|
|
|
Our superior truths In the normal course of a day or two’s amicable difference of opinion on two Telegraph threads, I was accused of being a Nazi racial supremacist. Well, you know, as one is. But what are the areas in which European Man is demonstrably superior to the other races? I mean important and influential areas, of course, not sporting prowess in strength events or swimming, both of which I’ve seen offered up over the years and both of which lead to precisely nothing. Six possibles occur to me: creativity, individuality, enquiry, adventurousness, altruism/empathy, and the capacity for moral abstraction. These definitely seem to me to capture something of the European essence, and I find it moving and inspiring. It is often said by radical right thinkers of the continental tradition that men must yearn for the mythic. Are there not visions of nobility and greatness enough in the truth of what we are? And if so, is there not also more political utility in this day and age in the acknowledgement of it? Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 01:44 | # Jews often proclaim themselves to be of “superior moral character” That’ll be the day. 3
Posted by Joshua on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 03:52 | # ‘Guessedworker’, great comments from you on the football thread. I wrote some myself (I’m ‘awesh’); check ‘em out, that is if they’re not deleted first… 4
Posted by Mahmood Hossain on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:47 | # You are right. I really feel bad not being white. Can u pelase help or ma doomed for the rest of my existence? 5
Posted by John on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:41 | # “Supreme” has two meanings, which leftists love to conflate with that particular pejorative. A true “white supremacist” in the first definition of the terminal word of that phrase would be in favour of rather than opposed tothird-worlders being present in Western lands because it’s hard to rule over people who are half a world away. Definitively disclaim desire to rule over other races and expose how disingenuous it is to use such a term, which describes a fraction of a percent of racially-minded Euros, before discussion of whether your own is “superior”. (The only spatial metaphor I use regarding race is “in” and ““out”). 6
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:43 | # “Supreme” has two meanings, which leftists love to conflate with that particular pejorative. A true “white supremacist” in the first definition of the terminal word of that phrase would be in favour of rather than opposed tothird-worlders being present in Western lands because it’s hard to rule over people who are half a world away. Definitively disclaim desire to rule over other races and expose how disingenuous it is to use such a term, which describes a fraction of a percent of racially-minded Euros, before discussion of whether your own is “superior”. (The only spatial metaphor I use regarding race is “in” and ““out”). (John)
1. We want our race to endure. 2. We want basic fairness for our race (eg, we shouldn’t have to work to provide welfare for race aliens; we shouldn’t have to suffer affirmative racism applied against us; etc). 3. We (or most WNs) do believe our race to be superior, in all the ways that really matter. 4. But should we reject supremacism/colonialism (in practice we are feeble, for now, but I refer to theory)? I’m not so sure. As the scale of man’s industrial/technological assault against the environment grows ever greater, wouldn’t it be nice if, let us imagine, we could, for the ultimate safety of the biosphere, simply command a stop to Indian fecundity, or Chinese industrialization? Wouldn’t it be better for us (and even the natives, under many scenarios) if the white man again ruled Africa? I am of the opinion that the very existence of separate races sharing the same planet may one day doom mankind. We should have been brutally forceful in controlling and directing global fertility when our people did run the Earth. 7
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:48 | # Six possibles occur to me: creativity, individuality, enquiry, adventurousness, altruism/empathy, and the capacity for moral abstraction. (GW) That really covers a lot. If technological development is contained within either “creativity” or “enquiry”, then I can only add the obvious: beauty. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:53 | # Do you mean visual beauty, Leon - the superiority of appearance that is commonly claimed to be in the eye of the beholder but which J Richards used to define and objectivise here as “fine-ness”? Or do you mean aesthetic beauty, which is really the aesthetic capacity, which is really creativity? 9
Posted by Randy Garver on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:53 | # Leon Haller said:
That seems like a perfectly reasonable request. Would you suggest refunding all of the tax dollars which my economically productive, nonwhite immigrant wife has paid to provide welfare for elderly and indigent whites? Such a plan might genuinely be a practical way to begin the process of reversing immigration. 10
Posted by Hamish on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:08 | # I am of the opinion that the very existence of separate races sharing the same planet may one day doom mankind. So we should kill off every race but one? 11
Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:31 | # Consciousness and objectivity. Except to the extent influenced by societal brain parasites, we more accurately perceive the world around us, which leads to a more profitable applicable of our domain-general intelligence. 12
Posted by John on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:43 | # “Hello? The West ruled over hundreds of millions of race aliens “far away”. The policy was referred to as “colonialism”, and we continue to be excoriated over it.” True, but you either have to move yourself to them, as the colonists did, or them to you. Since there are no more colonies, the option for ruling over the inferior races is the latter. 13
Posted by Frank on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:56 | # John, “We” aren’t ruling over anyone. Apparently, we’re now among the “inferior races”. 14
Posted by Frank on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:06 | # But yea John I generally agree with what I think you’re saying: we oughtn’t want to rule over anyone. A problem arises only with limited resources. Japan, the UK, and Singapore all rely on imports to produce goods. There’d be a need to ensure the technology remains ahead and that resources remain available. Had the UK simply retained its colonies, this would be possible. - The true rulers are the global bankers and global corps. Within the Euro & colony sphere, the globalists appear to be the true rulers. Hopefully China, Russia, and Japan will stand up to them. 15
Posted by Frank on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:18 | # John, a clarification: I don’t want empire, though I do understand it to the extent it’s a battle for scarce resources. Reverse colonisation might really be a desire to rule over lessers if we lived under Eurocentrism. As things stand, it appears to be nonwhite-supremacism, as someone coined earlier. It’s similar to how tyrants use foreign mercenaries. Our rulers have imported foreigners to help rule us. 16
Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:00 | # 75 recommendations for the following:
17
Posted by John on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:18 | # Frank: “We” aren’t ruling over anyone. Apparently, we’re now among the “inferior races”. But yea John I generally agree with what I think you’re saying: we oughtn’t want to rule over anyone. “ My only point is that anyone who wants the races to live separate in their own nations is by definition not a “white supremacist”. 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:18 | # ben, I see a superiority in consciousness as a problematic claim because it begs the question of a race-centred differential in the quality of human self-awareness, and if such exists I would not place Europeans in a position of advantage to, certainly, many eastern hemisphere peoples. Objectivity would be a runner if it means that Europeans are evolved to relate to the natural world, to “facts”, in a more detached way. For example, less animistic, less totemistic. But, again, I am not sure that we would have been seen as such before the triumph of the Christian faith. I just don’t know. So I’ve used the word “enquiry” to try to cover this base without running foul of too many unknowables. There’s definitely something specific to the European mind there. But I don’t know if I’ve got it quite right yet. 19
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 01:13 | # A rather diffident commenter whose name I can’t quite recall made the point regarding consciousness at MR five or six years ago. I wish I could recall exactly what he said. Perhaps I can find it through a search. 21
Posted by Angela on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:31 | # “Certainly. It’s amusing how Jews often proclaim themselves to be of “superior moral character”, lol. Their meddling in everyone’s affairs, you see, is done out of their overwhelming desire to 22
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:36 | # Posted by Hamish on February 19, 2011, 06:08 PM | # I am of the opinion that the very existence of separate races sharing the same planet may one day doom mankind. (LH) So we should kill off every race but one? NO, but we should do nothing EVER that increases nonwhite numbers anywhere. This would include famine and disaster relief, sharing of Western vaccines and medicines, etc. Or, and this is an ethically/theologically deep issue, if we do provide aid, it should have a ‘sterilizationist’ quid pro quo: want your baby vaccinated? Ok, but accept personal sterilization for yourself. We should also re-start both Western fertility as well as expansionism (I understand the huge first step is to end nonwhite expansion into Western lands, but, again, I’m speaking in ideal terms). The expansion of the white race (“the unfolding of the Anglo-Saxons” as Teddy Roosevelt approvingly described one aspect of it) across the savage world was a racial policy endorsed by many Western statesmen in the 18th and 19th centuries (ie, they did not always speak merely in nationalist terms, but racialist as well). It was understood that the goal was to make the human population more white, and less nonwhite. For a long while this policy proceeded. We, their descendants, are the beneficiaries of those earlier racists, however resentful (ungrateful) recent generations may be. 23
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:55 | # Do you mean visual beauty, Leon - the superiority of appearance that is commonly claimed to be in the eye of the beholder but which J Richards used to define and objectivise here as “fine-ness”? Or do you mean aesthetic beauty, which is really the aesthetic capacity, which is really creativity? (GW) You are too sophisticated for me. I confess I was thinking of physical appearance mainly, but also of the capacity not to create beauty (obviously creativity), but to appreciate it. The former was uppermost in my mind because, though I know that whites have been superior to many peoples in their appreciation for, and exaltation of, beauty, I’m not certain we were superior to all in that trait. It seems the East Asians also possessed a high degree (whether as high as the West’s, I’m not qualified to pass judgment) of appreciation for natural beauty - though both the recent history of the PRC, as well as the filthy Chinese practices, esp viz restaurants and culinary waste removal, I have witnessed in LA, would seem to belie that claim. But I do think it undeniable that, on the whole, whites are better looking than other races. More importantly, the best looking whites are clearly the most desirable specimens of humanity. Whites, in other words, are the standard of beauty against which other races in our ever more globalized world increasingly judge even themselves. I think if there could be some kind of global ratings for, say, the hottest women, the huge bulk of the winners would be either white, or “white featured” to some extent. I’m not original in my thinking here, obviously. For younger MR readers, this point was made by Wilmot Robertson in his seminal The Dispossessed Majority (1972 + later editions) (every self-respecting racialist has read this book, btw). Without getting the book from my library, I believe he referred to white physical/aesthetic superiority as “the aesthetic prop”. One final point. In the ‘list of six’ above, you did not mention love of excellence, per se (as something worthy of pursuit for its own sake). Moreover, what can never be gainsaid is that it was the Greeks (described as “blond haired and blue eyed” by Herodotus) who defined for all time what excellence is. 24
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:05 | # Posted by Randy Garver on February 19, 2011, 05:53 PM | # Leon Haller said: We want basic fairness for our race (eg, we shouldn’t have to work to provide welfare for race aliens; we shouldn’t have to suffer affirmative racism applied against us; etc). That seems like a perfectly reasonable request. Would you suggest refunding all of the tax dollars which my economically productive, nonwhite immigrant wife has paid to provide welfare for elderly and indigent whites? Such a plan might genuinely be a practical way to begin the process of reversing immigration. This is an uncharacteristically stupid retort, Randy. For the entirety of the 20th century the direction of interracial wealth transfers has been perfectly consistent and wholly one way - whites to nonwhites. Whites collectively have received from nonwhites collectively not the tiniest fraction of what we have paid out. That Oprah Winfrey or Yahoo’s Jerry Yang or Denzel Washington, etc, or possibly even your wife for all I know, have paid far more in taxes than I ever will is irrelevant to the larger issue. 25
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:28 | # GW, I re-post the following for your benefit or comment : Posted by Leon Haller on February 17, 2011, 11:54 PM | # Ivan, I understand your point above, but a religion must either be true (or true in parts or in essence) or false. Whether it can (or does) serve as a social “glue” (and is thus evolutionarily adaptive) is finally no longer of interest to the Western mind. The supreme quality of Western Man (the white man at his best) is that he wishes to comprehend reality. Physical facts, furthermore, have philosophical and then social and political implications. Christians believe their religion to be factually accurate, at least in its essence, which is that a (and only one) God possessed of a personality exists; that this God created our cosmos; that a man named Jesus Christ, uniquely possessed of an aspect of divinity, existed in history, and that He was resurrected from a state of death in real, historical time. Now you can believe or disbelieve the above. But men, at least the more intelligent and educated portion of modern society, cannot simply willfully return to a prelapsarian state of philosophical ignorance. I cannot force myself to believe what my reason applied to the evidence of my senses informs me is false. Thus religion can no longer be the “glue” you dismiss it as having once been (I agree with your “glue” metaphor, though the extent of religion’s social “glueness” varies between particular religions; I also disagree with your atheistic implication that every religion is merely a social “glue”, uncorresponding in its cosmological narrative to reality). White men will no more return to a Christianity they believe to be false, than to a re-imagined pre-Christian paganism. Unfortunately, if religions have been primary social “glues”, and if they are no longer intellectually tenable for whites, then the logical implication is that white societies will become socially “unglued”, as seems to be happening with accelerating force. The only realistic options for those wishing to reverse the “ungluing” process are 1) to develop a new form of non-religious social “glue”; 2) to “re-glue” society by force; or 3) to reestablish the original religious “glue” upon a firmer intellectual (philosophical and scientific) foundation. GW and his epigones prefer option 1. Less intellectual persons often will advocate option 2. I contend that option 3 is the wisest course. ————————————————————— Mr. Haller, If you believe that religion (or some religions) are adaptive, meaning there is a reproductive differential that exists between the Christian white world (especially the fundies) and the secular white world, then the conclusion must be that Christianity is on the ascent not in decline. (Desmond Jones) Mr. Jones, 1) I’m not sure how you derived what you here impute to me from what I wrote in the comment you originally referenced. 2) I do, however, agree with the first part of your new comment, and see no contradiction between what I originally wrote, and what is now imputed to me. That is, I agree that religion can be evolutionarily adaptive, and with the empirical claim that white Christians (as I have noted here at MR on multiple occasions) do have higher fertility than white secularists. 3) Of course, this could mean that Christianity among whites will be ascendant - or not. It depends on, first, the extent to which people follow their parents’ faith (or lack thereof), and this correlation is in fact fairly high; and, second, whether, however, there are stronger countervailing (societal) factors overwhelming this correlation, and pushing white societies towards atheism. Let us recall that the West was once heavily Christian, but is no longer. Obviously, there is no simple causal relationship in any of this. 4) My real objective in the comment above was to note that blind adherence to religion does not seem to be acceptable to a large and perhaps growing portion of the West anymore. We are no longer philosophical children (as Muslims and Hindus still are), able to accept blind faith. I speak of the broad trend of the West, not various recalcitrant pockets, even if those pockets are disproportionately fecund. Thus, we can no longer rely on religion per se for its (evolutionarily adaptive) “social glue” function (see Ivan’s argument earlier). Religion must now be a much more rational proposition, if it is to survive (obviously, I am speaking in historical terms; this is a long process from the perspective of a single human life). 5) My core argument in response, recall, to Ivan’s comment, was contained in my original last line. If societies cohere and persevere through time by means of a common faith, and if that faith is now in decline (as it clearly has been across the West for centuries), then what will provide the new “social glue”? Either a non-religious ideology, brute force - or, a reformulated version of the earlier traditional faith. I favor the latter. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:47 | # Leon, Things we believe say nothing about reality. Belief is not a vehicle for exploring the real. Human presence is the only vehicle for doing that. Nothing of the real is seen in absence, in our ordinary waking consciousness. At best, religious faith holds a core of knowledge about the theory, philosophy and/or practise of consciousness. But not all the religious faiths do so - one that doesn’t being Christianity, another being Judaism as far as I can see. 27
Posted by Randy Garver on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:20 | # Leon, Sorry for the overly glib tone of the previous comment. Your proposal creates a moral as well as a practical challenge. My plan addresses these. First, I’d like to challenge your assertion that:
Median household income according to US Census figures (2004): Indians $88,538 One can see the cause for this by the educational attainment statistics: Bachelors degree attainment (US Census figures 2004): Indians 67.9% Also, asians in the US have imposed a much lower criminality burden upon society than whites. Violent crime (US, 2008): White: 58.3% of criminals compared with 65.60% of the total population White collar crime (US, 2008): As stated at the top of the comment, the desire to separate whites from non-whites creates a moral as well as practical challenge. The moral challenge: If you wish to end the burden of whites having to transfer wealth to other races, would you not also have to stop accepting wealth transfers from non-whites? The practical challenge: How to initiate racial separation? By refunding the excess tax dollars which asians have contributed towards the welfare of whites, in exchange for out-migration, my plan resolves both problems. I hope you will give this idea serious consideration. 28
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:58 | #
Im a bit doubtful about that, I’ll bet the real figure is a lot higher. 29
Posted by anon on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:52 | # Their meddling in everyone’s affairs, you see, is done out of their overwhelming desire to Let’s be chary of imputing conscious motive where a far less tractable, unconscious one suffices to explain even the worst collective behavior. The Jews are on evolutionary auto-pilot like everyone else save us. 30
Posted by KH on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:06 | # The moral challenge: If you wish to end the burden of whites having to transfer wealth to other races, would you not also have to stop accepting wealth transfers from non-whites? Didn’t you read the post? 1. The overwhelming majority of wealth transfer is from white to non-white. 2. We can do well enough without non-white meddling, thanks. 3. Irony of ironies, the opportunities whites create for those 60k per year hindus does not exist in hinduland. It is the result of other, greedy, dead-while-alive whites who would rather pay them than another white. 31
Posted by Randy Garver on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:33 | # Dasein, She’s actually from SE Asia, not China. Her job exists there, but pays 10% of what she earns in the US. All of her siblings (and several cousins) now work professional careers in first world industrialized countries, a result which her family had planned from their births, and which drove their fanatical approach towards education. 32
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:01 | #
All the above traits, except altruism (which is the opposite of individualism), essentially arise from the individual, as Adolf, the ultimate supremacist, suggested. You may be able to make the case that whites show a great capacity for constructing altruistic discourse, when threatened, in order to circle the wagons, so to speak. However, the Hebrews may be more proficient. Claims of racial supremacy may also be deflected by pronouncing inferiority. Alfred Deakin claimed it was not the bad qualities of the alien races that were such a threat to White Australia, but the good qualities. 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 01:25 | # Desmond, At the end, the individual does not exist. There is individualism, to a greater or lesser extent. It is one of a number of traits we possess - some closely related, some not so closely related. Relation, not parenthood, is how I see them lining up. A trait is like a channel on an incline cut by water. In our ordinary waking state the water flows and we think in that moment that the channel is us, is what we are, and what we are like. This is a mechanical error, something to do with the nature of attention when it is passive, not directed. Where attention is, there is ascribed the sense of self. The trait of individualism is cut deep, for sure, and we spend a lot of time identified with it. But it is still only a trait. 34
Posted by Frank on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 04:24 | # Whites tend to be anti-social and altruistic, though often altruistic towards humanity and not the race. Blacks and Jews put ethnic interests before white interests, readily. But they also backstab and scam one another - backstab and scam their own people that is. 35
Posted by Frank on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 04:36 | # Keep in mind that capitalism and socialism both seek to remove our ethnic orientation. They give us the dichotomy between individualism and the greater good [of humanity] without taking race into account. The powers that be find race to be a road block to globalism. The writers we’re all fond of: many of them are paid by these same powers. They wouldn’t find employment as writers otherwise. Is there money for any of us to write or research? Not unless we slip into a university and get tenure fire. In the US, the conservative movement, at least since National Review (very Jewish) and the libertarian movement in general (also Jewish), has been dominated by Jews serving the powers-that-be, as well as serving their own interests. They tend to support cosmopolitanism, so they naturally serve the powers-that-be. True conservatives on this side of the ocean, such as Sam Francis, and on the other side, such as A.K. Chesterton, lose their jobs as writers. Talent isn’t the issue but quality. Similarly “experts” in scientific fields either learn to push the desired positions or leave. Thankfully this is all recent, so we have only to ignore our favourite present-day writers and return somewhere around post-WWII and before - not that there’s ever been an ideal age but the time we’re living in seems unusually manipulative and deceitful. 36
Posted by Frank on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 04:42 | # I meant talent isn’t the issue but viewpoint. - Anyway, I see this same phenomenon within the New Right. It might be that we’re incapable of producing great patriotic thinkers in this time and that we’re left only with the past, at least for now. That’s not to say they’re all bad, but it continues to be cosmopolitan forces that dominate. Lynn apparently speaks of an “End of History” - echoing Fukuyama:
Source (an interview). That’s not any sort of “white triumph” but an end to whites and racial division in general. Whites might be too inferior to survive though if people don’t even recognise this readily. Perhaps we’re niggers who merely resemble the great Aryans of old, lol. 37
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 06:36 | # Guessedworker, Individualism undoubtedly exists on a continuum, however, it does not change the fact that there is no mass creativity, enquiry or adventure. All that arises from the individual. 38
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:57 | # Desmond, I see what you trying to say. The difficulty is that there is no individual in the human psyche. There are only physical, emotional and intellectual impulses and mechanical behaviours in a sea of absence of consciousness, over which the magic word “I” has been intoned. The impulses and behaviours may be more or less related to one another, but they do not flow from or take root in a regnant individual. I promise you, this is the lot of Man, regardless of what educated men in university departments think. 39
Posted by Revolution Harry on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:08 | # So I take it that Guessedworker is a mere collection of ‘physical, emotional and intellectual impulses and mechanical behaviours’ and no more. 40
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:42 | #
Judging from the comments I’ve seen over at the Telegraph, I’m starting to think “We” is experiencing an upsurge of intonement. Do you see a larger storm forming in the sea of absence? 41
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:04 | # Harry, Any neurologist these days will tell you that the self is, at the very low level of attentionality which characterises ordinary waking consciousness, a beguiling story woven over the mass of non-directed brain activity - activity which includes preparedness for decision, and probably even decision. Notus Wind takes a slightly more positive view of the reality of self-hood than I do, but then I make up for it by talking about what takes place at higher levels of attentionality, when at the very least a state of witness comes into play. I will write a post about this that sets it out properly. Not that anyone but Jimmy will comment on the thread! Hi Jimmy. 42
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:27 | #
It’s a state of “whiteness” which needs to come into play.
I may not be much, but I’m all I think about! 43
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:27 | #
I get’s better, Harry. GW has promised Desmond that he is going to prove that he, (GW), doesn’t exist. The caveat, of course, is that Desmond must first trust him. Stay tuned. This could signal the advent of the GREAT NONE. 44
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:49 | # GW: Proceed with caution when performing the Royal Nonesuch. I seem to remember Huckleberry Finn getting himself into a good bit of hot water over a similar issue. 45
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:59 | # But, Jimmy, “Jimmy” is making the basic error of starting a sentence, “I seem to remember ...” 46
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:45 | # Any neurologist these days will tell you that the self is, at the very low level of attentionality which characterises ordinary waking consciousness, a beguiling story woven over the mass of non-directed brain activity - activity which includes preparedness for decision, and probably even decision. Notus Wind takes a slightly more positive view of the reality of self-hood than I do, but then I make up for it by talking about what takes place at higher levels of attentionality, when at the very least a state of witness comes into play. (GW)
Of course there is a great deal of un-‘self’-directed activity. All animal activity is pure instinct. A great deal of human activity is, too. We often don’t think about what we are doing, because we know ourselves (no irony or pun intended) and have thus formed habits which work for us. The notion that all activity is such, however, is a mere hypothesis by persons who really understand very little about the mind, and keep injecting metaphysical assumptions into their scientific analyses. I’m tempted to say they can’t help doing so, but ideally they should make more rigorous efforts to avoid jumping to conclusions which so obviously contradict commonsense and the lived experience of both past persons and ourselves. Of course I have a self. I have an unbroken chain of memory and thus identity going back a long way. I am a rational entity, and not only engage in decisions, but often reflect upon both the content and the nature of my decision making. Who is doing that reflecting if not my-self? You do need to write a piece on your views on all this. Start by acknowledging that you are an atheist, that all supernatural claims of whatever kind are false; that the universe has always existed in some form; that this universe, perhaps only one among many, or an infinity, has somehow come to be based on physical principles conducive to the propagation of life; that life evolves, and seemingly in a direction of ever greater complexity (why this should be so is not remotely universally agreed upon among leading theorists, btw); that at some indeterminate (and, I believe, indeterminable) point, consciousness arose, which in its turn led to knowledge, mastery of nature, and culture. For you, all that is, however, including all associated with humanity, was predetermined to be. This predetermined state is inherent in reality. It is not particular, and therefore remediable (as, eg, for Marx, the economic condition of the proletariat, based on a false consciousness amenable to (his) enlightenment; or as, eg, for Freud, human neuroses, based on misunderstood unconscious desires, or thwarted unacknowledged sexual drives). It is general and comprehensive. There is no freedom, whether Christian, praxeological or existential. I find all this false, spectacularly so as I write it out. What I cannot fathom is how life, or any aspect of it (eg, race, national honor, heritage), could be seen to be meaningful to someone holding such views. 47
Posted by Revolution Harry on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:47 | #
Who promises? 48
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:33 | # Randy, I see where you provided some sources for your figures, but they are at least in part false or misleading. The stats re whites and % of crime are utter horseshit. You should recognize that prima facie, so to speak. Those stats conflate Hispanics with whites (as the white collar crime stats conflate Jews and Middle Easterners with whites; also, whites are disproportionately white collar, as compared to nonwhites). Indians may have the highest household income (except for, I am certain, Jews), but that is because mostly very high-IQ and high skilled Indians are the ones coming here, and there aren’t very many - yet. That is a function of our bizarre immigration system (I’m not making a racial criticism here), based on (earlier) family reunification. I don’t have time to explain this. Read Brimelow, Alien Nation. Look at these stats from you: Bachelors degree attainment (US Census figures 2004): Indians 67.9% Can’t you immediately see what is wrong with them, especially for your forensic purpose in their deployment? (Others, join in please.) Of course, when I spoke about interracial wealth transfers, I was speaking of whites to nonwhites. I did not specify the issue of whites to Asians, or Asians to whites. However, whites as a whole are net taxpayers; nonwhites as a whole net tax recipients. Therefore, when you keep speaking of transfers from asians to whites, you are either confused or deliberately mendacious. What you really mean is interracial transfers from Asian nonwhites to other nonwhites (eg blacks). That is not my concern. After all, most of these Asians in the US came here well after the Negro civil rights movement, as well as the creation of the modern welfare state. Thus, they can be assumed to have known what they were getting into in terms of wealth transfers to other nonwhites in coming here. They did so anyway, correctly perceiving white-created America as full of opportunities for them. Most whites, esp those like me whose family has been here for several centuries, and has been middle to upper class for much more than a century, had all this system of interracial wealth transfer imposedon us - after we had already done the tough work of settling and founding and building the nation. Who gives a shit what some high-IQ chink or paki contributes? They have arrived after the real work was done (by my people). Finally, let us never forget the political economy. That is, today, a huge portion of the economy, and hence individual economic success, is determined by government. The Democrats are the party of socialism, which is practical racial terms, means the party of white economic dispossession and immiseration - through taxes, transfers, immigration competition and affirmative action-based loss of opportunities (the GOP assholes, and many Democrats, have further destroyed the white economy through “free” (ha! if only) trade). All your precious Asian ethnicities vote heavily Democratic, thus harming white macro-interests, whatever their ethnic group-specific incomes may be. No, we whites should have kept our world for ourselves, through nationalist legislation, and strong and aggressive militaries. Now, we must find a way merely to ensure our genetic continuity. This will only happen in a globally hated ethnostate (nonwhite hatred will bind our people together, as with Israel and Jewry). I would like that to be in America (and for Europe to become a whole series of recrudesced ethnopolities), but I fear, as I’ve argued here in the past, that this will not happen, and that our sole chance of survival lay with foreign demographic conquest of a sovereign polity. I’ve offered up Australia and Uruguay as the most promising. 49
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:42 | # Leon, To take the matter seriously requires you to discriminate in a certain conscious sense, so that what is authentic and belongs to you and what is not and does not might, for a moment or two, become a little clearer. In a culture like ours, with a religion that is 100% exoteric, this is undoubtedly a difficult, even alien idea. What does “not belong” mean? Ordinarily, there is no such distinction, of course. But to half the religious world it isn’t alien at all, and perhaps for a reasonable fraction - say 10% - not difficult. In the West in postmodernity we are astonishingly self-estranged, and we are so for a variety of reasons, some historical, some psychological, some philosophical, some cultural, some political. All of it can be addressed, and a good part of it can be addressed quite quickly, with the right approach. Your traditionalism is not the right approach, because it relies wholly upon the accidental convergence of said tradition with the healthier self-relation European peoples enjoyed in the past. The right approach does not deal in accidents, but in consciousness. It orders the thinking of the people to discriminate for authenticity ... Volk for Volkishness, as it were. This, I believe, was close - close, not the same, obviously - to what Martin Heidegger had in mind when he joined the NSDAP in 1933. The conversation he wanted to open with party intellectuals never took place, because they had a use for the reborn hero but not for the rediscovered German. 50
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:49 | # Until a few years ago I had a Bouvier de Flanders named Schwartz. He was big dog. He had long black hair and was difficult to bathe. I could barely fit him into the bathtub. He hated it worse than I did, and was very smart about anticipating when I might be planning to bathe him. Given his size, it was impossible that I could overlook his existence in my house, but this fact never figured into his evasive strategies. He would invariably seek out a place in which bury his head. He seemed to think that if he couldn’t see me, he didn’t exist. Sometimes, I think it was largely these escapades that made bathing him worthwhile. I miss Schwartz, but if I ever get another Bouvier, I think I’ll name him after someone else. 51
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:58 | # Fantastic suggestion, GW. I’ll name him Hidegger. 52
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:21 | #
Guessedworker, No matter how much we might delight in groping in dark rooms, a fundamental truth is that we cannot be conscious of that which we are not conscious. Spatializaton is a characteristic of all conscious thought. “I” holds no magic. It’s a self-metaphor, an analogue. Attentiveness is not required for learning or even judgment. Why should we demand it for creativity? There is nothing in consciousness that is not an analog of the behavioral. The individual exists metaphorically. 53
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:03 | #
It should be no more unfathomable to you than the proposition that you don’t need your thirst to be bathed in some holy light in order to see the point of quenching it by drinking water. Why don’t most Whites fuck muds and produce mongrel offspring, because they believe that would make baby Jesus cry? No, it’s that their instincts are evolved in a way that tends to (obviously cultural conditioning can enhance or diminish this tendency) the genetic continuity of their own people. 54
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:46 | # But, Desmond, you would agree that we are less racially conscious than we were a hundred or even fifty years ago. How could we know that at first hand, rather than simply as a thought on a page of a book, if you are right? Yet we do not encounter the meaning of that idea merely as a thought on a page in a book which we take into our imagination. We know what it means in a much more vital and holistic sense. We know the authenticity of it. We know that it has to do with a consciousness of self, and not merely with an immoral opinion of the negro. In fact, it is always the case that the more conscious of self we become, the more conscious of the thing that is before us in life we become too, whatever that might be. “We are” overtakes “I mustn’t think this way because it is bad”. This is the only true freedom, and it is freedom from self-illusion and it is the freedom to be. In the context of racial awareness and racial behaviour, this is explicit whiteness arrived at directly, and not through the dark and uncertain agency of moral or idealistic striving. You see, in the end what I am describing, in terms of the detail of the mechanism, is the human - not just the white - condition. It is an accurate description. Neurological science agrees with it. Esoteric religion agrees with it. Significant strands of Western existentialist philosophy agree with it, or aspects of it. It is not a wild idea or a piece of romance. It is simply difficult and alien to many people on first contact. 55
Posted by danielj on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:07 | # Any neurologist these days will tell you that the self is, at the very low level of attentionality which characterises ordinary waking consciousness, a beguiling story woven over the mass of non-directed brain activity - activity which includes preparedness for decision, and probably even decision. Neurologists only understand a tiny little sliver of reality. They are prisoners of the very concepts they have created. Even their own creation is a testament to the robust conception of personhood that they deny. All scientists have this problem. Chemists want to reduce the relations that obtain between organic matter to chemical bonds. Others want to understand all of life as a principle of heat exchange. Right now, oxytocin is all the rage in the media and it has started to be understood as the omnipotent hormone that contains within it all explanatory power. This is the beginning of the process of translating concept into artifact, which we have done countless times in the natural sciences. We do not interact with the world on the level of the microscope, the thermostat, the telescope or the equation. We live and breathe out our existence at a level of meaningful being far removed from the shadows of conceptual architecture that neurologists can construct. 56
Posted by Randy Garver on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:55 | # Leon, You are correct that the crime data for whites include Hispanics and Middle Easterners. I wasn’t able to easily locate more precise figures. Regarding the educational attainment percentages, those are specifically for non-Hispanic whites only. As for the alarmist viewpoint that smart asian immigrants will subsequently invite a flood of dimbulb relations, this does not appear to be happening. I’m arriving at this perspective by inference using college admissions and SAT scores, and I do acknowledge the limits of such an analysis. However I think it’s illustrative. SAT Scores: Asians in the US are 4.5 percent of the population, but comprise the following student body percentages: Leon said:
I’m not being intentionally either. Whites as a whole may be net taxpayers, but relative to asians, they’re not shouldering their fair share of the load. Clearly, the tax burden is being disproportionally borne by asian-americans. Leon said:
You’re obviously an intelligent and educated person, so I’m rather surprised to see you assert (in a presumably stentorian tone) that the work of civilization consists mainly in its instantiation, and not an ongoing responsibility whose required exertions actually increase over time. Perhaps this one statement of yours frames the stagnation and decay of modern western civilization succinctly. You should probably be grateful for those “high-IQ chink[s] or paki[s]” for helping to prop up the west by providing skilled engineers, scientists, and doctors while our fellow whites are busy drinking themselves silly every weekend and earning degrees in “Communications”. Leon said:
Why is it that except for guys like Mindweapon and Matt Parrott, the white nationalist prescriptions for solving the problems of today rarely if ever require any personal accountability or responsibility? It’s most often some “grand movement” carried out by an as-yet nonexistent constituency which is called upon to save the day. Shouldn’t a “superior” people ask more from one another? 57
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 21:54 | # Guessedworker, Discourse systematically forms the objects of which it speaks. Otherwise how do we explain, for example, your consciousness of homosexuality, a consciousness that did not exist 150 years ago? Discourse is war. 58
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:28 | # Randy, Please stop justifying your sexual choices. It is perfectly transparent and extremely tedious. If you love the Chinese so much, just go and live there. I am quite sure no one in white America will mind. 59
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:30 | # Desmond, You really are very strange sometimes. Why do you suppose that 150 years ago the entire European world did not know what Deuteronomy says? What an extraordinary suggestion. 60
Posted by Randy Garver on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:09 | # Guessedworker, I’m simply assisting Leon with his “superiority” framework, helping to address the moral as well as practical congruence issues it raises. 61
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:15 | # GW: I too was puzzled by Desmond’s last sentence, (question). I’m not sure what he means, except that you have no first hand consciousness of homosexuality. All that aside, I suspect the presence of profound genius in his opening gambit:
I feel closely aligned to what I sense is your central thesis. I’m just not sure how or if we can productively pursue it via discursive means. In Zen terms this has been described as the problem of pointing at the moon. The uninitiated attention has a strong tendency to be attracted to the finger. 62
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:56 | # Impossible or not, Jimmy, we shall just have to touch the moon. 63
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 02:03 | # Daniel, I understand your objection, which is the standard one, to be sure. But I am not talking here about interacting with the world through a microscope at all. To me, the primary value of empirical facts is that, where they are well established, it’s a pretty good idea to have them on one’s side. We should not be a slave to them, rather the other way around. So what’s the problem? 64
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 05:15 | #
The bible condemns the act of sodomy however, it mentions not the the personal and social construct that is the modern day homosexual identity. It entered our consciousness as a product of discourse. 65
Posted by Frank on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:36 | # “Asians in the US are 4.5 percent of the population, but comprise the following student body percentages: This is partly because of affirmative action not harming them as much as it does whites. Also, they’re not yet as polluted by American mass culture. I just calculated what the average Asian SAT score translates into via the scoring system that was used for me. That’s still pretty pathetic. I realise that’s just average, but regardless this is not a great difference. - Whites do have a greater degree of conscience than do others. Perhaps this makes us inferior from a Darwinian perspective, but I admire it regardless. We might not compete well, but we make ideal citizens. 66
Posted by Frank on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:38 | # I don’t tend to admire white “individualism” in the sense it leads to technological advance. I suspect technology will eventually destroy us, so I don’t take pride out of white advances. I do however admire white art in all its forms. This is likely derived from a sort of individualism. The meaning we give to “individualism” is very important. Subtle variations in meaning can be tremendously important. 67
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:13 | # Desmond, You completely exclude the fact that Deuteronomy’s references to “sodomites” and “dogs” are about homosexuality, and define the terms solely in relation to the sodomy of women. Why? It is true that Jews mainly, I think, created homosexuality as a 20th century political identity. But the social identity is another matter. We have just discovered in Britain that male homosexuals account for only 1.5% of the male population. Female homosexuals account for less, since it is considerably rarer - perhaps only 0.5%. So the national incidence might only be 1%. Now, the way this 1% was referred to in social discourse probably had not changed very much until the Victorian era, when the ambition for respectability of the new middle-class initiated a number of sexual taboos. In so doing, the Victorians provided the springboard for Freud, Benjamin, Reich and others to create an entirely false discourse in which the baby of adaptive social behaviours was thrown out - deliberately - with the bathwater of a pathologised, “repressive” Victorian etiquette. Thus far you have a point. However, to return to the question of the general social treatment of homosexuality in pre-Victorian ages, one finds, I think, a rather balanced and healthy attitude which treats of a 1% minority and its notions of what constitutes the sexual act with due distaste and discretion. As discourse, if one can call it such (and I am not convinced that one can) I see nothing inappropriate about that. Left to itself, I suspect British society would re-develop this relation to homosexuality quite quickly. It would not imply in any way, of course, that homosexuality did not exist as such, or required to be invented to exist. Homosexuality is not a choice. 68
Posted by John on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:58 | # Desmond: “Discourse systematically forms the objects of which it speaks. “ This problem would be greatly mitigated and obfuscating would be more difficult if most modern languages (the non-constructed ones, anyway) had consistent and precise markers for abstraction level. 69
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:18 | # Guessedworker, Wiki defines sodomy as
Wiki defines homosexuality as
Sodomy is an act, homosexuality is a social construct. Defining oneself by means of a constructed personal and social identity based on an unnatural sexual act is a “choice”. 70
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:18 | # Desmond, The social construct is a weak idea, and social constructs are weak things. And then what “choice”, what power is this that you say someone has to define” himself? None? Some? Total? What self is being defined, exactly? And at what level of certitude? Is everything merely claim and counter-claim, or is there something solid and real too? Do you, for example, have command over all of “Desmond” to do this? Or is all of Desmond just invention? What is the real worth of such a definition, what is its ontological value? I will tell you. The ontological value of mechanicity is zero. But apply a value to it - as inauthentic, say - and it has the value of one. Then Man has the beginnings of choice because now he can see, and the choice is famously Hamletian, and only that. It has nothing to do with the latest book on sociology you have read. 71
Posted by Protocol of Albion on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:31 | # Desmond’s point was quite clear. Foucault would have agreed with Desmond’s idea that discourse creates its own objects in the process of discussing the truth-value of such objects. And this “creation” of thought objects is precisely how discourse can become and is ... war. 72
Posted by Revolution Harry on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:37 | # I have to confess to being puzzled by the assertion that there is no self, no individual. In my wide and varied research into all things ‘New World Order’ I soon discovered that there was a sustained attack on the idea of the individual or sovereign. I understand why those behind the New World Order agenda wish to pursue this. It’s their aim to create a hive minded slave race controlled by an elite few.
‘I’ am conscious and aware of the mechanical, robotic and programmed elements of my mind. As these elements appear in my consciousness ‘I’ am not at their mercy. ‘I’ have the choice as to how to respond. ‘I’ am the observer. Having said that even those who are at the mercy of their programmed and robotic selves are still essentially individuals. They are responsible for their actions. They also have rights. Here’s a quote from an essay entitled ‘The Morality of Survival’.
Of course it wasn’t ‘Western Liberalism’ that permitted the third world invasion. It was the Royal and aristocratic elite few who wish to enslave us all. One of the major reasons why the ‘white’ ‘West’ is being targeted is because of deals such as ‘self-governing liberty’, respect for the rule of law and the subordination of government to individual rights. It’s because we have allowed governments to usurp these rights that we find ourselves in the position we are in today. The moral case for our survival does not require us to deny our sovereignty or individuality. 73
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 25 Feb 2011 01:38 | # Guessedworker, Social constructs may be weak or strong. The collapse of the bio-nation, so powerful at the beginning of this century, much to our chagrin, is such an example. However, conceding that discourse is war, Mr. Renner’s illuminating original notion, provides hope. Hope that the Phoenix may resurrect itself and fly high once again. What is the power of self definition? It is metaphor. To repeat myself, “I” holds no magic. It’s a self-metaphor, an analogue. As for having command over “Desmond”, again, it is fundamental that one cannot be conscious of what one is not conscious of. “I” exist metaphorically. It’s clear that I stand with Darwin (whose book the Descent of Man, I have recently read…again) and that my appeal differs from your appeal to the authority of “neurological science…esoteric religion…and…significant strands of Western existentialist philosophy.” However, I urge you to leave the darkened room and come into the light and give careful consideration to a powerful tool…discourse.
This writer is a guest in your house and it would be impolite of me to reduce our enjoyable intercourse to the trading of ad hominems. I remain, your humble servant, sir… 74
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:03 | # Desmond, I hope Jimmy is wrong, and in due course it will prove possible to explain at least something to you about the nature of mind and experience. It is certainly not a subject area studied or understood by Charles Darwin. You cite Foucault. I have read very little Foucault, just a few paragraphs. I have an idea he wrote about the interesting and well-known tendency of the passive attention to dissolve into whatever is before it at any given moment. So he was operating in this general area I am interested in. But are you, Desmond? Obviously not. The sooner you realise that you are trying to give me the ideas you have learned from books as critiques of something you do not understand the better. Post a comment:
Next entry: The Camp of the Saints
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Frank on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 01:18 | #
“s there not also more political utility in this day and age in the acknowledgement of it?”
Certainly. It’s amusing how Jews often proclaim themselves to be of “superior moral character”, lol. Their meddling in everyone’s affairs, you see, is done out of their overwhelming desire to
exploithelp the world.