it have had something to do with the exceptional seriousness with which Germanics took their oaths of service?
26
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:39 | # Daniel, It is tiresome, but I repeat yet again: There is no place for individualism in wartime and civilization is war. Germanics are superior at warfare precisely because their individual integrity makes their oaths to fighting forces, that extend beyond the immediate tribe, something upon which a temporary group organism—superior in fighting power to mere instinctive tribalism—can be built. I desire peace because I desire to be Man—not “a part of something larger than myself”. But so long as these mass organisms that our ancestors called dragons, serpents and vipers, are not fully segregated from us, there can be no peace. Obviously, when we mix things up, an organism that is not really, by nature, individual will tend to behave as though he were “individualistic” in the sense that he will defect against those around him because they are not of his tribe. Then, protected from the justice of natural duel of Men, they can turn words into mere weapons of the underhanded—meaningless as oaths. That’s what Jews do and therefore like to see others do as it provides them cover. It is indeed the entire foundation of their virulence: Horizontal transmission aka immigration. When they convince us that the “pax” of civilization is not war, as does Pinker—and that therefore it is time to behave as an individual, this has its greatest effect on Germanics. The invaders have less individual integrity—they are more like components of tribal machines that eat individuals alive while the individuals are upholding their subconsciously held oaths to the “pax” to be “law abiding citizens” which is actually an oath to be a mere part of a morass of words turned to biological weapons against Germanics. That is what you are observing when you say your negative encounters with “individualism” is a “long story and a rather unpleasant surprise”. Your desire for less individualism, as opposed to demanding greater individual integrity while recognizing that civilization is war, is to doom Man—is to doom your Nation (people related by consanguinity and congeniality). Your Nation’s culture—its authentic culture, not the alien JudeoChristian culture—represents the evolution of Man. Your authentic Nation represents the recognition that Man is Man only when he accepts his responsibility for creation via flesh and blood evolutionary direction set by consciously designed culture. Even if you reject the manifest direction of Creation and desire to see your Nation reject its direction and degenerate into a dragon, serpent or viper, your Nation will lose because it is much further than others from such degenerate abuse of Creation. The only way it makes sense for you to desire to compete on their level of evolution is for you to be an extended phenotype of their Nations—doing their dirtywork to destroy your own by trying to be what comes to them so naturally. Those that think civilization is somehow “natural” and that therefore guys like Pinker represent the vanguard of evolution are blind. 27
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:08 | # Bowery, I hate to burden a man of your world-historical intellectual stature with such obvious objections, but none the less I’ll press forward. Do you propose that European-derived people abandon land habitation on earth and instead go live on floating platforms on the ocean and climate-controlled settlments on other planets? Do you claim that if European-derived people were to order their lives as you suggest, they would enjoy more psychologically fulfilling lives, as your suggestions are made with an understanding of what most resonates with the evolved psychological nature of European-derived people? Do you claim that, by dint of the evolved psychological nature of European-derived people, living on the ocean and worlds other than earth would be as or more psychologically fulfilling to European-derived people as living on land on earth would be? Do you believe that enough of the opponents of returning much or all of earth’s arable to wilderness could be militarily defeated? If European-derived people, in coalition with however many other peoples was necessary, could militarily impose their will over earth’s arable land, then why shouldn’t they merely do this instead of colonizing earth’s oceans and other worlds? 28
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:38 | # Both Jones and MacDonald also write that the Catholic Church and Catholic mayors supported the assimilation although considering the fact that the “Poles in Chicago constitute the largest ethnically Polish population outside of Warsaw”, one wonders how much cleansing was actually perpetrated.
Ignorance is bliss. 29
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:56 | # Seriously - people be totally honest who also thinks that Bowery is a complete, full on, no holes barred fruitcake? GW why and where do you find these loons - seriously when Captainchaos is the sane one in an argument or exchange then the guy on the other side really does live in Nutterville USA, yes? Jesus wept as they say. Every day I wish more and more that the people of Britain did not have to suffer the burden of sharing a common language with those people. Is there something in the water in the ‘land of the free’ that can account for the sheer wackiness of Renner, Bowery, Richards et al.? Compare and contrast with the sanity on display from GW and I do wonder about the precise how and why with regard to the story of how GW and his collection of American oddballs ever ‘got together’ (so to speak). Answers on a postcard please to the ‘The Anarch’ care of the ‘Sovereign Individual Unit’ at the ‘Department for Deadly Pairwise Combat’ at the ‘Jeffersonian Bible Institute’. Alternatively send it to the ‘Department for the study of Extraterrestrial and Interstellar Political Theory’ (bad Sci Fi cliches pretending to be political insights) at the ‘University of J-Lizards/Space Jews’ (Mars Campus).
30
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:01 | #
This is a postively Orwellian statement. A Jew could not have done better.
A man is never merely an individual with a duty only to his own physical needs. Most men value their inclusive fitness more than their own lives. Their immediate kin constitute the “something larger than myself” which you heap scorn upon. For them, this is what it means to “be Man”. To ask them to let their own kin be killed in order to honor an oath to uphold single deadly combat as society’s regnant principle would be to use one portion of their nature to do heinous violence to the whole of their nature. Does it get any more Jewish than that?
31
Posted by Bob on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:21 | # Pinker’s jewfro represents the vanguard of evolution. 32
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:25 | # But recall CC that Jesus (Mr. Bowery’s key emotional and ‘intellectual’ inspiration I do believe) was a JEW - a big time Jew. Ironic I guess. 33
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:31 | # Mr. Bowery writes: “Even if you reject the manifest direction of Creation and desire to see your Nation reject its direction and degenerate into a dragon, serpent or viper, your Nation will lose because it is much further than others from such degenerate abuse of Creation.” For fucks sake piss off with this religiously inspired mumbo-jumbo - Voodoo etc., does NOT work, it’s NOT fucking real. And what is this ‘manifest direction of Creation’ bullshit? I am SO tired of Americans with their unbelievably stupid, half-baked, dumb as fuck, utterly ignorant, pseudo-theologies. But wait some kinda strange feeling is coming over me . . . I have seen the light . . . OMG it’s the RAPTURE I tell thee! I wish I had read all those ‘Left Behind’ novels but it’s too late now! And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come , and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. Oh wait it’s the Second Coming - all hail the United States of Jesusland! 34
Posted by daniels. on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:42 | # Posted by James Bowery on October 23, 2012, 03:39 PM | # Daniel, It is tiresome, but I repeat yet again: There is no place for individualism in wartime and civilization is war.
Nevertheless, your comment was hardly redundant - rather enjoyable and useful. It seems as always, your brainpower anticipates, articulates and compartmentalizes some significant ideas. Thus, I appreciate it and will take it to heart. However, there may be a drawback in having such brainpower - viz. that you may be able to extend and elaborate on a flawed premise of Cartesianism, a holy grail for a non-interactive source. That is why this missive may pull up short only at the last moment, with a tinge of paranoia.
Those that think civilization is somehow “natural” and that therefore guys like Pinker represent the vanguard of evolution are blind. I think rather, that I can neither compete on their level, in their way, nor can I personally accomplish as much in individual independence as you can. However, I can and do, I hope, have individual integrity. I do appreciate the distinction you make between a demand of less individualism vs a call for more individual integrity as eloquent, though not in conflict with what I would hope and call for. Only more articulate of what it means to defend our people and women as virtuous individuals. I also found Graham’s objections to be valid. I do not see us losing our individual capacities in a generation if we band together in the face of war as you recognize we must. Nor a corollary to becoming a heard animal when calling our people (to have the individual integrity as you would say) to take measures with their group’s interests at heart. I am not a reader of Habermas, but he had one great piece of advice toward bridging this gap, which you may enjoy: if one does not see their subjective interests in an endeavor, they are not going to learn. Indeed, to participate in the social well being of our people, one must find their own subjective interests served. This need not be either/or between individual and social concern. We have been told endlessly not to think of our group, not to recognize our subjective interests in our people - that is the anti-racism is as promoted by Jews. Is their room for the fine distinctions that you make? absolutely, please continue; but you are probably a little too worried that we will be sucked up into an amorphous organism and forever remain so, if we articulate the fact that we are part of the social, indebted to it for the individual qualities, use and enjoyment that we have; and that we have responsibilities to it as such, which correspond to our subjective interests. The calls for us in the west for us to think and act like individuals have been relentless; some of us do not have the luxury of ignoring what we gained (or have been in fact, denied) from our parents, teachers, friends acquaintances and enemies; rather having been incited to think for ourselves we stretched against the Platonic forms and the Cartesian coordinants until we reached an empty point (or contradictory or paradoxic points) and were mystified. ...we did not become unmystified until we turned back, gave thankian, took to heart and started thinking more in terms of dasein, there-being, midt dasein….as opposed to Descartes Or, as Nietzsche had said, “I do not know where my ideas come from, but I am grateful to whomever I stole them from.”... Stretching toward the sublime as you do is commendable, your yields are significant..but in the end, if they are worthwhile, they will, like Godel, Heisenberg, Heidegger and even Nietszche, feedback with the social relation of your people, even if the individual integrity you call upon and your people’s manifestation is substantially more individual and independent. 35
Posted by daniels on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:52 | # Posted by Desmond Jones on October 23, 2012, 05:38 PM | # Both Jones and MacDonald also write that the Catholic Church and Catholic mayors supported the assimilation Yes, the Catholic Church is capable of some rotten, evil things. That is part of why I am not an adherent.
So what if there are a great number of them there? I feel sorry for any Whites in America. BTW, as of the 1990 Census, there was something like 86 million Germans in the US and less than 10 million Poles.
Ignorance is bliss. I find it absurd that you would try to deny that statement. 36
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:57 | #
True for Richards, but not for Bowery. Bowery uses his own unique interpretation of Jesus in order to subliminally manipulate White Christians into adhering to sovergein individualism - just as Hitler and Nietzsche did with the hopes of gaining adherents to their preferred ideologies. Ironically, this is Bowery attempting to act as the Ubermensch and thus showing his contempt for the individuality of the rabblish masses (“the stupid and ignorant” as he terms them in a moment of unguarded honesty). 37
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 24 Oct 2012 01:16 | # The off-topic invectives have rendered the discussion beyond practical remediation. I will simply point out that I addressed the relevance of frontiers, for those who are interested, in the 2006 introductory posts on “Ocean Frontier Fertility” linked in the original post. Those who want to ignore the changing technological substrate of civilization are, of course, free to ignore these “insane” posts and GW is, of course, also free to revoke permission he granted to me to post here and I will respect his authority. 38
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:59 | # That is what you are observing when you say your negative encounters with “individualism” is a “long story and a rather unpleasant surprise”. I don’t mean to imply that there is not a great deal of truth and insight in what you say. ..such as that statement… containing for me very true and very healing insights. I rather wish there were a way to reconcile yours and Graham’s positions (and in this thread at least, CC’s as well)... There are a lot of good thought going on which, if combined on the same team, would have me liking our chances. I believe that one of the greatest problems of America and its Constitution is that it is Cartesian: being set within that toxic rule structure - a quest beyond social processes - and the upshot of arbitrary demographics (both for the Cartesian/empirical rules and for the Jewish perversion of them) caused me to search in vain for fixed and foundational Archimedean points; I wonder if it not the same for you, a significant difference being that you are able to carry on with it longer and yield more logical insights along the way. 39
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:10 | # Both Jones and MacDonald also write that the Catholic Church and Catholic mayors supported the assimilation In fact, the priest responsible for “urban renewal” (building housing projects for Blacks) in Newark, New Jersey’s First Ward, an Italian enclave until the 60’s, could do nothing else, ultimately, but acknowledge the destruction this had wrought. That process completed, the Italians either moved to another Italian enclave, Newark’s North Ward, or abandoned the city altogether for the suburbs. 40
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:13 | # repo makes a point: Also empires frequently end up relying on foreign mercs because imperial elites can’t trust hired muscle drawn from native, subject populations to attack and suppress their countrymen and completely do the elites’ bidding. 41
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:03 | # GW is, of course, also free to revoke permission he granted to me to post here and I will respect his authority Request denied, soldier. All leave cancelled until further notice. Don’t you know there’s a war on. 42
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:29 | # GW, Graham Lister does implicitly offer a fair criticism. What is MR’s purpose? And what types of articles should it solicit and publish? MR should, imo, have a clear objective, should ‘specialize’, rather than just allowing itself to be a grab bag for any type of post as long as its poster is anti-multikult. When anyone is allowed to post anything, good articles get ‘geographically’ swamped and overlooked. And anyway, an online editor should be attempting to steer the conversation in some way that is productive in terms of the larger agenda. Of course, a stock (and stupid) response might be “why don’t you go out and start your own site?”. Well, the wheel has already been invented. Pro-white forces don’t need a thousand sites, or even a hundred. A dozen serious ones exploring different ‘terrain’ in the nationalist struggle - metapolitics, philosophy of race (perhaps from a few differing standpoints: materialist, Christian, Left/Right), practical strategies, organizational news - would be sufficient. MR could be one of these sites, and perhaps aspires to be. But it needs a tighter focus, and more disciplined posting criteria. 43
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:10 | # Look offering up ‘White Zion’ in outer space, on the oceans or on the moon is the most profoundly irrelevant, nonsensical and pointless form of ANTI-POLITICS (as are endless conspiracy theory, predictions of global collapse and some miraculous post-collapse scenario, monocausalism, the esoteric/occult etc.) In fact Leon Haller is right in that moderately sober and serious work – for example my essay on the genesis and ‘ontology’ of fascism in the Hitler regime (not a bad effort for a non-historian even if I say so myself) – get ‘drowned out’ in a sea of utter shite. And let’s not even mention my front page items on communitarianism or one with an ‘analytical Marxist’ take on the production of ideology (both attracting ignorant know-nothing sneers about post-modernism – when in fact both Michael Sandel and G.A. Cohen are thinkers about as least post-modern as one might encounter within contemporary political theory). Anyway to go back to Leon’s point - quality not quantity. Now before anyone asks “who the hell does this guy think he is” I do NOT object to alternative points of view – but they must be grounded in something like reality and pass the basic notion of judgemental rationality (with regard to politics). The notion that discussion of colonies in space etc., one is ‘doing’ politics is so far from passing any baseline test of judgemental rationality that no-one with one iota of feeling for the political, as both a practical and philosophical activity, could possibly think it was a ‘good’ or legitimate starting premise in my view. Moreover these ‘fringe’ and ‘quixotic’ hobby horse(s) du jour become seriously deflationary of more sophisticated/higher quality discussion and ultimately obscure more directly relevant and important topics. Seriously, if anyone really feels the need to promote the ontology of liberalism (sovereign individualism et al.,) perhaps they might actually try to read what liberalism - and its possible alternatives are about at a philosophical level - then get back to us all. Rather than pushing what is obviously a species of liberally grounded ideology to the trained eye. It gets very tiresome – at least for this non-liberal. I’d recommend starting with either Aristotle himself or someone in the very ontologically non-liberal Aristotelian tradition such as Alasdair MacIntyre and perhaps a little less time with dystopian Sci-Fi novels, books about the ‘end-times’ or other trivia. P.S. When I get frustrated that normal semi-rational arguments are not working I do turn to ‘piss taking’ mode as mockery can be far more effective in demonstrating the less than sensible elements in someone’s reasoning and/or position. And I do think I have some talent for it too. After all Momus did have his uses. 44
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:07 | # GW demands: “Don’t you know there is a war on.” One can hardly help but notice:
45
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:51 | # /. Unfortunately, it is probably the norm, not the exception, for generals of an army to fight, to hate each other, even. Nevertheless, from my survey thus far, I find both Graham and Jim to provide very useful information. As an offhand sketch, I’d say both of their views are worthwhile over 90% - i.e., very good. I also believe it is possible to reconcile them. It is normal in these cases is to advise, to begin, that each stop referring to one another in such a derogatory fashion. However, I think those of us on the side lines are, if we are honest, relieved by the measure of hostility, at least provisionally, with each having a few ambiguous positions that we cannot quite trust. Graham’s hostility with regard to Jim’s emphasis on individualism might even be necessary; Jim being a rather intelligent man, he may perhaps be all too capable of putting across what might be an epistemological blunder - Cartesian individualism. This emphasis may be destructive as it translates, the last thing, the opposite of what we might need right now. And yet, I cannot agree that his essays and comments are a waste of time, he simply contributes too many useful ideas, and if you take time to understand him, you find that his will is good. Ostensibly he appears to be the bully, but following his logics reveals that he is continually searching for ways to defend the virtuous. It is true, however, that harsh measures are called for; America’s dubious rule structure, perverted even more so and catastrophic demographic trajectory would make for a desperate search for solutions, even Cartesian ones. I have seen some comments about outer space and ocean sustained communities. As with any article, I tend to ignore those parts I do not find useful. That is why, for example, with regard to Kievsky’s article about 30 minutes of hate, it barely occurred to me that it may involve some proposed supernatural phenomenon. I had merely looked upon it as an organizational effort. I don’t think that I am wrong for the most part to look into these articles for what I find useful, only challenging them where they might be destructive to Whites. I have not read deeply into Jim’s ocean and outer space articles, but at first blush I’d say we have to have a space program. It may not be an overwhelming priority at the moment, but necessary, not doubt. As for exploring ways of utilizing the ocean, though not my forte, I would not want to quash creative thinking there either. Coming back to my original point, where Graham’s and Jim’s POV might be truly dangerous to Whites: in Jim’s case, an emphasis on individualism, in my immediate impression, is the last thing we need. Thus, I appreciate Graham’s rancor as I am perhaps not in the weight category to take it on. Contributing to my timidity, I value Jim and contributions too much to raise a stink about individualism and duels every time. Nevertheless, I think that I understand where Jim is coming from. He sees civilization take-down and an emphasis on individual independence as a way of selecting for Germanic individualist types and breaking off the infrastructure which facilitates the leeches and collectivist fighters set against his kind. Indeed, he sees it as the only hope of survival and the only possible way to fight. Speaking for myself, I hope this is not true. I want easy and friendly relations with my fellow Europeans; I would like for us to contribute to our mutual quality of life, mutual defense, survival and advance. My way of survival is to pursue separatism and pull whatever support system we lend to non-Europeans, not to pull the support system for ourselves altogether. I believe a valuation of individualism can be reconciled with Graham’s communitarian view through the notion of “paradigmatic conservatism.” If a community has very conservative borders, then it may have a fair amount of individualism within. On the other hand Graham could set up his own communities, which would recognize the fallacious and destructive portents of liberalism and so on. As for why I/We are glad to see heavy weight rancor directed at Dr. Lister - as he is a formidable intellect as well, we are not always up to taking on those matters on which he seems questionable. He says he is not a White Nationalist. I don’t know why. If he wants to say he is a White regionalist or White communitarian, that would only be a variation on the theme of what is truly meant by White nationalism. Outside of non advocacy of Whites, any such parsings would be contentiousness. I also prefer attending to practical matters rather than speculation, and look forward to his posts. The charge of monocausalism….hm.. well, there are those who are heavily focused on the Jews, and a few here and there may even be agent provocateurs (I think of one, in particular), but I believe that other than a few exceptions that the charge of monocausalism is more of a cartoon characterization than is the depiction by said proponents. We have antagonists on all sides and traitors in our own ranks high and low….there are systems and ways of life that will be causative of difficulties for us. However, I do not believe it is wrong for some to focus on some problems more than others. And, my survey of White nationalism shows that focus is a more accurate characterization of what some advocates are doing rather than monocausalism. Thus, some may recoil at your levying this charge, seeing it as threatening to undo the hardest fought gains in necessary free speech - in fact, potentially contributing to the very liberalism which you despise by obfuscating the address of one of its most powerful sources. Nevertheless, I looked back and at some older posts at MR and was surprised to see Graham talking in open criticism, focus and concern about Jewish influence.. Speaking for myself, I can say that I have always been leery and averse to monocausalism. In my youth, I even looked upon anti-semitism as a diversion; I suspected women of promoting it as a means to distract people from being anti-Black. Because my experience with Blacks left me with a visceral dislike for them, and I felt separatism from Blacks should be an easier argument and course to take, I wanted to do so forcibly. Hence, I did not feel adding anti semitism to the repertoire was a good idea. Moreover, for obvious reasons - not wanting to see Poland invaded, generally not wanting to see Europeans fight one another, not needing the stigma (of not liking a people why? because they were rich and successful in business? because they had some petty women?) I was very reluctant to assimilate a Nazi POV. My point being that I was very resistant to being critical of Jews, was rather left no choice but to address them as antagonists. However, I am still very averse to anybody who tries to tell me Blacks are ok. The Muslim, Mestizo, Oriental and Indian problems…the capitalist problem..the Marixt problem..the population and ecological problem… the religious problem (our need for a moral order and not Christianity!)... there are multiple problems all centered around the defense, maintenance and advance of our European peoples and their discreet categories. 46
Posted by Franklin on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:48 | #
Speak of the devil. “Why Are States So Red and Blue?” http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/why-are-states-so-red-and-blue/
47
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:18 | # I’d also like to address one of Haller’s frequent contentions: that the immigration issue is the immediate matter to address. Well and good, but I don’t know how it can be accomplished directly through normal bureaucratic, legal, political means. It is a crucial matter to be dealt with but it seems we’ve got even more fundamental issues of changing the rules and the rule makers first. Fortunately, however, that ties seamlessly with our organizing, separating, and dis-empowering those who would impose non-Europeans upon us. Taking a stance against immigration imposed upon us is corollary.
Whereas anti-racism is anti-classification, an evil, destroying in one generation evolution and ways which have been achieved through millennia, the re-institution of classificatory bounds would allow qualitative processes of development to unfold as they are protected from the necessity of rigid defense at all times. Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudiced (against qualitative ecological disbursements and developmental processes within the life-span and in evolution). It is hurting and it is killing people. Theoria vs Praxis, as Aristotle correctly drew the distinction, is one between matters (Theoria) and methods (Techne) best used to investigate more lineally causative phenomenon - the non human physical realm, especially the hard sciences are better served by the plodding, rigorous approaches of theoria and technology; as opposed to the social realm (Praxis), which, while it may indeed be informed of scientific method, is normally too complex and engaged in agentive, social interaction and responses for that method, and therefore requires practical, socially negotiated judgments (Phronesis). For example, rape and pedophilia may be natural, scientifically demonstrable proclivities, inclinations among percentages of the population and yet we establish social prohibitions despite their being a scientific fact. With that, just as Black man White woman miscegenation may be a proclivity and an inclination among some, we as White nationalists may (and should) recognize it as a crime at least equal to pedophilia and rape – a violation of our nation and religion. That is to say, we accept not pedophilia, rape, nor Black man White woman miscegenation as valid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVIknPTnDuI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxlZla1AXig&NR=1&feature=endscreen As an example of changing the rule structure, and those who make it, we must recognize these miscegenating women as committing violations of equal magnitude to rapists or pedophiles. Those who facilitate them are occupying the positions of pimps of our daughters, potential wives and mothers. They are violators of our sacred evolution. At a minimum, they are to be banished to live with Negroes and the consequences of their ways.
48
Posted by uKn_Leo on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:54 | # A driver was stuck in a traffic jam on the M25. Nothing was moving. 49
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:25 | # Franklin, and one can only wonder what Pinker thinks about the analogous “closing of the European frontier” subsequent to the escape from Africa and the Levant. 50
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:31 | # Daniel, could you expand on your diagnostic category of “cartesian”? Certainly, my views cannot be characterized as mind vs body. So what is it in my views that you see as so reminiscent of Descartes? My prioritizing of experiment over argument? 51
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:15 | # ... Posted by James Bowery on October 25, 2012, 12:31 PM | # Daniel, could you expand on your diagnostic category of “cartesian”? Certainly, my views cannot be characterized as mind vs body. So what is it in my views that you see as so reminiscent of Descartes? My prioritizing of experiment over argument? The Cartesian duality that I am talking about is better described as a separation of individual mind in communion with god versus nature and necessary social involvement. How I think it may effect your thinking is a question that requires some consideration. However, I have a feel and a sense of it from your comments and posts that I might attempt to characterize. Rather than being necessarily a literal use of a Cartesian map, I have the impression that yours is a trajectory aligning individual with god beyond nature, born of American culture (particularly The Constitution’s individual rights as opposed to communism) and Christian religion; and in valuing individualism as such, may have you searching for solutions in your head (with remarkable yield, I might add!), in the coordinants of mind stuff, while somewhat blindering to the social group in positive senses; hence, rather than turning toward and acknowledging the social, at the last moment, a belief is taken in individual communion with god as an entity beyond social involvements. Now, that is a characterization. Of course you show concern and understanding of social involvements - there is no avoiding those concerns (largely the point). However, I believe the toxicity of the American context has effected you in a way similar as it did me, having me searching for the way out in individualism, Cartesian coordinants of mind stuff and transcendence. I believe that because you have more powerful equipment you are able to pursue these logics much further; but that ultimately you will find healing and salvation in White lands; with persons who are amenable to you; who will not encroach upon your space; who will not plunder your coevolutionary women; rather your choice will be of the most appropriate from among an array of women* who’ve held their virtue; you will live among people who will facilitate your flourishing as you are naturally meant to do.
52
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:03 | # I believe that Thomas Kuhn said something to the effect of, Science begins not with an object of inquiry but with a group of practitioners. With regard to experiment, it is debatable, a chicken and egg sort of thing… Obviously one can conduct personal experiments, but they are not particularly meaningful until they are mutually engaged.. With regard to our social involvement, there no serious question. Robinson Crusoe did not have private language - there is no private language…
Taking the view that it may as well not if there are no Whites left, is to think of Whites in a radically social sense (even their individualism) and is probably the way we need to think if we are to organize our survival.
53
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:23 | # My “concept” of nature is not dualistic at all. Creation is self-discipline. There are no “individuals” but by self-discipline. Sexuality is a chosen self-discipline, as is primordial life. Think about “mind” like this: Transhumanists (probably the ultimate “liberals” in the classical sense of complete self-creation) like Kutzweil are always going on about “spiritual machines” and “emergent consciousness” as though mind is somehow not inherent in nature. In their ruminations they conceive of “problems” such as the “rights” of artificial intelligences. They recognize, certainly, the “universality” of “Turing machine equivalents”—that any machine intelligence can, in principle, emulate any other machine intelligence given appropriate programming. But then they turn around and deny that the universe itself, having “emulated” the Transhumanists themselves, is somehow not conscious—that despite the fact that they utilize evolutionary principles (evolutionary algorithms, genetic algorithms, etc.) in machine intelligence—the evolution that produced transhumanists does not represent primordial mind—mind that has self-programmed life as a self-discipline. Society originates with mitotic cells interacting to produce specialization. Social involvement is not something that we “need” it is something that we embody in a most ancient—600 million year old—way. The cells that put together what we call the “individual” sacrificed not only the reproductive germlines of billions of specialized cells, but sacrificed the the mitotic immortality of the cells for the meotic morality of specialized social organization. They did this for the joy of creating sex as a discipline built upon the discipline of cellular life. They did it consciously—embodying in their own beings the thought and joy of creation. The only “duality” here is a chosen self-discipline that involves, also, a choice to the death of that self-discipline in the mortality of the individual sexual organism—the total destruction of each society of cells to make room for greater creative joy. People who mistake me for a follower of “Jesus” are mistaking my recognition of choice of death serving greater joy of creation, for the belief that the story of “Jesus” is unique to one man—be he Jew or not. More than likely, the story of “Jesus” bears no more resemblance to the actual events than does a Hollywood “docudrama” to actual events that need a tremendous amount of spin-control by Jews. What is clear, however, is that the spin-doctoring wasn’t enough to destroy the culture of northern Europeans until Saul of Tarsus came up with his stroke of genius on the road to turning the Sword into the Word. In that, Nietzsche was correct—although he was hardly unique in recognizing the fact. Sex requires of species that they joyously perceive others as co-creators, and the particular form of that joyous perception is heterosexual relations that divide the two aspects of creation: destruction and preservation. Man takes the self-discipline of sex’s perception of “the Other” to the next step in joyous perception of Creation. Such joyous perception guides Man’s joyous acts of Creation just as the original story of Genesis tells the of the aboriginal conscious enjoyment of such acts. In recognizing the discipline of Man, we can see that it is the individual—the sexual organism conscious of the value of heterosexuality and all other self-disciplines upon which heterosexuality is built—who is the primary agent of perception hence current Creation. Denial of that power of perception of Man’s role as creator—such as denial of eugenic power of the individual to “play God”—is madness. Denial of heterosexuality as the primary joy of the cellular societies we call “individuals” is madness. Denial of the joy of living itself, as “suffering” (in accord with Eastern religions) is madness. So, yes, to the extent that the Enlightenment tried to “transcend” the god-heritage of Man, rather than aligning Man with his god-heritage, the Enlightenment was madness. 54
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:34 | # @Daniel In the most simple terms what is wrong with all liberal thought is that it gets the ontology of the social completely wrong in postulating some mysteriously pre-formed and wholly ‘independent’ individual, a la Robinson Crusoe. Without history, relationships, not bounded by any debt to the past or future (outwith any ‘moral economy’), etc. Strangely enough no such fully formed human being has ever existed – we are all dependent upon our collective inheritance from others. At base to our parents for their biological capital and more broadly to a wider pool of social and cultural capital that shapes the very possibilities of our life. We are all deeply shaped by the historical era we are born into, the social and cultural milieu we are socialised in, our gender, which language(s) we speak, the geography of place, the moral atmosphere of our local community or nation, our siblings etc. Thus the liberal notion of a ‘free-floating’ individual formed in some pre-social vacuum - yet oddly fully socialised and with the ability to interact with others/express their individual desires etc., is a dangerous and damaging mythology - it is the foundational mythology of modernity. Rugged individualism produces ragged individuals – moreover unconstrained and given free-rein this denial of the ontological validity and indeed necessity of ‘wholes’ is cumulatively deeply damaging to the society at large (by ‘free-riding’ upon social capital whilst also destroying the deep sources of it); and indeed such societies become increasingly toxic to the proper flourishing of ever increasing numbers of individuals (witness the pitiful phenomena of pseudo-individuality expressed via the medium of which cell phone one owns – or other consumerist detritus – along with what tattoos one has disfigured oneself with etc., - the famous herd of mass conformist ‘individuals’). Not that individuals do not have a proper place in any social order but rather the proper relationship between ‘parts’ and ‘wholes’ must be established and pro-actively maintained. Think of it terms of Aristotelian ‘political mereology’. Liberalism offers a deflationary and reductionist account of social ontology – only individuals are really ‘real’ – everything else is secondary - mere epiphenomenon - and ‘dangerous’ if taken too seriously. Mr. Bowery reveals himself to be a committed liberal in his utter focus upon his preferred form of individualism and the inherent ‘evil’ of groups (vouched in a very idiosyncratic interpretation of eusociality and with a further smearing of this viewpoint in very dull cod-Biblical/Apocalyptic language about ‘Dragons’ etc.). So he’s ontologically a liberal – as indeed are most Americans. Of course contemporary left-liberalism does concern itself with ‘identity politics’ in so far as its ‘baseline’ claim is that these labels (homosexual identity for example) are secondary and should not – indeed cannot - shape how the individual is judged or treated in the wider context of enjoying his or her individual rights. Thus multicultural ‘identity politics’ is very much a progeny of the older ‘classical’ liberal tradition of individualism (which seeks to flatten all legitimate differentiation to only that which can be found between individuals as individuals). Somehow Mr. Bowery seemingly thinks of this older ‘classical’ form as being the ideological polar opposite of its modern form. It’s a crude error but not uncommon. Left and right liberalism are ideological siblings gestated very much upon the same ontological terrain. One does not become a non-liberal by embracing an older form of liberalism – again something that many Americans seem utterly oblivious to. Left-liberalism simply takes the idea that individual rights should not be cancelled or denied upon the grounds of any possible ‘secondary’ identity/classification/differentiation. Or more subtly that in the inevitable clash of ‘rights’ between all these splendidly ‘autonomous’ individualists that the right be considered and treated as an individual and not a member of a group trumps other rights (such as the right to free association or whatever). And of course liberals argue endlessly among themselves as to what the precise lexicographical ordering of various individual rights should be and when they are attenuated by circumstance etc. But such ground is entirely the wrong foundation for serious non-liberal thought as one can only reproduce some species of liberalism from within liberalism. OK perhaps I have misread Mr. Bowery? As for his ‘ideas’ on space colonies etc., well personally I gave up reading Sci-Fi many, many years ago. And what it has to do with European nationalism (as a general phenomena) is beyond my understanding. P.S. Wittgenstein (despite of being a J-lizard) was right – there are no private languages – we are profoundly and unavoidably social beings – the social is ontologically foundational or ‘brute’. Mr. Bowery’s ‘sovereign individual’ as foundational to a social order is a delusional and damaging illusion which ironically does have some roots in Cartesian derived distortions of the cognitive/philosophical ‘model’ of the self that has been part of the modern West for a long time now. But let’s not go there right now. That story is obviously a very complex topic. 55
Posted by Fallschirmjäger on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:22 | #
Do you really think cell phones and tattoos are examples of “rugged individualism”? I would think it’d be more like frontiersmen, survivalists, that sort of thing. 57
Posted by daniels. on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:01 | # ...forgot to mention, empiricism would be Caresian as well. ..as in the Lockeatine empiricism of the US Constitution and its notion of individual rights. 58
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 03:12 | # So to be clear on what you are calling “Cartesian”: When we create something and then judge it to be good or bad (whereupon we preserve or destroy it) we are being Cartesian? 59
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 03:49 | # The ability to experience the joy of creation ends with the death of one’s self, one’s consciousness. If experiencing the joy of creating, and not merely creating as an end unto itself, is the thing, then it seems that striving for one’s own immortality would take priority over risking one’s own death in competing for the opportunity to create via sexual reproduction (e.g., engaging in single deadly combat to increase mating opportunities). One would then logically strive not to become the best sexual reproducer one could be but to become a self-sufficient replicator of one’s own being. This would mean overcoming sexual reproduction altogether. One could then experience the never-ending joy of perpetually recreating one’s self. This is not racialism, it is transhumanism. 60
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:28 | # Daniel keeps prattling on about Decartes but has yet to mention solipsism. Bowery probably doesn’t even know what the word means, much less its significance to his logically muddled escapist fantasies posing as a philosophy. solipsism - “a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also: extreme egocentrism” I offer a humble suggestion: hedonism (e.g., the joy of creation) -> solipsism (e.g., escapist fantasies about moon colonies and single deadly combat); also: Boweryism LOL 61
Posted by daniels. on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 05:18 | # Posted by James Bowery on October 25, 2012, 10:12 PM | # So to be clear on what you are calling “Cartesian”: When we create something and then judge it to be good or bad (whereupon we preserve or destroy it) we are being Cartesian?
62
Posted by daniels on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:05 | # ... Social rules are an important notion as they connect with a non Cartesian notion of internally related logics of meaning and action that engage the flexibility of social negotiation as opposed to more deterministic notions of natural necessity; this allows us to organize ourselves in the more expansive sense of our classification (our “race”) and to impose limits on the tolerance of pejorative imposition. Though they can be more or less speculative, these logics of action and meaning are real, and become important to negotiate as they afford and constrain activity. What we are calling Cartesian would be a quest for foundations transcendent of nature or affixed within nature, via Locke’s empiricism - wherein perceptual impressions and associations are preeminent. The bridge is hermeneutic process. It is particularly necessary because it is how we can manage the classification (race) of our people in a way that Cartesianism cannot sufficiently (especially not when under siege by Jews). Posted by James Bowery on October 25, 2012, 03:23 PM | # My “concept” of nature is not dualistic at all. Creation is self-discipline. I imagine there would be a stochastic element as well, which would entail discipline only in the broad, calibrative, sense of being open to possibilities and then selecting. Hence it would include a phase almost characteristically non-disciplined. There are no “individuals” but by self-discipline. Sexuality is a chosen self-discipline, as is primordial life. Individuals are comprised of two fundamental aspects: 1) our corporeal inheritance, which includes our genotype and phenotype. 2) Our autobiographical selves that are composed of narrative logics of action and meaning. In both cases it is radically interactive, incl. interactive with the social. There are relatively self contained, homeostatic systems of the corporeal self, which are interactionally dependent, nevertheless – of course, they are not closed systems. The autobiographical self can be a bit more self-chosen in its logics, but it is still reliant upon both appropriation from third person public narratives and joint action into first to second person address. Think about “mind” like this: Transhumanists (probably the ultimate “liberals” in the classical sense of complete self-creation) like Kutzweil are always going on about “spiritual machines” and “emergent consciousness” as though mind is somehow not inherent in nature. I don’t know Kurzweil. But I believe the notion of emergent meaning has to do with the idea that through interaction we, as internally related individuals, discover meaning together as it combines then emerges in sometimes surprising ways. We find and acknowledge its emergent quality in interaction, through logics of action and meaning if not regular language. Again, I don’t know transhumanists. However, the philosophy that I ascribe to does recognize and place importance on individual differences and agency but also recognizes that independence is more or less relative; and is inextricably indebted to the social. I didn’t say we “need” it in the sense that we have to fabricate it. I said that we need to acknowledge it in order to counter the Cartesian, specifically, Locke’s notion of individualism, which denies human classifications. it is something that we embody in a most ancient—600 million year old—way. Yes. If that one makes you happy, no immediate, strong need for me to challenge it. There are many stories to tell. It would seem that a person relatively freed from social component might enjoy not only discovering sex, but also indeed, many things in the world in a probing way. The only “duality” here is a chosen self-discipline that involves, also, a choice to the death of that self-discipline in the mortality of the individual sexual organism—the total destruction of each society of cells to make room for greater creative joy. Hm. Maybe you are relying too much on the idea of duality, whereas my use of Cartesian has more to do with separation vs. internal relation. More, some individuals may be more circumspect, and might they be confused with those who should die because they are not willing to directly fight and impose their sexual will, but want more out of life? - Each partner bringing to bear fuller experiences of the world? People who mistake me for a follower of “Jesus” are mistaking my recognition of choice of death serving greater joy of creation, for the belief that the story of “Jesus” is unique to one man—be he Jew or not. More than likely, the story of “Jesus” bears no more resemblance to the actual events than does a Hollywood “docudrama” to actual events that need a tremendous amount of spin-control by Jews. What is clear, however, is that the spin-doctoring wasn’t enough to destroy the culture of northern Europeans until Saul of Tarsus came up with his stroke of genius on the road to turning the Sword into the Word. In that, Nietzsche was correct—although he was hardly unique in recognizing the fact. I believe this aversion to language, its shared nature, and Jews abuse of it, is one of the things that drives you to the Cartesian quest of its transcendence. I enjoyed Sevitri Devi’s critique of Saul, however, I favor jettisoning the whole Christian narrative. I mean, you do want to be free from Jewish sophistry, don’t you? Why are Babylon and Rome the enemies? Of course that was because they were enemies of Jews. As we were saying, you cannot escape language. Schizophrenics were famously said to be trying to not communicate, only to find that they cannot not communicate. So what we mean by “Cartesian” is an attempt to separate and isolate the individual in relation to the transcendent; that would be opposed by recognizing that the individual has a certain amount of corporeal and autobiographical autonomy yes, but is internally related and indebted to the social; it must negotiate the social of necessity; it may manage this relative individual independence and relatedness to the social through the hermeneutic process; engaging internal relation of the corporeal (as you acknowledge, 600 million year old cells) to the social through necessarily shared logics of action and meaning which include narrative, language and conversation; moving and finding orientation in the more speculative frames of analysis (I am emphatic about re-animating, re-normalizing and institutionalizing European (“White”) classification) and returning to readings closer to the empirical where necessary. We return to the more empirical to test out our narratives when they are becoming too speculative. Managing the classification (“race”) requires the non-Cartesian notion of hermenetuics. It is the Cartesian denial of classification (the marshaling of which depends to a large extent upon language) by way of Locke and his individual rights in the US Constitution that has us in trouble. As we noted, Locke had a problem with classifications, as he felt shunned by the Aristocratic English Class. Therefore, he attempted to deny our categorizing capacities in favor of our individual perceptions, making us equally valid judges and therefore warranting uniform individual civil rights. This was Cartesian to begin, with an unnatural truncation of developmental and evolutionary processes; but has been compounded by Jews who have taken to calling classification “racism” Sex requires of species that they joyously perceive others as co-creators, and the particular form of that joyous perception is heterosexual relations that divide the two aspects of creation: destruction and preservation. Man takes the self-discipline of sex’s perception of “the Other” to the next step in joyous perception of Creation. Such joyous perception guides Man’s joyous acts of Creation just as the original story of Genesis tells the of the aboriginal conscious enjoyment of such acts. In recognizing the discipline of Man, we can see that it is the individual—the sexual organism conscious of the value of heterosexuality and all other self-disciplines upon which heterosexuality is built—who is the primary agent of perception hence current Creation. There are many stories to tell. That is one. Denial of that power of perception of Man’s role as creator—such as denial of eugenic power of the individual to “play God”—is madness. Denial of heterosexuality as the primary joy of the cellular societies we call “individuals” is madness. Denial of the joy of living itself, as “suffering” (in accord with Eastern religions) is madness. I agree with making a proper use and ordering of pleasure – that corresponds with the epicurean philosophy that I think will be well suited to your cultivation. This notion of individual relation to god and truncation of the social is dangerous (I agree with Graham, dangerous is not too strong a word) for several reasons: accountability, avoidance of the reality of the siege against the ecology of our disbursement – “person positions” – among our systems, in life-span developmental processes and in evolution. I hope that you will see, Jim, that with hermeneutics, you can have the best of both worlds. * I think that I need to re-edit my essay, “theory of White separatism”, and post excerpts as comments, or whatever, as it traces some of the ways I came to my position and handles these matters at this stage in our struggle satisfactorily, I believe. 63
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:35 | # Here is something rather interesting (proving that racial conservatives were, of course, right all along - I just never thought the collapse would arrive so soon; always though the transition to nonwhite ruled America would be in the 2020s): 64
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:40 | # @CC Too funny - you have been on good form recently. But you’re right - psychologically liberalism is about narcissistic solipsism. The unbounded ‘free-floating’ unencumbered self that is always quick to claim his ‘individual sovereignty’ and rights at every possible moment, yet utterly without any notion of the profound debts they owe to the social collective (both the intra and inter-generational ‘moral economy’) that allows them to express their ‘individualism’. Mr. Bowery is both psychologically and conceptually one of the most ‘fundamentalist’ liberals I’ve encountered. Can’t GW spot this (I’m sure he can and has). Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy etc.) is the conceptually at the core of liberal theory. Curious indeed. But it seems narcissists punctuate their omnipotence with periodic bouts of martyrdom. By being permanently on trial, the narcissist claims high moral ground and the position of the martyr: misunderstood, discriminated against, unjustly roughed-up, outcast by his very towering genius or other outstanding individual qualities. To conform to the cultural stereotype of the ‘tormented artist’ - the narcissist provokes his own suffering. He is thus validated. Why such political Monadology should have a stage at MR is hard to understand - contemporary politics (liberalism in various forms) leaves no room any more for notions such as unity or totality. Contemporary society it is claimed is no longer a unity, it cannot meaningfully be thought in terms of an all-encompassing totality and there is no room any more for political ideologies defining any political agenda on the basis of a conception of ‘the whole’. I would have thought even the most anemic of non-liberals would and could diverge from the supposed ‘evil’ of groups and the collective politics thereof. Just found this quote on one particular form of nationalist struggle. “There can never be peace in Ireland until the foreign, oppressive British presence is removed, leaving all the Irish people as a unit to control their own affairs and determine their own destinies as a sovereign people, free in mind and body, separate and distinct physically, culturally and economically.” Bobby Sands (1954-1981). OK not a person I liked AT ALL let me say - but let’s adapt that notion anyway. What about this? There can never be both an authentic and sustainable life for the indigenous peoples of Europe until they are left to each control their own affairs and determine their own destinies as sovereign peoples, free to be themselves in mind and body - separate and distinct - physically, culturally and economically. Now that’s hardly the most outlandish world-view but no doubt Mr. Bowery would complain in an pathetic ‘old-maidish’ way about the evil of collectivist talk about ‘peoples’ and their sovereignty and their collective right to be, yes? After all only the individual is sovereign don’t ya all know? Ladies and gentlemen we are floating in liberal outer-space onboard the Starship Bowery - our destination is planet Locke! 65
Posted by daniels. on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:10 | # Dr. Lister, comment # 54 was impressive. Going well beyond the 90% register this time.
Its hard for me to say that about every example you give; sometimes your sarcastic derogation is well placed - I liked this one: (vouched in a very idiosyncratic interpretation of eusociality and with a further smearing of this viewpoint in very dull cod-Biblical/Apocalyptic language about ‘Dragons’ etc.). That hits legitimately upon that small percentage of Bowery that does bear criticism. But on the other hand, personally, while Bowery does have a queer margin of speculation, I find an abundance of good will and logical yield to his posts and comments. I understand and even appreciate your distaste for America, for Bowery’s individualism and its connection with images of god, bible and dragons, but I wish that you might appreciate his yields - I mean, look at his essay on the prisoner’s dilemma, just to name one example among many. Even where he does start talking about kooky things, when called to account, it almost seems like a trap waiting for him to spring a surprisingly reasonable logic. I recall his discussion of how false accusations of rape might be handled. As for Americans, there are a lot of ignorant people there, to be sure; and whereas the ignorant used to be racially conscious, now they tend to have absorbed a trickle down of PC from academia. Rather than feeling contempt for Americans, at this point, I rather feel sorry for them. It is these two prongs they have working against them: Cartesian objectivism (as used against them by the naive or the disingenuously traitorous) and Jewish influence in academia, banking, politics, media, business, religion, law/courts - if Americans vote against immigration (or affirmative action, etc), as they always do (these things are not popular) then the Jewish legislators, lawyers, judges and courts will simply overturn their popular will. Jewish lobby’s will oust any political candidate who will go against PC. It is not as much American’s fault as your characterizations would render the situation. Their being high on the objectivism left them vulnerable, no doubt. And it is indeed, important to acknowledge the culpability of traitorous White plutocrats, the corporate “individual”, the military industrial complex, as all of these appeal to the heady, pesudo innocence of the constitution’s individualism, to a liberal hyperbole and the detriment of all European peoples - but there was a great deal of obligation to objectivism and then PC, in particular after WWII.
66
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:50 | # Any truth to this? LH ————————-
67
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:59 | # Graham Lister, If Scotland gains independence, but England in 30 years becomes a Islamic state, will a Scottish Scotland continue to survive indefinitely ? I guess my implicit concern is to wonder how long any European micro-ethnostate can survive “ontologically whole” if the European Great Powers have all become demographically conquered by nonwhites. Power trumps philosophy in these matters, I think. 68
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:32 | # Daniel wrote: “forgot to mention, empiricism would be Caresian as well.” So to be clear on what you are calling “Cartesian”: When we create something and then judge it to be good or bad (whereupon we preserve or destroy it) we are being Cartesian? 69
Posted by Bill on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:50 | # @ 66 New Labour were already to go when Boom!Boom!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/blue-labour-immigration
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/21/lord-glasman-apologises-immigration-remarks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/26/lord-mandelson-blue-labour-edl 70
Posted by daniels. on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:12 | # Posted by James Bowery on October 26, 2012, 07:32 AM | # Daniel wrote: “forgot to mention, empiricism would be Caresian as well.” So to be clear on what you are calling “Cartesian”: When we create something and then judge it to be good or bad (whereupon we preserve or destroy it) we are being Cartesian. No, what we are doing is not Cartesian, though we may think it is and try to describe its creation in Cartesian terms, though that is not actually the process by which the creation arrived. 71
Posted by Bill on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:18 | # @ 69. Whatever happened to Blue Labour? (Labour’s think tank efforts to reclaim the millions of lost sheep.) Suggested halt on immigration blew it out of the water and that was the end of it. Or was it? Apparently, Blue Labour never went away, it’s still on Ed Milibands desk, re-branded ‘One Nation Labour.’ Counter to Cameron’s ‘Big Society.’ http://labourlist.org/2012/10/one-nation-labour-its-blue-labour-2-0/ When will they re-re brand New Labour and revert to just the Labour Party as was the old name? Why aren’t we talking about this stuff? 73
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:37 | # Daniel, I’m getting the distinct feeling that your definition of “empiricism” is a little like “genetic determinism”. No one adheres to the belief that environment doesn’t matter, yet there is a mind-set that insists on accusing everyone who thinks genes matter of belief in “genetic determinism”. When we create something we are acting on the external world to observe its effect. Then, we do, indeed, observe its effect. Having observed, we then compare that to our expectation and adjust our view of the world—and the world we can affect—accordingly. There is utterly NO distinction between that process and empiricism as actually professed or practiced by any real person. 74
Posted by daniels. on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:02 | # Daniel, I’m getting the distinct feeling that your definition of “empiricism” is a little like “genetic determinism”. No one adheres to the belief that environment doesn’t matter, yet there is a mind-set that insists on accusing everyone who thinks genes matter of belief in “genetic determinism”. No, that is not what I mean by empiricism. What I mean by empiricism is more like the radical skepticism which would deny anything beyond the momentarily observable - in particular, it would deny the protracted expanse that language and conceptualization would facilitate to organize and understand our group patterns: our classification as a people. Locke, an empiricist, considered social classifications a fiction of the mind; that is where he came up with the notion of individual rights. He believed everyone had the same perceptions and therefore classifications were a fiction of the mind which should yield to the rights of discreet individuals. This is is the kind of thing that I mean by empiricism being problematic, where it works against social conceptualizations, classifications - race. 75
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:45 | # Its really hard to defend the fallacies of others—especially when I don’t agree with them. I disagree, in fact, with the idea that “empiricism” as you have just defined it, is actually practiced OR professed by anyone. What I mean by “professed” is that the body of their expressed thought actually can be interpreted as consistent with your definition. It is such obviously utter garbage that no living human could achieve the feat and remain alive. Your attempt to smear the idea of individualism with Locke’s personal grudge against historical figures is really not very interesting, Daniel. It is especially annoying when it ignores what I have said and then imputes to me that garbage. Try to do better. 76
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:09 | # CC’s misreading—indeed opposite reading—of what I have said is fairly typical of he and GL. Their prejudice is so pronounced that it cannot be penetrated with any amount of exposition. I could go over, again and again, the importance discipline upon discipline as self-limitation upon self-limitation, yielding ultimately the creation called Man—a sexual, hence mortal, being—and they would still blather on about how my emphasis on individualism somehow aspires to render the egoism of the individual transcendent of all of the limitations upon which that egoism is founded. It is rather like trying to talk to an evangelical minister about evolution as conscious thought process—including joy—that is our own primordial identity prior to disciplines limiting us to individuation. I can’t possibly actually _mean_ that because, well, that’s just not what the evil Richard Dawkins says. 77
Posted by daniels. on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:36 | # //. Posted by James Bowery on October 26, 2012, 11:45 AM | # Its really hard to defend the fallacies of others—especially when I don’t agree with them. I disagree, in fact, with the idea that “empiricism” as you have just defined it, is in fact actually practiced OR professed by anyone. What I mean by “professed” is that the body of their expressed thought actually can be interpreted as consistent with your definition. It is such obviously utter garbage that no living human could achieve the feat and remain alive. Your attempt to smear the idea of individualism with Locke’s personal grudge against historical figures is really not very interesting, Daniel. It is especially annoying when it ignores what I have said and then imputes to me that garbage. Try to do better. Jim, I am not denying the value of empirical method. I am saying that it is at one side of the hermeneutic circle. I knew your answer would be something like this, rather like one who is devoted to the bible and goes on with a no no no, you do not understand the correct interpretation of the scriptures. You will continue to say, no no no, you do not understand empiricism. It is not that, Jim. If it makes you happy to call what I say garbage, fine. But I am confident in what I say. It is important. John Locke was an empiricist. John Locke resented the English Aristocratic Class for its superior educational opportunities. He maintained that as everyone had the same sense impressions that social classifications were a fiction of the mind that should give way to individual rights as individual perceptions and mental associations were the only reality. This empirical notion of individual rights was written into the US Constitution by Thomas Jefferson. As I have said, five hundred times, it does a disservice to developmental processes in the life-span and in evolution by not recognizing them as a part and accountable to and from the classification. We are never isolated individuals without debt to others. Jews have wreaked further havoc with this through the 1964 Civil Rights Act; taking individual rights into reverse over drive by turning classification (what would be the remedy to Cartesian truncation of natural patterns) into “racism”
A metaphor, for example, is not empirical. The logical positivist school of Vienna attempted to find a language free of metaphor and could not do it. One way you know that race is not perfectly empirical, but to some extent “arbitrary”, hermeneutic if anything, is the fact that we are related and can breed with all people on earth. For us, of course, that does not do away with the importance of differences, hence the need to reinstitute and warrant our classificatory distinctions. If you cannot or will not see the importance of reinstituting classification - and how the Lockeatine empiricism of The US Constitution has wreaked havoc with that necessary measure; and how that reinstantiation requires something fairly transcendent of an empirical approach, viz. a hermeneutic approach, then, you are performing a disservice. Don’t be so competitive Jim. You do so much so well. Don’t take my word for it, maybe Graham can better explain the foibles of empiricism, or Nietzsche, or William James, or Heidegger, or Heisenberg.. etc. 78
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:50 | # Talking about personalities is not talking about ideas. It is ad hominem. Locke may have said and thought he believed insane ideas such as the definition of “empiricism” you impute to him. Its just not relevant. I am not Locke. Moreover I do not and have never posited anything remotely like “the radical skepticism which would deny anything beyond the momentarily observable” and have repeatedly stated things diametrically opposed to such nonsensical ideas. Even if I did adopt such garbage ideas and even if I got them from Locke, it doesn’t mean that I would adopt the idea that there can be no classification of people. Hell, even that extended phenotype zombie Dawkins gets the idea that much of the nature vs nurture debate is rendered meaningless by the role environment plays in development yielding unequal outcomes, so it is going to be hard to argue that as much a liberal as Dawkins is, he would go along with nonclassification. Here’s something to chew on: There is a fundamental problem in philosophy and it has to do with the concept of identity, which is a stronger concept than equality. Identity must be conceived of as regarding that which matters vs that which doesn’t matter. So if you have a classification, it has to be with regard to a working ontology—the ontology of that which matters vs “The Other Stuff”. Going on and on about “classification” is, therefore, meaningless in the sense that it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even begin to have meaning outside of a working ontology. 79
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:47 | # Gentlemen, I’ve been very busy today and have not had time to fully read everyone’s comments, but. . . I think Danny is basically correct in describing some of the basic background to what Locke thought and why. Liberalism arose as the ideology of the emerging bourgeois strata that deeply resented aristocratic power and privilege and other (in their view) ‘false’ social hierarchies. Massive amounts of material have been written on the origin of liberalism but Schmitt offers some arresting analysis and insights. However the precise meaning of terms can change over time so what ‘empiricism’ or ‘determinism’ or whatever might mean in Locke (or Hobbes or whoever) and say those terms in as used in the ‘constructive empiricism’ (a version of scientific ‘anti-realism’) as developed by van Fraassen or in the ontologically grounded account of ‘transcendental realism’ (a version of scientific realism) as developed by Bhaskar. (Bhaskar’s early project was to make ontology of cardinal importance within the philosophy of science.) Or on more familiar territory the conceptualisation of the ‘free-market’ and its role in political economy is rather different in Adam Smith and Hayek - sure they share similarities but also important divergences too. As always taxonomy and the concept of ‘nested hierarchies’ is a useful guide to clear thinking. At one level of abstraction or hierarchy two species can share enormous commonalities and be placed in the same genus – yet they remain differentiated enough to be classed at a lower level of the hierarchy as distinct entities i.e. species X and species Z. Or given the original topic of the thread, ecology is said to be the study of communities, populations and individuals – non of the different stratified levels are illegitimate or ‘not real’ and even the most reductionist-minded person could study one individual plant species for the rest of their life but they would be hard pressed to say anything meaningful about the wider dynamics of the ecological community the individual plant existed within. The study of biology (to any serious level – and no reading one Richard Dawkins’ book does not count) makes someone very comfortable with the notion that reality itself is differentiated, hierarchical and stratified – moreover that a brand of ontologically ‘inflationary’ non-reductionist physicalism is actually the understated but widely held ‘working model’ that informs real-world scientific practice. Only dullards like E.O. Wilson think that 19th century positivism is actually coherent or consistent with any description of reality or science as such. Really community ecology does not ‘reduce’ to basic physics in anything like a strong use of the term ‘reduces’. The processes and phenomena of community ecology is simply ‘invisible’ from the perspective of physics as such – that hardly means that ecological communities either break the laws of physics or are non-physical – but emergent phenomena such as ecological communities - are very real and not ‘illusions’. Returning to politics; social ‘wholes’ are very much real – the precise interactions, feedback loops etc., between the ‘parts’ and ‘wholes’ in the social realm are enormously complex. But any starting point for serious non-liberal world-view is in rejecting the deepest commitment of liberalism – a deflationary ontological reductionism that suggests ‘there’s no such thing as society’ – i.e. ‘society’ or ‘social wholes’ is but an epiphenomenon that only reflects the aggregated properties of the parts (individuals). So in my judgement I would not start a deep critique of liberal theory with the notion of ‘I have a really great take on the importance of the individual’ - to do so is be on the profoundly wrong ontological territory. Thus I return to my basic point the ontological assumptions of liberal theory can only result in variations upon liberalism. One must start on different foundational premises – again that is why the project of ‘political ontology’ (and its translation into ‘political phenomenology’) started by GW is so vital and why engaging with Aristotle, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Schmitt, Bhaskar et al., is not a self-indulgent ‘irrelevant’ waste of time but doing the ground work for any intellectually muscular and robust form of non-liberal politics. But that does require hard work and isn’t a quick or simple task. Energy, time etc., are precious resources not to be squandered on, to my eyes, fairly obvious dead-ends (dead-ends of both of a political and intellectual type). Hence my often vented frustration of ‘oh no not THIS again’. Perhaps it would be better if I didn’t care? 80
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:13 | #
Locke wrote:“Only this is evident, that there is a difference of degrees in Men’s Understandings, Apprehensions, and Reasonings, to so great a latitude, that one may, without doing injury to Mankind, affirm, that there is a greater distance between some Men, and others, in this respect, than between some Men and some Beasts.” Ignorance is bliss. 81
Posted by Ian on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:10 | # Bowery, Graham Lister, and Captainchaos should do a Majority Radio episode together to hash out their views and disagreements. 82
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 03:01 | #
If so, how does one account for the notion of Reflection?
“The word empirical denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.” However, that is not what Locke is saying. Reflection is not empirical. Reflection “furnish(es) the understanding with another set of ideas which could not be had from things without.” If reflection “can not be had from things without” then it is not founded upon empirical data. However, this does not fit with the Anglo-phobic paradigm you wish to construct. Those who invent the lies will always repeat them. 83
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 03:27 | # Poles and Jews uniting to undermine the founding Americans? Never!!! The Saturday Evening Post of April 5, 1924, reprinted the following from a recent issue of the Congressional Record:
The following is reprinted from a recent issue of the Congressional Record: ‘Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I also present telegrams, letters, and resolutions from the following organizations in the State of Massachusetts opposing the so-called Johnson immigration bill restricting immigration, which I request be referred to the Immigration Committee: ‘The Association for Protest Against Restricted Immigration, of Pittsfield; Board of Aldermen, of Malden; City Council, of Lawrence; City Council, of Revere; Board of Aldermen, of Chelsea; Board of directors of the Chelsea Chamber of Commerce, of Chelsea; City Council and mayor of Fitchburg; Eliot School Association, of Boston; American Citizens of Polish Descent of Fall River; Young Men’s Hebrew Association, of Fitchburg; League of Jewish Women’s Organizations, of Boston; Group 398, Polish National Alliance, of Boston; Congregation Sons of Abraham, of Worcester; The Associated Jewish Organizations of Massachusetts, of Boston; Committee of Polish-American Citizens of Webster; Polish Citizens of Northampton; Associated Young Men’s and Young Women’s Hebrew Associations of New England, of Fall River; Young Men’s Hebrew Association, of Fall River; Polish-American Citizens’ Club, of Adams; Young Women’s Hebrew Association, of Lawrence; Polish Student’s Club, of Boston; Associated Young Men’s and Young Women’s Hebrew Associations of New England, of Boston; Bethel Israel Synagogue, of Malden; Citizens of Polish Extraction, of Worcester; North Adams Chapter of Hadassah, of North Adams; District Six of the Associated Young Men’s and Young Women’s Hebrew Associations of New England, of Woonsocket, R. I.; Young Women’s Hebrew Association, of Fall River; Polish-American Citizens’ Club, of Lowell; American Citizens of Polish Birth, of Boston; Polish Citizens’ Club, of Chicopee; Polish Uhlans’ Society, of Chicopee; All United Polish Citizen Clubs, of Chicopee; Jewish Organizations of Holyoke; Board of Aldermen and the mayor of the city of Beverly; Sons of Calabrisa Mutual Aid Society, of North Adams; Lodge Trinacria Order of Sons of Italy, of Lawrence; St. Anthony Society, of Dedham; Lodge 847, Sons of Italy, of Southbridge; Società Maritimma Madonna, of Boston; Society Pedarese, of Lawrence; Congregation Beth Israel, of Cambridge; Roslindale Lodge 1057, Sons of Italy in America, of Roslindale; Lodge Sogno D’Italia, of Belmont; Columbus Club, of Fall River; Lodge Vittorio Venelo 1035, Sons of Italy, of Fall River; Italian Citizens’ Club of Massachusetts, of Fall River; Progressive Club, of Fall River; Society Trecastagnese of St. Alfio, of Lawrence; Loggia Cesare Battisti 632, O. F. D. Italian in America, of East Boston; Sicilian-American Citizens’ Club, of Lawrence; Sivitaliano Benefit Society, of Worcester; First Bankers’ Union (Inc.), of Boston; Sons of Italy, No. 1088, of South Barre; St. Annas Society, of South Barre; Italian Social Club, of South Barre; United Lodges, Sons of Italy, of Lynn; Lodge Archimede, No. 1042, Sons of Italy, of Lawrence; Order Daughters of Italy in America, of Everett; Society Basilicata, of Lawrence; Loggia Principedi 1045, of Dedham; Lodge Vitruna Romano, Order Sons of Italy in America, of Salem; New Century Club, of Boston; Lodge I. U. 904, Sons of Italy in America, of Attleboro; Sons of Italy, of Lowell; Lodge Italia Order Sons of Italy in America, of Cambridge; Congregation Agidath Israel, of Lynn; The Tuscany Mutual Benefit Society of Boston; Lodge Italia 506, Sons of Italy in America, of Cambridge; Italian-American Improvement Club, of Chelsea; Loggia Dante Alighieri, No. 309, of Lawrence; The Ligurian Auxiliary, of Boston; Lowell Lodge, No. 874, Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, of Lowell; Association Nazionale Combattenti Italiani, of Lawrence; The Mazzini Club, of Boston; Italian American Naturalization Club, of Leominster; Order of Sons of Italy, of Fitchburg; Jewish National Workers’ Alliance of America, of Fall River; Loggia Gabriele D’Annunzio, No. 592, Order of Sons of Italy in America, of Beverly; Sons of Italy Lodge Piave Fiume, of Watertown; Independent Order B’nai B’rith, Fall River Lodge, No. 884, Fall River; and Italian Central Committee of Revere.’ America, Nation or Confusion: A Study of Our Immigration Problems By: Edward R. Lewis 84
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 04:02 | # Lister@79 Interesting comment, but, as I have pointed out in the past, what you haven’t adequately shown (among several things, I think) is precisely why a non-(race)-liberal politics is necessary to white re-empowerment and survival. Let us stipulate for the moment that America has been ontologically liberal from its founding. We nevertheless maintained a “one-drop” (anti-miscegenation) rule for centuries; whites over time dramatically increased their demographic as well as economic/military power (thus our “foundational liberalism” certainly didn’t negatively impact white EGI in our New World); whites rose up to quash Asian immigration fairly soon after it had reared its ugly head post-Civil War (the wonderful 1924 restrictions were mostly aimed at non-Nordic whites, including Jews); and it wasn’t until the rancid 60s that the modern Diversity Cult arose - and this, moreover, was precisely a period in which traditional American liberal individualism, especially wrt the economy and property rights, was being jettisoned by the New Elite(s) in favor of a radical expansion of welfare state socialism. Facts are stubborn things, of course, but these facts seem to belie your contention that ontological liberalism (assuming that description of America’s historic founding ‘psyche’ is really accurate, which I doubt to some extent) must necessarily be in conflict with white survival - the ostensible concern of WN and MR. The real revolution, as I have stated at length, was not ‘ontological’, but ethical. Sometime in the postwar period, whites collectively (ie, the majority) changed their views about whether nonwhites did or could belong in white societies, and esp the USA. of course, this change did not occur overnight. Rather, white dispossession has been a continuous, and rhetorically flexible, process. In the Civil Rights period, it was all about Christian brotherhood with the descendants of former slaves. Then a Cold War justification was employed to abrogate our historic whites-only immigration policy (along with agitation from douchebag WW2, Korean War and Vietnam War vets who wanted to naturalize their Asian war brides). Later we started hearing about the joys of “diversity”, and the necessity of mass immigration. Now we’re told (deliberately, falsely) that the GOP can NEVER stop immigration or they’ll lose due to alienating the Hispanic vote. And so on. My point is that one cannot denounce an entire national psyche and mode of relating to the world for sociological effects which have only come about relatively recently, and which grow out of a mindset (multikulti) which itself is at bottom hostile to the original foundationally (right-)liberal outlook. The collapse of white America has many causes, and it’s worth a book to catalogue them. But too much individual liberty and free enterprise are really not the prime culprits (try Jewish media propaganda combined with secular as well Christian theologies of white guilt, and general social scientific denials of hereditarianism). 85
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 05:33 | # A one drop rule doesn’t negate criticism. In fact, the one drop rule was simply a response to our stupid mistakes and stands as a testament to such. But what do I know since I’m not really American. It’s a Gordian Knot. A one drop rule shouldn’t have been necessary. One can’t truly legislate morality. 86
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 05:54 | # Posted by Desmond Jones on October 26, 2012, 10:01 PM | # John Locke was an empiricist. If so, how does one account for the notion of Reflection? The other fountain, from which experience furnisheth the understanding with ideas, is the perception of the operations of our own minds within us, as it is employed about the ideas it has got; which operations, when the soul comes to reflect on and consider, do furnish the understanding with another set of ideas which could not be had from things without and such are perception, thinking, doubting, believing, reasoning, knowing, willing, and all the different actings of our own minds; which we, being conscious of, and observing in ourselves, do from these receive into our understandings as distinct ideas, as we do from bodies affecting our senses. This source of ideas every man has wholly in himself; and though it be not sense as having nothing to do with external objects… “The word empirical denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.” However, that is not what Locke is saying. Reflection is not empirical. Reflection “furnish(es) the understanding with another set of ideas which could not be had from things without.” If reflection “can not be had from things without” then it is not founded upon empirical data. However, this does not fit with the Anglo-phobic paradigm you wish to construct. Those who invent the lies will always repeat them.
87
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:07 | # The Saturday Evening Post of April 5, 1924, reprinted the following from a recent issue of the Congressional Record:
If any “alliance”, it is likely that Jews had the most active lawyers and activists, circulating petitions and saying, “sign if you do not want your people to be excluded from The US.”
88
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:30 | # Going on and on about “classification” is, therefore, meaningless in the sense that it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even begin to have meaning outside of a working ontology.
89
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:41 | # Talking about personalities is not talking about ideas. It is ad hominem. Locke may have said and thought he believed insane ideas such as the definition of “empiricism” you impute to him. Its just not relevant.
90
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:05 | # Leon, how could America have been so successful up to the 1960s if its liberal ontology were a problem? Locke’s technology of individual rights would not totally destroy systems in a few generations, particularly if they were exchanging with fairly related systems. More, there were new waves of European immigrants coming in every generation, bringing intact patterns afresh. The technology of rights and capitalism fed on these European patterns, breaking them down, consuming them to fuel its “success”; and was finally seized upon by Jewish interests. The US was not especially liberal in terms of Blacks until Brown vs Board of Ed. 1954 and the 1964 Civil Rights Act - both Jewish efforts. Nor was it liberal with regard to its demographics - 90% European until the 1965 Immigration Act - another Jewish effort. 91
Posted by Bill on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:10 | # Sardine can Britain: What life will be like in 2050 when experts predict the population will have exploded to 80million.
92
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:58 | # Daniel writes: “working ontology - native Europeans and their subcategories, based on 41,000 years of evolution.” Now we’re getting somewhere. A working ontology has to talk about things that matter and, yes, that matters. Here are some other things that matter: Individual: a sexual organism. Organism: the aggregation of replicators against which selective pressure is applied. Culture: selective pressure based on transmissible values and norms. Human culture: Partially artificial culture. Sexual organism: A male or female. Male: A mortal multicellular organism that creates through selective destruction and, as a condition of species propagation, loves others of the same species that create through selective preservation. Female: A mortal multicellular organism that creates through selective preservation and, as a condition of species propagation, loves others of the same species that create through selective destruction. Love: Being perceptive of ultimate value outside of one’s self. Society: An ecology of organisms of the same species. Human: An individual that perceives nature and can consciously act on that perception to alter his or her culture. 93
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:39 | # European man: Genetic European man who contributes work/fight to prevent dwelling of non-Europeans in European habitats. European woman: Genetic European woman who does not bear the children of non-European men. 94
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:12 | # European man: Genetic European man who contributes work/fight to prevent dwelling of non-Europeans in European habitats. I guess some provisions have to be added to that: e.g., when able bodied, for a given amount of time; does not otherwise aid and abet dwelling of non-Europeans in European habitats.
95
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:34 | # Nation: Society whose intrarelations are consangunity and congeniality. Nationalism: Belief that the nation is the best form of society. 96
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:48 | # @Leon No-one has ever said that any society has yet been exclusively liberal or ‘individualistic’ – other ideological and cultural factors also shape any society and have a longish ‘half-life’. But liberalism is both an ‘inflationary’ doctrine, over time eventually pushing out and marginalising other ideological rivals (thus it becomes foundational - the ideological/cultural alpha and omega – or in other terms enjoys ‘full spectrum dominance’) and ultimately it profoundly shapes and colours all forms of ‘political phenomenology’. The subjective experience of the ‘political imagination’ becomes radically attenuated and only expressible in broadly liberal terms and theory – perspectives outwith of liberalism (properly understood) become increasingly ‘invisible’ and ultimately ‘unimaginable’. Rather like the point I was making with regard to the story of ‘Never Let Me Go’ – the characters within that novel simply do not have the conceptual or imagination framework to articulate and hence fight the injustices they suffer – hence the injustice remains totally ‘invisible’ to them (other than in the form of an inchoate and ‘inexplicable’ emotional distress/anger) and its political and collective correction into justice is thus inoperative as a possibility. This is the issue: liberal ‘ontology’ shapes a liberal ‘phenomenology’ which has now ‘defeated’ all of its non-liberal rivals – at least for now. But as that process is completed ever more people cannot conceptually think outside of the liberal and individualistic paradigm (even at a high philosophical/conceptual level). That poses enormous problems as individualistic liberal politics is the politics of maximal heterogeneity and fungibility (within the polis) and is also the politics of ingratitude – silly egoists at every social strata that actually believe they are totally ‘self-made’ and inherently owe nothing to anyone or anything (and certainly not experiencing genuine loyalty and gratitude to some trans-generational social/collective ‘whole’ beyond the social required minimal lip-service). The first person singular dominates the ideational ‘pool’ very much at the expense of the plural form. Of course any social order will have a lot of ‘I’ space but to be collectively healthy it needs real and substantive ‘we’ space too. ‘Me, myself and I’ type thoughts and actions hardly need additional boosting – people can be plenty selfish and self-centred ‘endogenously’ without being pro-actively encouraged. Liberalism might also be dubbed the politics of minimal reciprocity – let’s maximally leave each individual to their own devices under the general notion of non-interference between each individual actor and basically that’s it. Of course there is some model of reciprocity – based on the instrumental rationality of the contract – a conceptually ‘thin’ model grounded in minimal commitment (“what’s the least I can get away with?”). This isn’t the politics of unity but rather total fragmentation and systemic ‘free-riding’ for maximal individual gain. No wonder that ‘market Hobbesianism’ is increasingly the model that globalists would love to implement everywhere given half the chance. It might be efficient for profit maximisation (at least for some) but is it just or ultimately in the interest and long-term well-being of the ‘whole’? The very notion that moral virtue makes certain individually profitable (but social destructive activities) unthinkable becomes ever more redundant and the signifier of being a loser or an ‘irrational’ economic actor (but that’s another topic I don’t want to get into at the moment). My general point being that these ‘background conditions’ and attitudes cannot provide any sort of sound foundation for a sustainable ideological alternative. This is what is wrong with the idea of “can’t we have the liberalism of 1857 or whenever” - firstly the precise cultural and ideological matrix of subjective and objective factors that kept liberalism ‘in its cage’ in the past are very hard to recreate (for example a mass revival of religiosity of a both a culturally and sociologically substantive nature is rather unlikely) and secondly politics, culture and societies are dynamic – even if one is aiming for an equilibrium it is likely to be a dynamic one. This is why for example Heidegger and Schmitt are both such an interesting figures. Both very much ‘modern’ thinkers yet non-liberal and attempting to re-articulate ‘pre-modern’, non-liberal thought/insights for the modern age. Equally modern Aristotelians and communitarians are attempting this task – to revive what we have been ignoring for so long (the interdependency of the parts and the whole in simple terms), yet making it suitable and relevant for the circumstances of the hyper-modern age we find ourselves within. It’s not an easy task by any means. The issues are inevitably complex and range across disciplines; ontology, economics, psychology, cognitive science/phenomenology, sociology, culture, politics, ethics, biology etc., and is not the type of thing the average ‘man in the pub’ is likely to be interested in or even able to comment upon in many cases. What deadly pairwise combat has to contribute to the debate is beyond my ability to grasp. P.S. Mr. Bowery writes - “Love: Being perceptive of ultimate value outside of one’s self.” How about this (to repeat myself) on love and freedom? Perhaps we need to recover ‘the divine’ in the brute existence of animal being. A ‘religion’ of immanence rather than transcendence, or rather, a transcendence through consciousness of immanence signifies the reversal of Abrahamic religious conception of the human soul and a return to the ancient view of the soul not as mind but as anima or spirit: affirmation of ‘the soul’ here understood as the irreducibly singular manifold of the living being-in-the-world. Effectively ontologizing freedom by locating it in the body and the heart would imply that love and the pleasures of sensual embodiment, not primarily in moral or other forms of autonomy, are constitutive of freedom. To speak of ‘ownership’ of the freed self means not, as in liberal ontology economic ownership/labour-power etc., but ownership in the phenomenological, embodied sense of ‘having and belonging’ in the world. There is no genuine human freedom in separateness or aloneness; the free human being is not so much a social animal as an animal that desires to be ‘loved thoroughly’ and as such be ‘at home in the world’. The meaning of freedom this is to be is the state of ‘being beloved’. In Sanskrit, freedom is derived from the word beloved, the condition of being among one’s loved ones. Freedom as love, that is a fierce attachment to the ‘this’ of the world, to embodied being, through a community that enables authentic love-of-self (sensuous existence). It is the love of embodied, sensuous being, the mere ‘animal’ love of affection, companionship, sexual ecstasy, the joy of being alive that ultimately stands behind every emancipatory struggle. We must liberate ourselves from the thin, anti-human effluvia of hyper-liberalism – its deflationary vision of life as nothing but the exercise of that ignis fatuus of the West – in the role of the radically free individual actor and his free-floating ‘will’. If taken seriously this is something of an epochal shift in our ontological self-conceptualization to say nothing for our economic, cultural and social modalities. We are ‘divine’ not because we are made in the image of a rational ‘God’ but because the divine exists at that moment when Being knows itself - touches itself – and hears its own ‘song’. In replacing the onto-theological story with one of an onto-poetic story of immanence might we affect the re-enchantment of the natural world and in turn of ourselves – the revelation that we are worthy of life-sustaining love. Existentially and ontologically this striving of being-in-the-world towards a fullness of being, a striving manifested in the perpetual ethical dialectic between autonomy and solidarity, self and others is wrongly identified as the ‘will to power’ in Nietzsche’s pseudo-naturalistic ontology, but in reality is grounded in love - as fully and deeply understood. The objective is to defend this philia and with it the life-principle, from every social deformation rooted in thantos, the death drive or will to nothingness. The defense of Being understood as not Absolute but as this being-in-the-world, this brute animal existence is not merely affirmation of the wonder of sensuous being. It is a vigorous ethic and passionate politics to defend our collective and shared life-world. Today is the fight for life, the fight for a properly formulated love of ourselves and our histories, our cultures, our collective survival and flourishing. Is this not the political fight of the age? I’d rather be in a beloved state that full of the thin gruel of liberal ‘self-love’. 97
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:52 | # Our women, Our men: Our co-evolutionary Europeans from whom accountability is owed with regard to the maintenance of the overall European class of our genetic patterns and specific national subgroups. * Nation as defined above. 98
Posted by Des Carte on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 03:41 | # If Jewish groups dominated the pro-immigration movement then why the need for Polish signatures? And if it was only a signature needed why form all these pro-immigration groups? The Polish in the US were blessed with higher wages and a better standard of living than in the old country, but this was not enough. Exclusion, the right to free association, was highly resented and grew into a bubbling cauldron of malcontent and finally an alliance, made by Poles and Jews to strike down the desire of the founding Americans to preserve their people and the Anglo-Saxon commonwealth they had built. Of course, historically, Polish group interests have colluded with Jewish group interests for mutual benefit. The Statute of Kalisz is such an example of group rights provided by the state to protect a group that served a particular interest. No doubt such a collaboration was founded upon Pole-Lockean babble regarding individual rights from either the rationalist or empiricist school of Polish philosophy. We can never be sure. 99
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:08 | # If Jewish groups dominated the pro-immigration movement then why the need for Polish signatures? Probably because Eastern Europeans were among those being limited by the 1924 Act.
If they recognized that they were being excluded as a group, why not form groups? The Polish in the US were blessed with higher wages and a better standard of living than in the old country,but this was not enough. Really? I guess I should accept your impartial description. Exclusion, the right to free association, was highly resented and grew into a bubbling cauldron of malcontent and finally an alliance, made by Poles and Jews If you think Poles and Jews like each other and get along with one another, you know exactly nothing. to strike down the desire of the founding Americans to preserve their people and the Anglo-Saxon commonwealth they had built. Would it be the Poles motive to strike down the Anglo-Saxon’s wish to preserve themselves, or were they trying to have access to immigrate to America? Would they use Jewish help provisionally if they had to? - perhaps; just as Pilsudski allowed Jewish men to fight on behalf of Poland in order to increase their chances of defending themselves. An unfortunate predicament indeed - but as an existential choice, one that you would make too (and don’t kid yourself). Of course, historically, Polish group interests have colluded with Jewish group interests for mutual benefit. Oh, of course. If you said it, must be true. It was not as if a few sell-out elites would have done that kind of thing, same as the Anglo-Saxons. The Statute of Kalisz is such an example of group rights provided by the state to protect a group that served a particular interest. Not familiar with the statute, but may be exactly the kind of thing that we need in order to preserve our European peoples - perhaps we should applaud the statue as a model. No doubt such a collaboration was founded upon Pole-Lockean babble regarding individual rights from either the rationalist or empiricist school of Polish philosophy. We can never be sure. I’m not familiar with the Kalisz statute (will have a look later). However, The Polish Constitution, the second national constitution after the US, unfortunately was, yes, also based on enlightenment principles and because of that, it too was responsible for the weakening of the nation (liberum veto - one individual veto vote could undo the consensus of the Sejm; leaving it particularly susceptible to bribery from other nations), precipitating its one hundred year disappearance from the map - the struggle to regain the nation was greeted with events such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Kalisz This has been a good thread, one which holds much promise. It is a shame that your cliche’d anti-Polish bias so badly blinds you to what should be ours and your priorities.
Clearly one way is better. 100
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 08:02 | # From an evolutionary standpoint, this number, 41,000 years, looks very fragile. 101
Posted by slate on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:27 | #
Seconded. A Bowery vs. Lister/CC debate or discussion on individualism vs. collectivism would be very interesting. 102
Posted by CS on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:16 | # We can fight together and make a pact which will agree to establish territories reserved for particular kinds of Europeans - or we can fight each other, and hope that we do well against non-Europeans that way. Clearly one way is better. Seconded. 103
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:16 | # European man: Genetic European man who contributes work/fight to prevent dwelling of non-Europeans in European habitats: when called for, when able bodied and as a focus for a given amount of time; does not otherwise aid and abet dwelling of non-Europeans in European habitats. ...That’s better 104
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:31 | # daniel, when constructing an ontology, it is important to follow Ockham’s Razor. That is to say one should not multiply entities beyond necessity where “entities” can be understood to mean names without expressive utility (ie: “doesn’t matter”) but also names without ontological closure. For instance, I am struggling with the lack of closure for the word “congeniality” since it is clear there is a critical relationship between “congeniality” and “culture”: should I replace “congeniality” with “culture” and improve the ontology—or does that harm expressive utility so much that it would be better to find a way to define “congeniality” in terms of “culture” (or vis versa)? The operational definition of Ockham’s Razor is found in obtaining the Kolmogorov Complexity (theoretic arguments regarding “minimum message length” and “minimum description length” set aside) of meaningful [removed]communication of things that matter) with the ontology. This sort of ontological discipline is _very_ hard work but it is central to the social function* of philosophy—a function that those other than myself have claimed as their high ground, hence have an obligation to observe with correspondingly high discipline. *One may think of disciplined ontology as the social “output” of philosophy. 105
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 19:15 | # Ockam’s razor was noted… I was attempting to stay within that discipline - notice my choice of the word “dwell” - I was patting myself on the back for its being a parsimonious usage. However, I found it difficult to reduce the responsibility for working/fighting to prevent that dwelling. If a man is not abundantly capable at all times to perform this service, it should not, it seems to me, cause him to lose his status as a European man: when he can, he ought to do what he can; but to prevent that legitimate relativity from becoming an excuse, there should be say, two or three years of service, where that duty is the focus. Also in the name of relativity, there probably should be times when a great deal of this service is not expected.
What counts as work/fighting to that end, when and how long… hard to reduce; maybe the phrase, “when relevant and able” would be clear enough. Maybe this: European man: Genetic European man who reverses the means of dwelling of non-Europeans in European habitats.
I did notice and admire your choice of the word, “congeniality”
106
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:19 | # The definition of “congeniality” in terms of “culture”—or the elimination of “congeniality” from the ontology by the recognition of its low marginal utility with respect to culture—founds the understanding of how intranational conflict differs from international conflict: The distinction between peace and war respectively. War is not congenial. Peace is congenial. Both involve conflict. Peace can be seen as culturally-constrained conflict. War, on the other hand, is not so culturally-constrained. In this sense, culture defines “fairness” as something other than “all”, as in “all is fair in love and war”. All is fair in love and war only when there is no shared culture within which mortal differences can be settled congenially—death of one serving the life of another or cutting off of one’s lineage while preserving another under terms agreed to as “fair”. So this is where culture’s impact on the direction of evolution, and the moral animal’s acceptance of responsibility for culture, meets flesh. One cannot escape responsibility for the direction of evolution and be Man. 107
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:51 | # By the way, when one is looking around for culprits in the culture wars, one had best pay very close attention to the subversive ontology in which the word “culture” excludes, as primary, breeding for valued characters. Unsurprisingly, this appears to have been the work of a Jew who defined culture as: “the cultivation of individuals through the agency of external forms which have been objectified in the course of history” No its not. Its the cultivation of desired characters by breeding and development (nature and nurture). In my proposed ontology that is stated as “selective pressure based on transmissible values and norms.” The orientation on “selective pressure” incorporates evolution. A breed is a population genetic phenomenon. 108
Posted by kookery on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 03:17 | # Bowery thinks the universe is conscious even though it doesn’t have neurons. LOL 109
Posted by Stu on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 05:02 | # The universe is just the set of all things. Neurons, consciousness, conscious beings, etc. are members of this set. So the universe is conscious. 110
Posted by daniels. on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:05 | # In response to Daniel Constantin The common pattern of the Right, the New Right, is a quest for objective basis and the upshot is a proliferation of relativism that you perhaps wish to promote as strength. This variety is strength for a book vendor (or a university wishing to sell talk, “multiculturalism” and “diversity”), not for a genuine advocate of European peoples. These books and authors that you site are worthwhile to read, to be sure. But in terms of organizing, the Right, New Right has been and will continue to be a failure. One of the reasons why it will continue to fail is because it does not have sufficient compassion for those White people marginalized, who are being pushed outside of the class or most affected by incursions. They would have greatest incentive to join forces with the class and fight on behalf of Whites; but are shunned as inferiors while the potential union of Whites continues to disintegrate. With that, another reason that the Right will continue to fail is, as I have noted, because its objectivist pursuits will have the continued reflexive effect of proliferating hyper-relativism and internal conflict. By contrast, The White Left will not permit of a religion or ideology that will transcend our people nor a relativism open to scabs who would transform our people into something noncontiguous with our 41,000 years of native European evolution. The White Left is a union of native European peoples which will not be confused with The Jewish Left or Marxism. Non-native Europeans cannot be members of The White Class. The White Left allows for free enterprise, private property, different kinds of economic systems, strongly differentiated communities, belief systems and nations; it pursues science and values its findings but is not blind to the foibles of scientism; it allows for differing individual ways: all provided they do not rupture the patterns of the people, habitats and nations of The White Class - That is, the White Left is cognizant of and accountable to our 41,000 years of European evolution. 111
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:06 | # Stu, more importantly qualia—the raw material of experience—are completely subjective and bear relation to external phenomena, as experienced by the organism, only as dictated by natural selection. The question arises as to the essence of qualia itself. My assertion is that qualia, of much greater variety than we organisms experience, precedes life and, indeed, is the essence of creation. Interestingly, this view is increasingly supported by quantum mechanics and was presaged by Erwin Schrödinger’s work on color perception. The qualia of physical law’s Turing completeness is aboriginal consciousness—consciousness from which we are descended through limitation upon limitation. Our own, neural-based, Turing completeness is not only “in the image” of this aboriginal consciousness but its qualia is of the same essence although is of vastly lesser power, knowledge, extent and duration. 112
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:40 | # Lister@96 This was a very insightful and interesting comment. I have copied it to a permanent file of mine. I must apologize, but I simply do not have time to respond properly. There is so much food for thought. I am not in total disagreement - far from it. I have often myself considered liberal theory to be inadequate precisely in its assumption that the individual remains the same (psychic) ‘self’ at all times, and that society is no more than the sum of its individual constituents. This is obviously untrue. Consider a mob, which might do things its constituent individuals never would. I do think your elaboration of liberalism conflates quite different types, and is also a bit of a (Randian) caricature. It’s a pretty elastic doctrine that encompasses both Thomas Jefferson and Bertrand Russell, or Rep. Ron Paul and Pres. Obama. As I pointed out previously, Jefferson certainly was both a radical individualist, and a racist (slaveowner + believer in black inferiority) - and of greater salience here, a racialist (ie, he made explicit group characterizations, and sought to base public policy on them; eg, opposing nonwhite, and even non-British, immigration). So for your argument to be valid, you would have to demonstrate that Jefferson’s position was intellectually incoherent, and thus doomed to defeat via “inflation” (that is, that a society, most of whose members are Jeffersonians, would not psychologically, indefinitely be able to maintain that dichotomy - individual liberty for whites (in-group), a collectivist stance wrt to out-groups). This is certainly what has happened historically, but I continue to question its ‘necessity’. Was America doomed to be race-liberal (ie, “live up to its alleged (liberal) Founding Principles”)? Maybe, but then maybe that (global individualist homogeneity) is the natural trajectory of the whole planet, and thus true ‘diversitarians’ like us (those who wish to preserve the ethnocultural heterogeneity of mankind), are simply forever fighting a rearguard action. I know people who think universal race-mixing (“panmixia”) leading to Planet Tiger Woods is the inevitable future, and I can’t say they’re wrong, however much I dislike that eventuality. Anyway, lots to think about, but I must stay offline for at least a few weeks. 113
Posted by Hesper on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:27 | # They are afraid that whites might get loose again—this time to the oceans—and avoid the accelerating extinction of their unique genetic endowment of individual sovereignty bequeathed to whites by their “barbaric” culture, the way they almost did in the New World. Its that simple. What do you hope to gain by this victomological statement? Crypto-Christian moralisms, preaching that mastery and the exploitation of one’s slaves which is accessory to it are unrighteous and unnatural, won’t help us now. Compulsion, exploitation, slaughter: these are natural facts in the existence of animal and vegetable matter which cannot be altered by religious prayer, earnestness, or use of Tacitus-inspired crypto-liberal racial propaganda about “individual sovereignty” being the organizing principle and impulse of whites. Thomas Aquinas, an otherwise intelligent philosopher, held that Caritas (literally “charity” but signifying the spiritual love assigned to good old Yahweh for his talking monkey creation, above all his especial favourite race) was the organizing principle of the universe. Through the medieval scholastic tradition’s dogmas a few misguided and a lot more crackbrained scribbler-opponents of the Hapsburg (in the Netherlands, e.g Hugo Grotius), Stuart (in England, e.g. Locke) and Bourbon (in France, e.g Rousseau) Baroque period monarchical regimes contrived “liberalism” whereby Libertas (literally Liberty) replaced Caritas as both summum bonum (highest good in life) and primum movens (that which moves the action of everything else). Libertas comes from Caritas and thus liberalism is, as Nietzsche diagnosed, the result of Christian presuppositions. Both share a “the First shall be last, and the Last shall be First” slave-morality centrepiece and the Jews’ typical hatred for the restraint and repression inherent to Aryan civilisation/culture’s self-organization to maximize will-to-power and aesthetic/artistic expressions thereof. Nietzsche also observed that a swinish ressentiment feeling against mastery, a feeling at once reality-denying, essentially prolish in substance and reinforced by the Christ mythos, derived mainly from the Germanic nations against Roman “evil” (the empire was will-to-power and natural processes unfolding until exhaustion and decay, just like today’s Anglo-American empire, the biggest race, class and sex levelling engine in history, is the product of masterful impulses) and that such ressentiment hindered appreciation of the beauty, natural rectitude and eternal fitness of mastery. Of reality. It’s not mastery that’s our problem Comrade Bowery; it’s the particular masters in charge. 114
Posted by Hesper on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:39 | # Part 2: Do either Liberty or Charity explain natural phenomena? Let’s test these pseudo-variants (pseudo because they are intrinsically identical) by applying them to animal actions: Does Love explain a flesh-eating predator, like Man, giving chase to and exterminating its prey? Are lions actuated by Love, or its implicit opposite Hate? Are Lions right-wing and gazelles left-wing? Do cuckoo birds parasitise other bird’s nests because they are “socialist” or “evil” or are full of bad indoctrination making them nasty and meanie weenies? Would a left-wing cuckcoo bird eat tofu instead of kick out competitor organism’s eggs, lay its own in the discarded one’s place and display similar “Judaic” traits of exploitative deception? Are cuckoo birds therefore morally non-Nordic according to this Wagnerian Parsifal-as-an-amiable dunce ideology of Christianist victimism? Is libertas a plausible elucidation for life? Does the liberal’s Liberty-ethos account for Whites buying, enslaving, transporting in cramped and rickety boats millions of negro chattel property to the New World, and then working them to the uttermost? Isn’t Potestas a more convincing theory? Lions, cuckoo birds, White slavers, Jews, mice, caterpillars, protists and bacteria - is it not the will to power, the internal organic stimulus to expand, eliminate, absorb (assimilating the good, excreting the bad), to dominate and exploit, to compel others to serve or bend to one’s will, a more scientifically realistic and honourable theory.
“Liberty” as you define it is illusory, at best temporary during cultural/demographic transitional periods (every bucolic, sparsely populated republic becomes, if not gobbled up first, an urban, densely populated empire. What happened to America was logistically, physically and culturally inevitable and right, Jewish usurpation of the native WASP elite was the unpredictable spanner in the gears), and, clearly, cannot be stipulated as a universal and immutable principle of existence that elucidates human action either individual or social. These are my considered and science-based philosophical conclusions not attacks against Comrade Bowery’s otherwise faultless empirical deductions and technological productions. I just do not believe that Christian slave-morality and ruralist nostalgia - both representing a flight from reality- will aid us in recovering sovereignty over our countries. At this time in a culture’s evolution, individualism takes the form of crass and self-destructively hedonistic bon vivant atomism not Danny Boone and John Wayne pioneering self-sufficiency. Who can be self-sufficient other than a few rustics or determined survivalists, both types powerless and neither a threat to the regime’s organisation of the main body of white cattle who, the latter, are consumers not producers and therefore necessarily helot slaves to whatever master class comes along? In the 1980’s Revilo Oliver was bemoaning how horribly overpopulated America was. High-tech, sedentary centralized bureaucracy is inevitable, Jew or no Jew, to govern the transactions and guide the movements of 310 million multi-racial, traditionless and undisciplined rootless moo-moo cows. The only goyish reaction to the Jews that got them scared, Nazism, was hardly individualist or crypto-liberal in the manner being canvassed so complacently and ethically Christianly here. 115
Posted by Hesper on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:04 | # Refining the examples in my first paragraph of comment two (sorry I was a little ambiguous): Does the Lion hunt to be free or to kill and eat? Does the Gazelle flee the Lion to better be free or to live?
Was the minority (adult white men) of a minority (adult white men planters and smugglers) of a minority (ditto living in Massachusetts and Virginia) of a minority (those in Mass. and VA. on the James River plantations and Charles River ports like Boston) of a minority (those of that type who attended secessionist meetings) of a minority (the meeting attendees who actively partook of operational command) that initiated, and politically profited from, the American Revolution against Britain seeking separation to be free in the abstract or to be free to use power oligarchically they otherwise had to share with a far-off mother country’s rival oligarchy?
116
Posted by Bill on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:02 | # Latest Farage Interview 25th October 2012. http://planet.infowars.com/economics/latest-interview-nigel-farage-thursday-october-25-2012 117
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 06:13 | # tyler
It’s warfare by cultural manipulation. Most of the foot-soldiers - pawns literally - will be from the manipulated group. Also once created the cultural manipulation can have unintended consequences. For example Communism may have been designed to enslave White people but once the idealogy had escaped into the wild and been taken up by various indigenous sociopaths around the world those native sociopaths murdered more of their own people than the Bolsheviks murdered Whites. 118
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 06:42 | # daniel
I think there’s a spectrum with an optimal point. Northwest euros may have hit that optimal point earlier but may also have moved past that optimal point earlier as well. I don’t think a population’s state in this regard is fixed. The healthy form of individualistic population creates *greater* levels of voluntary cooperation and more effective collective action because it isn’t as dominated by family-only behaviour. It’s why (imo) those populations became so globally dominant for a while. The problems with it are either because the process went too far in those countries where it happened first - from individualism to atomization - or they’re the result of 60 years of cultural poisoning. I think a bit of both. 120
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:00 | # Lister
I think the idealogical underpinning makes sense. The logic behind it is the same as the constitutional right to bear arms. My problem with the practical implementation is the implied assumption that men have an equal capacity for violence whereas i think it’s an inherited trait. A worker ant with a gun is still a worker ant while a soldier ant with a pencil is still a soldier ant and i’d always bet on the soldier ant in that contest. So i’m thinking a free civilization requires a nation made entirely of soldier ants. 121
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:22 | # Leon Haller
Yes, the Labour party lost 5+ million voters mostly over immigration but the Conservative party failed to pick them up*. Both parties are in a race to the bottom in terms of number of voters but for some reason most of those ex-voters won’t vote for anyone else. They just give up. *There are a lot of safe seats. If you have seats with 60,000 voters of which say 40,000 vote Labour and only 5,000 ish vote for other parties then Labour can lose 20,000 votes and still win those kind of seats. Post a comment:
Next entry: Hacking the Race’s DNA
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by tyler on Sun, 21 Oct 2012 18:51 | #
Aren’t the environmentalist types against this whites themselves? The scientists and environmentalists driving the criticism and attack on this seem to be white. Paul Watson, the Sea Shepherd guy, even threatened to shoot and sink Russ George’s ship.