|
|
|
Pervasive Ecology I coined the term Pervasive Ecology and hypothesized that it provides a context of the broadest utility that one may take in White advocacy because it may be universalized but not foundationalized. Pervasive Ecology Vs David Duke’s self proclaimed “New’ Paradigm for Human Diversity” Prior to Duke, I coined the term Pervasive Ecology and hypothesized that it provides a context of the broadest utility that one may take in White advocacy because it may be universalized but not foundationalized. Well prior to the supposedly “new’ paradigm for human diversity,” I had proposed this hypothesis of Pervasive Ecology as one way we might pursue White advocacy - a way that is both universalizable, as human ecology can always be said to be relevant as an important criteria to extend to everyone and everything; but that its utility is only increased as it cannot be foundationalized. What is ecological, viz. optimal and non-toxic satisfaction for the systemic and biological requirements of creatures, is relative and relational. Nevertheless, it is because these systems are not closed but relative that they are afforded agency. Through the affordance and delimitation of constraint (classification) of the system’s diversity by consensus, paradigmatic differences that make a difference are established for authentic, self-corrective agency of and by the system. The implication, the true news of difference is a premium placed on the validity of ecological, including human, maintenance. Diversity is bound to qualitative, systemic paradigms, with discernible rule structures. Biodiversity is a reasonable ecological paradigm that corresponds with separatism, niche and otherwise. Of course, when Jewish interests speak of “diversity” it is doublespeak, by which they mean forced integration and in fact, the loss of genetic diversity. …
Vs David Duke’s self proclaimed “New’ Paradigm for Human Diversity”
However, when one leads the charge against Jewish power and oppression as he has, sticking his neck out in high profile to face its danger and the consequences of speaking out against it, that isn’t exactly true either. That does take some courage and character. He has amassed some incisive facts and figures of high places, backing his efforts with the confidence to function with aplomb - he does show skill under pressure. The CNN Wolf Blitzer interview provides a good example. By contrast, coming from a position like mine, I definitely would not have thought to take on the very necessary and risky effort to spearhead awareness of Jewish power and influence with such focus as he has. Still, like many, I became suspicious of the J.Q. by their obvious presence in media, money and academia and was encouraged to persist in looking in that direction largely by others - including Duke, who helped by adding backing to White people in positions where they would find it nearly impossible to do the kind of thing that he is doing. Most of us have gained some critical information and confidence from his work. It does take skill, courage and it does take some character to be so vocal on the J.Q. Of course he has many predecessors and some contemporaries doing similar work; that is not so much at issue though the angle he takes does bear some critique. Style, taste and yes, issues of character are also a bit problematic. Nevertheless, he generally does spearhead the J.Q. with well-backed facts and figures. Many of us, myself included, are reluctant to criticize him because he has provided a service that is both highly challenging and important to enact. That will have many of us tune-in and pay attention despite the fact that the synecdoche of his big-enough ego will have him invariably interrupting and talking-over guests, seedily imposing his own expertise [?] on matters of health and fitness (maybe he should do four days as week instead of five, nixing the “fitness Friday”?) conflict resolution and style of argumentative presentation, he will even jostle MacDonald aside for a commercial - about himself, David Duke. Here we go, Duke’s shows kick-off with a song that is made ridiculous by the fact that its lyrics are of the most solemn and serious nature, but sung in the upbeat and cheerful manner that the tackiest marching band or nightclub singer might apply - the singing rendition has nothing to do with the original reason why the song lyrics were written. One might suspect that the song is about Dave, you see, “if just one man can stand tall, we can all be thankful, there is hope for us all.” After the music he begins every show with an expressed concern for everybody in the world. One might suspect that some of these views that he advocates emphatically as being just about universal goods, are really what He needs to espouse in order to compensate for the quarter-full coffers of his social capital.
There are times, places, audiences where putting aside fiery rhetoric, profanity and epithets are appropriate. Even more places where putting aside the now silly costumes and anachronistic emblems of failed White advocacy regimes of the past are in order. This is David Duke’s need especially - to overcome the associations that Jewish media has been able to stick on him, as it has stigmatized that manner of dress and speech. It is not wrong for him to take the angle for himself of being a gentleman respectful of all people, and to recommend it as a practical staple for some, perhaps even most others. It is true that the situation and audience must be taken into account, and the costumes and symbols of yesteryear can be set aside without a loss, but when he and other figures of White advocacy, Kevin MacDonald and Matt Parrott come to mind, want to say there is no place for even well timed and skillfully used hot rhetoric, they are dead wrong. Perhaps they are taking for granted that everyone wants and needs the same milquetoast they have for breakfast. That everyone has the pedigree of a gentleman to lose; that every White has found their way into a techno-niche or religious never-land that has insulated them indefinitely from the reality and effects of non-White aggression - and has also insulated against the relevance of our masculine assertion in defense against it. We all have women at our side, telling us, “no”, you don’t want to be so cruel to harmless little non-White people – they are so nice and everyone should play nice. Don’t you just have so much respect for them that you would never want to hear the N word or the sand-N word used to efficiently characterize what their patterns mean (destruction) for Whites. No, we must, in fact, be nice to them because Jesus freaks, Jews and the White women who wish to maintain N words as one of their most powerful weapons say so: we wouldn’t want to be on their bad side – we’d be in trouble indeed, and have. We don’t want to hear about what we are going to do about people who have veritably enslaved us and given our co-evolutionary women to the highest and lowest bidders. We want to hear about the poor Palestinians in particular and rights for everyone – making sure that nobody ever pays any price for the destruction wrought upon Whites, our men and women. We don’t want to be a stereotyped as skinheads, no - we want to be characterized as White wimps, who have sand kicked in our faces while our women are escorted away. We would never use violence because we all know that no revolution ever came about through strategic and guerrilla efforts. Or again, is that the disingenuous position that Duke needs to take to get the best mileage out of his modestly endowed social capital? Many if not most of us who really care about Whites, our women, who have really felt the pain of imposition upon us enough to do something about it and fight, are not put-off by fiery rhetoric – because we know that it is the only oratory that can begin to capture the atrocity that has been committed against us and how we feel about it. We don’t need the strictures of those who have too much cush to lose by using epithets. Duke’s saccharine is not sweet to us, it is sickly. We want to throw him off of a bridge the next time he says that he cares about everybody. We need advocates of our own, not the zillionth White guy expressing his concern to protect non-White interests. Where Duke follows MacDonald’s lead and concedes leftist critics may have a point with regard to Israel, it is the wrong point; and it is not Leftist - or not White Leftist, anyway. He criticizes Israeli law as it does not allow for an Israeli to marry non- Israeli; as their borders are closed; as they deport Africans and require birth control among those who are in Israel. Of course that is not a leftist but a liberal argument based on the universal rights that we, as White advocates are, or should be, desperately trying to overcome. It corresponds with a confused notion of Leftism (really liberalism and Jewish machinations) that those who persist in assuming the Jewish imposed moniker of the Right stubbornly and foolishly maintain. http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/left-right-out/ This is why they might sound Gilad Atzmon’s horn, viz. because he is anti-Zionist, even though that corresponds with his being a flaming liberal and anti-nationalist across the board – they endorse him despite the fact that liberalism is the primary mode of our destruction and nationalism one of the most potent means of defense. Which brings us to the main point here, Duke’s “My’ New Paradigm for Human Diversity.” Duke’s “Paradigm for Human Diversity” is not new, not his and not properly delineated. That he uses the word paradigm is the first clue of seedy appropriation, because that is a term germane to a whole school of ecological thinking – which Duke has no warrant to call “his.” Nor is “biodiversity” his. I, and probably many other people before Duke espoused “his new paradigm”, had observed human diversity and ecology to be fundamental to a sound basis for White advocacy. To my knowledge, I coined the term “Pervasive Ecology.” I began using it in the late 80’s to make explicit a pivotal notion of one of my intellectual heroes; and then to apply it as one of the most, if not the most abstract position, the broadest possible scope to accommodate various viewpoints that one might take while advocating Whites in various contextings. Nevertheless, you can always say that ecology is a fundamentally important issue, for all creatures and resources. Yet, what is optimal, best, ecological, and fittest, cannot be foundationalized: it depends upon the context and more. It is relative. Nevertheless, that affords us the agency to care for our relative interests. Be that as it may, Duke being the right-wing fossil that he is, and trying to ride the wave of hipper ideas, can’t let go of some of his right-wing staples and casts his “new” paradigm in the same old universalistic but imperviously foundational, inflexible terms of “rights” for everybody. Whereas ecology is kindred to pattern disbursement, “rights” are similar to a technology which ruptures pattern or its apprehension. Hence the concept’s utility of appreciating the hide and seek of patterns is largely undone. We’re stuck, here with his little 16 year old mudshark admirers with their rights, the Muslims breeding in our lands and how much their Allah cares about our rights, the Jews espousing liberalism and how they care about our rights, The Blacks taking, raping and killing off our women, so concerned for our rights, the Chinese buying our property and grunting while they ignore our sacred history, lets respect them and be so concerned for their continued existence – the right for their existence really ought to be a priority for us. Obviously not. But you see, Duke’s bad aesthetic taste corresponds to a lack of judgment. Dealings with non-Whites are not a foundational issue. They are a matter of taste and judgment. Maybe you should not use the N word as it sounds heavy-handed to the soccer mom who has a homey Black woman to help around the house or chat for tea. It may sound bad to parishioners of a church in Indiana. Or to people from places where anything they think they know about certain non-Whites comes from what they see in the Jewish media. Of course it depends upon the audience and the circumstance. It is prima facie true that you might not want to use the N word before a group of 16-year-old Black boys in an alley. Moreover, on a theoretical level of organizing and presenting ideas, the rigor of not relying on the bold strokes of inflammatory rhetoric can be a helpful discipline to unfold rationale. Nevertheless, both MacDonald’s genteel and Linder’s profane approach helped me into the open. And there remain times when the kind of deference MacDonald advises as protocol just isn’t right: I recall creating an oratory in which I said that Bill Clinton pandered to Negro-loving White women. It just doesn’t have the bite. For a South Afrikaner whose daughter has been killed, to be told that such and such a word must not be said; or a truck driver whose wife has been cuckolded that he ought to be socially eloquent and pay no heed to his will to fight; or for many of the Whites who have suffered offenses while non-Whites have been coddled, their nature covered-up, while the highly predictable bad side of their patterned nature had been denied, is poison. To be silent or utterly polite and concerned for the existence of all is not what we need to hear from White advocates. I will not say that Duke’s arrogation and highly unoriginal “paradigm for human diversity” is totally wrong in principle. It is pretty much true enough that we are on more solid ground to argue for our own diversity, our own part of a multicultural world if we express an understanding that other peoples might want to survive and survive unexploited in their lands as well. There is no point in exploiting others, in particular.
Duke still talks in terms of rights for everyone, which is an ecological catastrophe of the highest order, by itself, reconstructing the rights babble so efficiently on the lips of every White traitor to dismiss our concerns where they are the least circumspect – the least circumspect! I don’t want this to come across as if I do not appreciate what Duke is doing, has done and that I do not want him to continue. But before he casts aspersions on the taste and decorum of others’ White advocacy, he might qualify and modify his own program a bit.
It is also true that when we criticize other groups besides Jews, providing that the measure of our response is correct, we are not doing the bidding of Jews but rather redressing their misrepresentation of these other groups; hence, we are countering the Jew’s rhetoric. One of the major points in promoting pervasive ecology and its focus on the ecology of patterned disbursement is that provides an alternative to the impervious technology of “rights.” Duke weakens our defense when he reconstructs the attempt to foundationalize the same Modernist, leveling concern for everybody, a concern not extended by them to us, one that has been so destructive to us - of impervious individual rights for everyone irrespective of context and stages in process. No. Rather, we might extend a pragmatic rule to out-groups: The Silver Rule of doing no harm to those among non-Whites who do no harm and have not done harm to us; where they do not transgress our habitats and people. But the Golden Rule of universal obsequiousness is not to be foundationalized by any means (e.g., The New Orleans Protocol?). No, that, as a universal foundation, is out. It is not for us to ensure their survival even; only that we will not aggress against them if they do not aggress against us. But even if they only aggress against us by dint of ecological destruction and population explosion, we do not owe them our castration, which censuring is, in the preparation of our own destruction; whereas our own anger, our aggression is that which transcends the thicket of oppressive rules and provides the map to our salvation. Comments:2
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 09 Feb 2013 04:54 | # How should we feel about other white groups who have been… “the prime movers behind our dispossession and exploitation…have done little to stop it, have often been massively unjust beneficiaries; even if victims as well, ...and have also been eager executioners of our destruction…?” How are the 1.5 million invaders from Romania and Bulgaria any different than the other? Do we really build our survival upon the preservation of a single phenotype? If Romanians and Bulgarians are England, is it really still England? 3
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:47 | # ..
That not all of them will be as bad as Silver is immaterial. However, there is that second matter - there are good and bad from every European nation. The negative impact of the bad ones is fairly obvious but the consequences of the more upright can be marked as well, though their impact would probably take a more insidious means. It is hard to catalog all the negative impacts integration with these populations would have. It should be hardly a consolation to the English worker or professional that you’ve got hard-working Polish coming there. As it should be hardly a consolation to British women there are high percentages of beautiful women from Romania, Bulgaria and Poland. Whatever the argument, to sweep-aside of National bounds as a means of accountability and needlessly risk genetic, cultural and other destruction is insane. Looking at the genetic map of Europe, it can be said that the catastrophe is not quite as entire as it would be with non-European populations. Nevertheless, the differences are clear and ought not to be monkeyed with. These Eastern European populations have much less of R1b, the most characteristic haplogroup of The British Isles - hence an exchange through intermarriage would be profound indeed. Moreover, we would probably not only lose particular European peoples. I don’t have scientific evidence ready to hand, but it seems likely that this sort of European integration could in fact weaken our defense against non-Europeans. The most apparent reason being that there would be less means of accountability. The negative impacts of European integration is a two-way street * We ought to do everything in our power to reverse and undo the EU’s instigation of genetic, cultural and other reckless leveling of our differences. Failing completion of success by political and strategic means on the ground, there is the means to begin recourse in Sortocracy and The Euro-DNA Nation.
“THE family of a murdered Polish woman has insisted she was no longer in a relationship with the man suspected of her killing. In a remarkable gesture of compassion and generosity, the family of Katarzyna Bartkowiak said they understood this was also a difficult time for Stephen Godsun Ukiwo’s family. In a statement released yesterday, they said their main focus now was on the future of the couple’s son, Sean. ‘Kasia was an amazing person and a wonderful mum; she had so much potential in her life. Words cannot explain how we feel at this time, we are greatly saddened by the circumstances of her death and are in disbelief at what happened. “We wish also to extend our condolences to the family of Stephen. Our main focus now is to ensure Kasia’s son is taken care of and he will be provided with a loving, caring future.” 4
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:17 | # I looked up Dan’s story. It seems he wasnt a murderer, he was a ‘tragic dad’. Expulsion order signed on day tragic dad died Puke making. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:31 | # I had a quick look at David Duke’s statement: http://www.davidduke.com/?p=25223 Putting his vanity aside and also the supplementary issues - Jews this whites that - that he wanders into, and that do not bear on the core principle at all, there are (at least) two definite weaknesses we can flag up. First, as Daniel says, human rights are not a sound basis on which to formally rely. The humanist and liberal universalist parentage of the rights industry sits uncomfortably with a nationalist “paradigm”. Human rights have been created to further the liberal project, and our response to them is necessarily critical. Why would an ethnocentric white men want to wander around blathering about the wonders of diversity? It places him in the position of supplicant to the forces offending against him. Even if other white men of a humanist or liberalistic persuasion recognise the force of their own arguments in his discourse and join with him in supplicating the said forces for life, they are, in reality, only appealing to the myth of the noble savage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOS-fwttw2c Ultimately, human rights are all contingent on something like equal nobility. But most of the world’s peoples are healthily ethnocentric - animalistically so - and don’t practice mannered reciprocity. Most of them also have very little about them that can be described as noble. It is a liberal illusion that all peoples can cooperate and never conflict, never impinge upon each other’s “rights”. A “no, I insist, after you” world of mutual respect and admiration is absurd and unattainable because no human rights exist in Nature. The only right to be got from Nature is her own struggle against Time/Entropy, which we know as the struggle to survive and procreate. And that brings us to the second definite weakness in Duke’s idea. As moral signposts, human rights are anterior to life itself. They say, in essence, “this or that right necessitates this or that outcome”. GE Moore would shake his head in wonder at what rotten thinkers liberal lawyers are. It is not nearly enough to provide a moral prompt as to why nations should exist. We struggle for life because we are life, and there is nothing else. There is no is/should here, there is only is/must. What confusion enters into the matter does so because we children of white modernity are not wholly living in our own light. We are estranged from it just enough to let go of the struggle for life. Duke is asking the wrong question of the wrong constituency. We have to take up the struggle again ... we do. We have to take it up ourselves for ourselves, wholly independent of the opinions of other peoples or of any modern moral justification. I repeat, we need no justification to live, and none to struggle for that life wherever it leads us, whatever it necessitates. For the return to struggle to become a reality, of course, we have to rediscover our own truth as men. Readers will know by now that this website carries some occasional content pursuant to that. Whether anything concrete will come out of it, I cannot say. But I do know I won’t go dribbling about asking Africans and Jews and the rest to trade rights and let my race live. To hell with anyone who stands against our life. 6
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:05 | # I have not watched the Duke vid.
I admire the spirit of resistance here, but I think these sentiments are wrong. We absolutely need moral justifications for our race and nations to live - if their perpetuity requires violation of Christian ethical norms (or whatever ethical system the reader accepts). Unfortunately, continued life for the white race will require physical measures which not only obviously conflict with liberal norms centered around the autonomy of individual interests, white as well as nonwhite (note: I agree with you and Dr. Lister that liberalism needs to be discredited foundationally, though I disapprove of what you seek to replace it with), but that also, at first glance, appear to conflict with fundamental Christian morality. I happen to think this prima facie view is itself incorrect; to wit, that even within a Christian ethical system, the reversal of the conditions leading to white extinction morally supersedes the attendant harms incurred in doing so, provided it is effectuated in this most humane way possible. But obviously for any Christian, this moral calculus must be demonstrated, not merely asserted, and this for practical reasons even if non- or anti-Christians are ontologically correct. Most whites are not going to engage in what they perceive to be evil behavior, such as coercive racial re- or expatriations (that is, of legally nonwhite citizens; illegals present no moral quandary, either theoretically, or even practically, except to egalitarian race-radicals, who themselves, I believe, thankfully remain in the ideological minority), unless they feel that doing so is morally acceptable. Neo-nazi WNs can bemoan this high white “ethical quotient”, but whining won’t change it. Nor will simply asserting a will-to-live, along the lines of a universal biological instinct for self-preservation (which, be it noted, is usually ‘individualistic’ among non-human animals, at least beyond the primary family unit: a dog concerns itself with its own feeding, and that of its puppies, not with ensuring that other dogs of its type are fed). Our dilemma is that whites are not being exterminated as actual individual biological creatures. If that were the case, no serious person would deny our right to fight. What is being herded to extinction is our race. The race is not the same as merely a collection of individual beings. But it is as individuals that we actually live. So what WN ontologists need to demonstrate is that the nation or the race has a value in preservation which supersedes all the individual suffering likely to follow from any serious pursuit of it. This is a challenging task, which is why I was active for so long in trying to prevent our situation devolving to this point in the first place. It is too bad we did not simply heed the warning of Enoch Powell, and adopt what were then morally unproblematic preventative measures. 7
Posted by Silver on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:58 | #
Human rights are ultimately contingent on our willingness to grant them to each other. It doesn’t matter whether they “exist in Nature” (why the capital ‘N’?). Recognizing another’s rights in no way requires me to consider him equally noble. I can recognize his rights and consider him fully beneath me. As for the healthy ethnocentricity of the rest of the world’s peoples, I challenge you to name just one that strives to secure unadulterated racial continuity. 8
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:46 | # Something to think about WRT the progress of waking up white racial consciousness has made in the last 25 years—even with the advent of the internet as a tool supposedly working in our favor? Consider this: David Duke ran for governor of the great state of Louisiana in 1991 but was unsuccessful. However he did garner 55% of the white vote. I have to wonder if Duke, or someone with his pro-white activist reputation, ran for governor in the next Louisiana gubernatorial election, would even garner 35% of the white vote? Another observation: I’ve been listening to conservative talk radio since 1982 and have noticed a continual decrease of what once was explicitly pro-white and anti-PC to what it is today: effectively PC ... but moreover compliant with the current immigration policies, i.e., compliant with the race-replacement of whites. From my POV, we’re losing ground—or at least it certainly appears so. Alex Linder is more optimistic. He thinks there’s a groundswell of support. Linder believes all we need is a strong leader who’s courageous and charismatic enough to articulate our pro-white message then the masses will surely follow. I hope and pray he’s right and I’m wrong. —— And then there’s this:
9
Posted by daniels on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:57 | # Whether I should have to provide moral justification or not, practically speaking, when confronted by liberals as to my position (advocacy of Whites), to ask the rhetorical questions in reply, “why would we want to preserve a rain forest or endangered species?” has been effective. I have already halted a few in their tracks. The problem with Duke’s approach is that he belabors a concern for other races and people. If Duke were to say, look, we don’t pretend to like every people just the same, perhaps even dislike them, but maybe we can leave them alone if they have left us alone and will leave us alone - that would make sense to most people. To make matters worse, he re-empowers non-Whites and anti-Whites by bringing the stultifying, inorganic technology of theirs and everybody’s rights back into the equation. That may be at MacDonald’s suggestion. At best, it is argued as “the way people are talking and what they understand.” However, it is bad tact for reasons such as GW and I have mentioned. Unintelligent, immoral by our standards or not, we are dealing with conscious and learning creatures on their side and ours. People on both sides have consciousness and conscience that may be roused in ways unfavorable to our ends, whether they may fall-back on defaults of their own pre-modern, ethnocentric, liberal-modern or PC pseudo-justifications - they can “learn” in response to our actions. Thus, it is practical not only for the sake of presentation to make the self-concerned moral parameters of our position clear - to their people and ours. If, as Silver suggests, at his best, we are to proceed with sufficient incrementalism to avoid scaring-off our own unnecessarily, where the concern is to proceed in a way so as to have more facility of our people’s assent and perhaps even more importantly, their non-obstruction, we might extend an offer of the Silver rule to non-Whites if they comply with our conditions. One of the dangers of not doing so is our people falling-back in default to the embedded Christian teaching of the golden-rule of obsequiousness to out-groups, as the parents of Katarzyna Bartowiak have. With people not understanding the morality of our motives, the morale of ours people may be diminished and a costly fights inspired unnecessarily of our opponents. However, it is in our group’s interest, not merely in our individual interest, that we speak. 10
Posted by daniels on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:26 | # I suppose I could have written this more efficiently so as not to offend Sliver’s stylistic sensibilities:
One of the dangers of not doing so is ours people falling-back in default Might have been One of the dangers of not doing so is our people defaulting to 11
Posted by daniels on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:00 | # GW, I don’t see why it is not possible to take the view that there are patterns as close to foundational as you might want regarding an ecology of what distinguishes English and other Europeans and the resources necessary for their authentic way. To date, I have tended to focus on open-endedness, however slight, seeing the advantages there, particularly in terms of our potential agency. I have rather enjoyed reversing the tables on our antagonists. It is important to our fight. For example that we do not accept scientific metaphors which implicate that things happen passively and aside from human agency such as “immigration flows.” I have a peeve over that one, its being a terminological mickey slipped-in a discussion by a Jewish professor. The metaphoric implication is one that we should accept passively, as if nothing can be done - worse, it has a soothing, hypnotic sound to it, “it flows”...ah, how nice, immigration flows, ah..more please. But migration doesn’t flow inanimately. The migrants have agency and so do those who instigate the migration. We can also do something about it. Getting back to the matter of ontology: Of course I recognize those patterns, profound, that distinguish Europeans from non-Europeans and Europeans groups from one another. I love the English pattern, for example, have always admired them. It will be interesting to look deeper into these European patterns. Articulating the warrant of our Being a good project indeed. Though I have tended to look upon “foundational” as a bad word, I recognize and commend the pursuit of an even greater - mathematical even - certitude to establish the coordinates of an English pattern, what ratio of resources are required for its optimal function etc. I remember that Jim initiated a fascinating discussion about perhaps being able to make a case by tracing remnant genetics which had been disrupted of their complete pattern by destructive imposition. England Region/Haplogroup Nordic I1 14
2.5
4.5 R1a R1b 67 G 1.5 J2 3.5 J* + J1 O
2
0.5 Q 0.5 N 0 Taking this chart for granted a moment .. 12
Posted by Bellard on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 21:38 | # I think Duke is just trying to be pragmatic. I don’t think he means all this stuff about diversity. If he was living a century ago during the height of European imperialism, it’s unlikely he would have been blathering on about diversity and self-determination and all the rest. 13
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:32 | # Duke is trying to plow new ground. He knows what’s been tried before has failed. IOWs He’s learned from his mistakes. He’s trying to take a soft approach to WN just like Jarred Taylor; the only difference is Dr. Duke refuses to dismiss the JQ.
14
Posted by daniels on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 04:31 | # He may have learned from his mistakes but he is projecting his personal requirements - an exaggerated image make-over - as the need for everyone. He is handling the not exactly new ground that he is covering in the wrong way. Ok, the church bombing which killed four black girls, whether it was a false flag or not, took momentum out of White solidarity against the civil wrongs movement of the South. But, as GW suggests, to present himself as a supplicant?
15
Posted by daniels on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:14 | # I’m going to get into even more hot water here: The Alex Linder interview over at “The White Network.” Alex makes the claim that we do not have to sell White Nationalism, it is on the surface beautiful - all it requires is leadership. Now then, I know what I know about Jewish interests intellectually. I see the need for radical separatism. I also run into a Jewish girl at a local bar - since she is sometimes at a place that I go, on occasion I will exchange brief conversation with her, though I neither disparage her nor befriend her. Looking at a situation like that, I don’t see how Linder’s program is supposed to be prima-facie evident as “beautiful”, so clearly evident to everyone. Sure, there are criminals who require little in the way of explanation and conciliatory separatism But.. There seems to be occasions and other individuals where a mapped-out plan, a careful explanation and time-frames would need to be outlined - yes, in addition to some public relations as well. However, to put pragmatism idea in its best terms, we might proactively take a course such as Golden Dawn’s, looking after our own, and let the resistors, such as Jews, fall-away and separate to other nations to look after their own as they are not included in the loop of our concern. That could be one factor, anyway, in effecting separatism - non-help and a hint where they might go. 16
Posted by les rosbifs on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:49 | # “Italian and Polish mafia gangs are blamed for horsemeat scandal as government warns MORE British products will be contaminated”
17
Posted by daniels on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:31 | # As I have said, you will not hear me defending organized crime: I have heard that Camora invested heavily in Poland when it was still very cheap. 19
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:44 | # Here’s the bottom line: 1) Per ultimate white racial perpetuity, it will be secured in Europe (perhaps understood to extend out to the Urals) or nowhere. 2) Eventually, all New World nations will have been “mudified” through a combination of mass immigration and intermarriage. This could happen sooner, if immigration is increased, or later if decreased, but the end result seems indisputable. 3) The arguments wrt Europe will be vastly different than wrt the New World. In Europe the goal is the total removal of all nonwhites (including mixed blood Europeans - note: there will have to be some “Nuremberg standard” for defining the maximum amount of nonwhiteness that can be tolerated in residents of re-racialized Europe ... 1/16? 1/32? etc). Of course, this removal policy must include Jews, Gypsies, and any other nonwhite communities of long standing, and not only postwar nonwhite immigrants and their descendants. 4) WRT the New World, the situation, strategically as well as ethically, is vastly more complicated. Nonwhite deportations (other than of illegal trespassers) is neither physically likely or possible (absent horrific civil race war which very few, even among WNs, actually want), nor morally acceptable. Thus, we have both macro and micro goals.
Does anyone disagree with this basic outline? 20
Posted by daniels on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:07 | # Does anyone disagree with this basic outline? Significant White populations in Russia extend well beyond the Urals: Ikurtsk, for example…and beyond that, even.
However, it is not altogether bad, probably beneficial in fact, if some Whites do not cluster en masse, but remain to dwell aloof - they can coordinate in the virtual state of the Euro DNA Nation.
21
Posted by Silver on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:53 | #
I do, but not too strenuously. Which means I basically agree, I guess. It’s reassuring that you’ve workded into your posts a familiarity with the reality that removing non-whites from one land mass (Europe) is not fundamentally different in nature (or logistics) from removing them from another (eg USA). The difference is mostly mental, related to ideas about what is possible, workable, desirable, moral and so on. It’s an obvious point and one shouldn’t belabor it, but I think it’s important to make it nevertheless because it signifies that one has actually thought deeply about the issue, which differentiates one from 95% of other WNs, even those of an intellectual bent, whose racialism is as much an escape mechanism from the immiserating reality that surrounds them as it is a firm political stance.
Remember something, you’re not just dealing with individuals. You’re dealing with “constellations” of genetic entanglements, which multiplies the effects of mixing well beyond the individual involved or procreated. It’s easy to talk to tough while you have the numbers to enforce such tough guy policies. But with the numbers in your favor the masses aren’t listening; there’s not enough obviously wrong for them to worry yet. But the constellations-effect means the numbers move against you more swiftly than is immediately apparent. And all the while those most threatened by your bluster are paying much more attention than those to whom you’re appealing and are busying themselves erecting preemptive barriers. This is so obviously and undeniably true I am forced to wonder out loud why you are such a goon? I can only speculate it’s your otherworldly racial hatred. It has undone you as an individual, and collectively, it is undoing you as a race. You will in time be known as the race that died because it could not stop hating. Historians of the future, should they stumble across this exchange, will agree I saw it coming. So, what way out of the trap? Well, Leon, there’s this cool new strategy called divide and conquer. You should check it out some time. 22
Posted by daniels on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:11 | # Divide and conquer, how horrible! I didn’t know that I really wanted to come together with Blacks! 23
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:32 | # Latest Thorn Slogan: White Nationalists - We Multiply By Dividing 24
Posted by jay on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:43 | #
1/32 is around 3%. Wouldn’t this implicate many Southern Europeans? http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001373
25
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:44 | #
Significant white populations exist in Southern California, too (
This is basically my point. We’re not going to reestablish White America, except as a breakaway republic, the conditions for which are significant white ingathering plus racial awareness raising. Back in the mid-90s, I disagreed with Sam Francis (my favorite political writer by far) and his call for the racio-cultural reconquest of the US. Even then, and even if most whites had been sympathetic, such an agenda may have been physically difficult to achieve (much more so than the Boers continuing to have maintained white rule in SA, which nevertheless they failed to do). But now, with nearly two decades’ worth of mass immigration since then, plus the ongoing indoctrination and deracination of whites (cf. President Obama), it is impossible to imagine whites aggressively reasserting themselves to the extent of actually reimposing white hegemony (it would be nice if we could just rouse ourselves enough to demand an end to the cultural bullying and criminal violence we endure from nonwhites). So, yes, white geographic “clustering” or “ingathering”, especially among the racially likeminded, is the recommended next step at this juncture in history. though simultaneously we must be working on racial consciousness raising, as well as political empowerment to the extent possible (just because I live as a racial minority, with hope one day to live in a racial majoritarian state, doesn’t mean I can’t fight for local measures advancing my day-to-day racial interests).
26
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:08 | #
Silver, You criticize DanielS for lack of expositional clarity, but I really don’t know what you’re talking about here. (see especially bolded sections) 27
Posted by daniels on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 05:54 | # Silver: “It’s reassuring that you’ve workded into your posts a familiarity with the reality that removing non-whites from one land mass (Europe) is not fundamentally different in nature (or logistics) from removing them from another (eg USA). The difference is mostly mental, related to ideas about what is possible, workable, desirable, moral and so on. It’s an obvious point and one shouldn’t belabor it.”
Silver would sneak-across the “sophisticated” (read absurd) notion that there is no appreciable difference in the position and grounds of Europeans to oust non-Europeans and other foreignrens from their midst in Europe, America or other continents. We can agree that Blacks have no right to be in America. No, we did not bring them there. The violence, exploitation and destruction White Americans have undergone in the interest of Blacks renders absurd anyone who claims that they should be ceded a part of America. However, Silver is trying to put across the nonsense that there is no important difference in the grounds because he is concerned that he would be readily identified as not fitting in Northern Europe and perhaps not in Europe at all. Where the matter becomes “subtle” in “moral terms” is when Silver must confront his own image, his full, tender lips, his caramel hue and curly hair, how he might be looked upon, how he might be categorized in our non-incremental assessment. You can’t please everybody Silver. You might take some consolation in that fact yourself. Rather than squirming away from the discomfort of your mysterious origins, preferring not to face your hue in the mirror, you may ask yourself honestly if, for example, there really should be no such thing as an entry on Mulatto Supremacism, as your Jewish affinities at Wikipedia would have it - blocked from discourse. Or is it rather that matters as such bring you and your predilections under the light? Silver’s incrementalism: run interference and disinformation to keep the frog boiling slowly ...in the meantime, he squirms away, chameleon-like in his hue, to his middle-man dealings. 28
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:53 | # Even though it may well be true—as it appears for most—that every last Black and every last Jew would deny Whites who choose ecological continence that choice, it is,at this point, conjecture that this is so and that, therefore, they should, as a group, all be treated as a mere force of nature. It is simple: Those who so deny Whites that choice, even if by merely rendering it impractical to exercise that choice, they can expect to be neutralized by any means necessary up to an including extermination. Clearly, at the present point in time, this stance would appear to require killing millions of Blacks and Jews as it appears there are that many who are so inhuman as to deny others that simple choice. Any categories we arbitrarily choose for ourselves are obviously necessary in order to exercise our free will even if only in semblance. However, when it comes to potentially mass extermination, such as I am proposing is morally justified—the only category that matters is “human” vs “non-human” under the litmus test just set forth. David Duke cannot credibly occupy this position. Due to his history he appears to be merely biding his time until he can exercise a less judicious litmus test. And make no mistake, one must specify the litmus test for moral killing of purported “humans” who are thereby exposed as “non-human”. So far I am the only one to have come forth with such a clear moral declaration—a declaration that can serve as a declaration of a fifth generation war of attrition by individuals acting alone—with no coordination or communication between them except the agreement to a universal moral principle defining “human” vs “non-human”. 29
Posted by daniels on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:03 | # I am persuaded by your argument, Jim. However, there is the matter of crimes already committed against Whites. The particular warrants for such retroactive punishments should probably be clarified as well. 30
Posted by daniels on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:19 | # .... 31
Posted by daniels on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:21 | # We analyze genome-wide polymorphism data from about 40 West Eurasian groups to show that almost all Southern Europeans have inherited 1%–3% African ancestry with an average mixture date of around 55 generations ago, consistent with North African gene flow at the end of the Roman Empire and subsequent Arab migrations. Jay, I think most people would agree that 1%-3% African admixture by itself would not be enough to consider a person or a people non-European. However, it would increase the argument to maintain the distinctions between the nations and their representation of overwhelming percentages of native stock; as I understand the same studies showed native Scandinavians to have 0% percent African admixture since our differentiation from Middle-Eastern and African populations some 41,000 years ago 32
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:38 | # Just War Theory is ancient and extensive, and I certainly don’t believe we have anything to add to it. It may be a little weak in regard to revolutionary war, and there is alternative thinking in the form of Realism, in which the guiding principle is non-moral collective self-interest. In line with my prior comment, the struggle for life is before morality, and all moral cause flow from it. So Realism is probably unnecessary except as an explanation for what does happen in war. It seems to me that, given the ethical nature of European Man, there will always be a tendency to moral justification even though, in real wars, the exigencies of winning constantly breach them. 33
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:45 | # GW, You’re not addressing my comment #8, esp this (and the bolded portion in particular):
If you gave average whites the choice between vast racial (and economic) carnage, or the gradual disappearance (through ecological displacement and genetic absorption) of the white race, most would favor the latter. Sometimes this would be for selfish reasons (many might like the restoration of racial Europe or the creation of EuroDNA Nation if they could be actualized painlessly, but don’t want to struggle and suffer for them personally), but in at least as many cases the objection would be ethical - that it is better to contemplate white extinction (even if many might feel sad at the prospect) than to launch revolutionary racial warfare to prevent it. Saying “the struggle for life is before morality, and all moral cause flow from it” is merely vapid assertion as is, and certainly wouldn’t persuade the typical reasonably ethical white that it’s morally acceptable to foment conditions which could be expected to lead to great physical violence and suffering. “If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs”, Lenin famously informed us. You need to demonstrate rationally that the ‘omelette’ of white race preservation is more valuable than the countless ‘eggs’ which will get broken in the course of preparing it. I think this can be done wrt Europe and its race repatriations based on the sordid history of deceit and treason that brought the alien presence to your ancient lands. The issue is not that each race has some merely hypothesized unfettered ‘right’ to struggle to live, but rather, that nonwhites have no moral right to occupy European territory (and that by their very presence undermine the conditions of white - and Western - perpetuity). The True People(s) of Europe, who abide through time and are not merely an infinite series of moment by moment snapshots, with each generation possessing the moral latitude to destroy (or not) the conditions for the reproduction of future white generations and white nations, have been betrayed by their leaders. The alien infestation is a product of this betrayal. The True People(s) have moral standing to demand the mitigation of this treason, which means demanding removal of the infestation (I stress, however, that Europatriots do not have moral standing to aggress against the aliens, provided the latter readily accede to the request for their expatriation; I happen to think, pragmatically, that the aliens will choose to physically fight their removal, which would then morally transform them from similar victims of the elite class betrayal of the True Peoples, to fellow conspirators in it, which would then allow for indigenous counterstrikes). My larger point is my belief that White Patriots are under no obligation to concede and disavow traditional morality, or morality itself. Our side is morally correct (there are different moral arguments to employ on behalf of whites in the New World). And we should develop and proselytize that position. Indeed, give the perhaps innate ethical nature of our race, I think we have no choice but to do so. 34
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:41 | # Leon Haller in comment #35 seems to make an unwarranted assumption. That is that all European nations are changing as quickly as the USA or are in as bad a demographic position as the USA. This simply isn’t true. Scotland starts form a position today of 97-98% European, Denmark some 90%+ European, Italy similar etc. It’s true that London is the most ‘enriched’, ethnic diverse city in the world today - thus is probably the most diverse city in world-history - but that is not the full picture. I know for Americans places like Finland, Scotland, Italy and so on ‘count’ for nothing - are metaphorically ‘nowhere’ but really facts do matter. Even if they go against one’s prejudices that does not make them ‘non-facts’ in the real world (note all fans of Charles Charles Murray and his religion = happiness studies should remember this). OK so in some European nations we have the ‘London’ issue - or maybe the London and Paris issue. Very difficult indeed, no doubt. But it’s not the full picture. England is not the whole of Europe, in same way that America is not the world. Travel abroad or at least read about these ‘obscure’ little places like Catalunya or Switzerland - you never know you all might actually learn something. P.S. I would never give up on a moral/ethical concept like justice but I don’t fully accept liberal definitions of it. P.P.S. Does Leon have a view (ask a silly question - what topic doesn’t Leon have a view on?) on who should be the next Ju-Ju man in chief at the Holy ‘Voodoo’ See? It’s of such meta-political import I’m literally on the edge of my seat.
35
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:14 | # Lest we lose sight of the fact that in the ongoing War of the Wombs being waged in Europe, native Europeans are losing badly. Extinction of European Population http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzbnARyPMMk “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe,” Gadhafi said. “There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” —Muammar Gaddafi 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:00 | # Leon, It is good that you are thinking in revolutionary terms, but you are still too tied to the immediate and to the political. You are working back from it, so to speak, whereby it becomes a foundation in itself. And that, obviously, is the wrong way to evaluate a search for truth. The search for politics has to be grounded in that truth, not the other way round. In other words, we do not seek the truth of us only because we want white peoples to be racialised or even because we want them to re-commence the struggle for survival. Not even at that level of virtuous utility is the ontology project, in any direct sense, aimed. The function of it is that all that is true of us shall emerge into the light, and all that truly belongs to us shall be known, and all that is not true of us and does not belong to us shall be discarded. Thus in my comment at no.7 I wrote:
This really is the only way to treat foundation. One has to trust to it, let it work through us, and not impose anything at all upon it, because imposition will always contain the pollutant of the will of men, which invites disagreement and reduces everything once again to conflicting opinion, ideas, ambitions, and all the agora of the self-estranged life. This, you see Leon, is the duality of the human experience: we can be one thing or the other. They do not mix. 37
Posted by Euro on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:34 | # Yo, roast beef, ever hear of something called bovine spongiform encephalopathy? “A change to the rendering process in the early 1980s may have resulted in a large increase of the infectious agents in the cattle feed. A contributing factor was suggested to have been a change in British laws that allowed a lower temperature sterilization of the protein meal. While other European countries required said animal byproducts to undergo a high temperature, steam-boiling process, this requirement had been eased in the United Kingdom as a measure to keep prices competitive.” “A British and Irish inquiry into BSE concluded the epizootic was caused by cattle, which are normally herbivores, being fed the remains of other cattle in the form of meat and bone meal (MBM), which caused the infectious agent to spread. The cause of BSE may be from the contamination of MBM from sheep with scrapie that were processed in the same slaughterhouse. The epidemic was probably accelerated by the recycling of infected bovine tissues prior to the recognition of BSE. The origin of the disease itself remains unknown. The infectious agent is distinctive for the high temperatures at which it remains viable; this contributed to the spread of the disease in the United Kingdom, which had reduced the temperatures used during its rendering process. Another contributory factor was the feeding of infected protein supplements to very young calves.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy 38
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:11 | # And you think it isn’t soft in the head to expect “naming the Jew”, or National Socialism and “the spirit of the white race”, or race-realism, or Christian moralism to change anything whatsoever in the world of lies and self-forgetting we inhabit? 39
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:54 | # GW writes: “ It seems to me that, given the ethical nature of European Man, there will always be a tendency to moral justification even though, in real wars, the exigencies of winning constantly breach them.” I would replace the phrase “ethical nature of European Man” with “moral nature of Man” to this end: We have to recognize that much of the reliance on racial categorization in thought about war derives from the higher statistical attainment of the Human among Euromen—a statistical fact relentlessly thrust upon Euromen by others’ denial of our consent—and that this leads us into the fatal error of treating Humans of other races as less than Human—and possibly worse, failing to recognize those less than Human in our own race. It is only the Human for whom being “right” has a higher priority than life itself and it is this quality of moral being that renders the Human most fearsome—indeed god-like. When we are faced with forces of nature that, like the slime mold, can spontaneously aggregate amoral pseudo-individuals into massive power, we may be tempted to mirror it. In particular, when we are morally hog-tied by the poisons and/or digestive juices injected into our beings by such an organic force, we may even come to envy its amoral spontaneity due to our failure to recognize the effects on our moral nature of said toxins or recognize our degradation as we are being digested. However, we have to remember that in attaining Humanity we are subject to the disciplines of morality. For them, there is no Humanity—they are already dead to their Humanity and are left with a mere zombie-like existence that spontaneously organizes into primitive mass organisms. For us, any attempt to attain a similar level of existence is to seek our death as Men. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:39 | # James, There is a categorical difference between the wellsprings of human action and the sort of foundation you were gesturing towards a few weeks back. Being “right” is a high-order motivation. But “rightness” is always notional. It is trumped in the order of things by the physical appetites and by the protection of those we love. Why? Because these are more existential causations, and as we travel towards the existent - say, in the extremis of war -so we quickly put aside the notional. The exigencies of survival always trump morality. That’s not to say that there isn’t a certain romance and even nobility to a personal dedication to a moral cause. By definition, romance is seductive. But it does not alter the order of play one iota. 41
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 01:42 | # The most economical way to win a war is to demoralize one’s opponent.
To the cynic*, love and “just” war are, both, merely romantic notions. Cynics never fight—although they might manipulate the “romantic notions” of others to do the fighting for them. *By “cynic” I am, of course, referring to the modern redefinition of cynicism rather than the polar opposite philosophy represented in the ancient Greek school. 42
Posted by daniels on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:48 | # ........ At the risk of being pedantic, I want to see if we might get a bit closer to being on the same page. It seems to me that it is theoretically reasonable to take the position that every act is a moral act - at least “moral” in the sens of having moral implications. When Jim talks about demoralization, he speaks of people being confused as to their moral order. There has never been an anarchy. Every society and situation maintains rules as to what one might do, what one is obliged to do and what one cannot do. Though some moral systems might be in significant conflict with appetites and survival, it would seem they will not survive ultimately if the conflict is severe enough. In the meantime, they will reduce the quality of life. Perhaps starting off as taboos, morals apparently co-evolve in accordance with health, survival, fairness and consideration of others. That is probably why Kant refers to them in terms of the “practical.” Nevertheless, it is important discipline to pay attention as GW does, to where our inherited moral systems are obsolete for failure in rigor to sufficiently reconcile the appetites, survival and defense of one’s family (and race). More, as he observes, that we should be vigilant that we not narcissistically project our moral system as if it will necessarily be respected by others. Leon raises an interesting question as to the more natural unit of moral protection. I understand that genetically, cousins are not usually extended much concern. However, as Graham points out, even siblings are not necessarily a part of the unit. That does not mean that these things are immoral. It does suggest that we should reject moral systems which are unreasonable and toxic in their impracticality as such, that we ought to adjust, refine and renew our moral system as we might. We have been spooked by Christianity We have been spooked by some ignorant girl and her thug boyfriend that “might makes right.” I suppose if one up-and-kills people without the moral approval of their group that they are committing a moral act, but one outside and immoral to the approved system. It is perhaps an expressed proposal of a new moral order - e.g. as in Joseph Paul Franklin’s campaign. I have heard that strategic military efforts are more successful, however, when they correspond with promulgated consensus - a consensus which Franklin did not have behind him. For European peoples to wish to survive as a collective should be fairly easy to warrant in popular consensus. For them to claim Europe and most of Russia as theirs, these being the lands that they co-evolved with, also fairly easy to promote. The claim of Whites to live in other continents, such as the America’s, Australia and New Zealand not that hard to establish at this point - to defend ourselves as a group there, should also not be difficult in theory. To push others out, a bit more difficult but not impossible. In the case of American Indians, I don’t think anybody was proposing to take their reservations away. Anyway, with the possible exception of AmerIndians, the collective act of freedom of association in America is as morally justified for Whites as for anybody in America. To find ways to oust the others is more a matter of strategy than moral justification. Hence, it may well be the best strategy to promulgate the wishes of Euro-DNA Nation*, not expecting the masses to do much except get behind trained special forces (mostly acting individually) who will apply methods of ousting migrants and traitors - elite facilitators and traitors especially. * Articulation of our authentic nature should correspond quite well to that effort, providing clarity, incentive, morale and natural spontaneity in rallying to the cause. 43
Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:40 | # Some days I just writhe in impotent fury and red-faced rage at our situation. Today is one of those days. 44
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:21 | # I don’t know why I bother, but regarding Kant’s thoughts on morality, wasn’t it a key concept that to act morally we must be acting from a disinterested perspective? To have an active stake in the matter at hand and to take some account of that within moral reasoning was therefore ‘immoral’. That might be a crude oversimplification of the Kantian position but not too much. And it’s a quite disastrous ‘moral theory’ on any number of levels. No human being ever reaches this moral or indeed other form of absolute Punctum Archimedis – we are already caught within the world and all of the complex relations and web of interactions and interdependencies thereof. Kant is methodologically, but not metaphysically, Cartesian. The Kantian subject is a cogito without an ergo sum. But in contrast Merleau-Ponty – very much in the Heideggerian tradition - states (and I’m paraphrasing from memory here) that “there is no ‘inner man’ [in the Cartesian sense], man is in the world, and only in being within the world does he know himself.” Anyway, this inevitably failure to reach pure ‘disinterestedness’ results in the perverse absurdities such as the ‘problem’ of altruism. Thus a ‘socio-biological’ philosopher such as Michael Ghiselin can write this: “scratch an altruist and watch a hypocrite bleed.” This of course is an act of ideological mystification par excellence. Consider this. A solider acting with tremendous physical courage and bravery risks his own life to save some of his comrades. The Kantian/Ghiselinian will say “that’s very nice but he, at some level, had an self-serving or ‘selfish’ interest or stake in performing those actions therefore it cannot really be said to have the quality of being morally virtuous in any real way”. Then consider the most loathsome Wall Street slime-ball that does anything and everything so long as he is making money from the process. Again we can say he’s nothing but a ruthlessly selfish, self-serving immoral actor. But look at what this reductionist and deflationary idea of ‘everyone is really in some way ‘selfishly’ motivated - therefore is also morally duplicitous’ actually does. It flattens out all the important distinctions between the genuinely honourable and courageous solider and the criminal ‘insider trader’ etc. After all if all our actions are ultimately grounded in ‘selfishness’ and/or a lack of genuine ‘disinterestedness’ thus, other than from a wholly subjective emotionalism, why or how should we dare to judge anyone or anything as being better or worse moral conduct? Kantian moral thought is, in an interesting way, nothing more than a school of nihilism (I might explain this idea at length at some point in the future, but then again I might not). Dare I suggest that people might lower themselves to read a book by an obscure Scottish philosopher? Alasdair MacIntyre’s ‘After Virtue’ is a brilliant and thought-provoking account and revivification of the tradition of Aristotelian virtue ethics as well as offering a pretty devastating critique of all modern forms or models of moral reasoning (that is all liberal forms of ethical/moral reasoning that emerged from the Enlightenment). In ‘After Virtue’ MacIntyre suggests we are living, under moral ‘modernity’, in a new age of darkness. It’s very hard to disagree. And, of course, contra all liberals (of whatever variety from the banal James Bowery and Leon Haller’s of this world to Hayek, Austrian economists, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair et al., with their cardinal, if often unacknowledged notion, of the ‘unencumbered self’ – man as voluntary contract be it a set of political contracts or of an economic sort, radically free ‘will’, tabla rasa and so on), MacIntyre is very much a modern communitarian. Which rather brings us back to the territory on which I entered the conversation at MR - after all I think putting the ‘ethno’ into ethno-communitarian is conceptually and politically much easier than putting the ‘ethno’ into ethno-liberal or even worse ethno-libertarian. But seemingly my efforts have been to no effect whatsoever. All human actions arise out of our interestedness, all human motivation is ‘mixed’ with many of our reasons for acting remaining obscure even to ourselves. And so what? Such realities do not, and I repeat do not, invalidate or render genuine moral virtue ‘impossible’ not reduce moral judgements to merely subjective forms of emoting. 45
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:40 | # @45 I hear ya bro. Most of the opposition to our dispossession/genocide amounts to a wish list. A kid sitting on Santa’s lap has telling him what he wants for Christmass is more based in reality than the wish lists most WNs indulge in. At least that kid on Santa’s lap has parents to fulfill the kid’s wishes. OTOH White Nationalists (God bless ‘em!) desperately flounder and grope in a fantasy world thinking they actually have—or someday will acquire—the power to make their far-fetched ideas a reality. And yes, I’m sometimes guilty of such too. Our options are limited to say the least. 46
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:52 | # /.
In that much, he was correct. Moral systems are, in essence, a practical matter. I did not say his system was not obsolete. Now, let me finish reading the rest. 47
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:35 | # ....... Kant’s paternal line is Scottish, therefore you get some blame for him as well: Kant, Locke, Adam Smith - good grief! I don’t disagree with any of the things you’ve said about Kant, his being Cartesian, Archimedian, etc. What do you think I’ve been saying? Of course you’ve put it in more deeply erudite terms and it was worthwhile for that, if no other reason, but a straw man: I was not advocating Kant! (add the K word to the B word, don’t mention it or else!) Alasdair MacIntyre’s ‘After Virtue’ is a brilliant and thought-provoking account and revivification of the tradition of Aristotelian virtue ethics As you might recognize by now, I very much favor bringing Aristotle more into the fold of our revised ethics. I admit, however, that the parts of MacIntyre that I have read (probably from After Virtue), struck me at the time as good but not good enough to cope with our situation. I could be wrong, and will try to stomach a look again. Part of my reluctance has to do with the fact that I really don’t want to be heavily advised by a catholic, or any sort taking his guidance from the Christian texts. I don’t trust it. MacIntyre is very much a modern communitarian. Which rather brings us back to the territory on which I entered the conversation at MR - after all I think putting the ‘ethno’ into ethno-communitarian is conceptually and politically much easier than putting the ‘ethno’ into ethno-liberal or even worse ethno-libertarian. But seemingly my efforts have been to no effect whatsoever. It seems to me, Graham, that you have no effect on those people of European extraction who find themselves born into the mixed circumstances of America or elsewhere. You seem to not understand why they would be so intransigently liberal as to not want to found a community with ghetto folks. To want to be such unencumbered selves as to want to get the hell out of there. All human actions arise out of our interestedness, all human motivation is ‘mixed’ with many of our reasons for acting remaining obscure even to ourselves. And so what? Such realities do not, and I repeat do not, invalidate or render genuine moral virtue ‘impossible’ not reduce moral judgements to merely subjective forms of emoting. Nor do I take the position that subjective and social interests cannot be reconciled - a moral order between, healthily adjudicating libertarian self interest and some sort of quest for pure altruism - rather, a socially accountable criteria which satisfies the personal, the close relationships and the broad social relationships is possible. You state the case brilliantly, bringing much substance to the case, but the case is against straw men - at least as far as I am concerned with regard to my posited “advocacy” of Kant - as for liberalism, selfish interest or altruism, that may be an issue to take up with others, Bowery, Leon and GW. I.e., I plead not guilty there too. 48
Posted by DanielS. on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:24 | # - a moral order between, healthily adjudicating libertarian self interest and some sort of quest for pure altruism - That’s putting it in cruder terms than necessary: the matter is a moral order which negotiates and integrates personal with close relational and broader social relational interests. 49
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:19 | # @Danny Well thanks for that stunning insight deliver by Kant and updated by your good self that moral reasoning is, ultimately, a practical activity! No-one before Kant have ever thought along these lines. Aristotle (along with perhaps every other human being that’s ever lived) might never have existed. Thank you Kant! What’s the phrase? Jesus wept, then he cried some more and eventually hit his head against a brick wall in sheer frustration. And now a deep breath, count slowly to ten, exhale and relax. 50
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:10 | # As I had said, at the risk of being pedantic, in an effort to take us on the same page: it is not always about breaking new ground, or stunning insights - sometimes the matter is about coordination. I don’t see where I made the claim that Kant was first to cast morals in terms of practicality either. Maybe I should have said even Kant talked in terms of morals being practical. I will say this, however, coming through a situation without any Kantian thinking around, there is a tendency of those who take him for granted to not understand just how curative some aspects of his way of thinking can be; and thereby misdirect people who might be relieved of arbitrary torment. No, that is not to say that Kant did not have his predecessors and derive many of his ideas, etc, etc. We can agree that Aristotle’s model has more to offer. But what to do about those who would rather not build community with s-colored monkeys? 52
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 07:15 | # Mick Lately @53 Why can’t nationalists come up with something like that anti-racism Strategy doc you posted? For years, I’ve been saying we need to formulate a “nationalist minimum” agenda that could be the basis for a simple statement of ideology and a coherent policy program - something decidedly un-metapolitical for the benefit of preaching to the uneducated masses. I’ve offered many suggestions of what should be included in such a broadsheet. But my words invariably fall of deaf ears. We need more political activism, and much less philosophizing (except, perhaps, amongst the rarefied few actually capable of attaining philosophical wisdom - this “everyman his own philosopher” shtick is wearisome and unproductive, to say the least). 53
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:40 | # Leon, We do carry material on practical nationalism. Look around. I think it would be interesting to discuss a nationalist agenda document, and could produce something for the permanent links on the side-bar. Let’s do it, but let’s not make this the document for whomsoever you consider “the uneducated masses”. Let’s aim at truth-speaking about our own collective interests, and trust all our people to know that truth when they hear it. Remember, the real constituency is always the political thinker. The waters run downhill, and they run through his hands. Off the top of my head, I’d say such a document should be in three parts: (i) an introduction to the general outlook for our race and to the human, ideological and historical forces creating this. (ii) a clear exposition of the freedom and responsibility of our people, like any people, to act to secure their existence - in essence, a declaration of war against the aforementioned forces, (iii) an agenda for securing the existence of our race. Have a think about it. Mail me with some suggestions if you like. I am sure that a first draft can be fashioned between us and modified by suggestion from others on the thread. Maybe something useful will materialise at the end of it. 54
Posted by Mick Lately on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:46 | # Leon Haller @54 Although the EGI.pdf and the Race FAQ could be very useful for racial awakening I think there are many unawakened people who support immigration restrictionism. Sometimes it seems as if nationalists are playing intellectual parlour games while our countries are filling up with aliens. The three (Northern European) countries with which I am most familiar - Ireland, England, and Sweden - are running out of time as far as I can see. To state the obvious: we need to stop Third World immigration. 55
Posted by Mick Lately on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:59 | # A lot of MR-type comments on the following article: Immigration: David Cameron urges Indians to come to ‘welcoming’ Britain One of the comments had the following link: 56
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:47 | # The turning point will come, I beleive, when the USD no longer functions as the world’s reserve currency. That’s when the masses of whites will get a rude awakening and start to think in terms of survival in a world that has been taught to be extremely hostile to them. No longer will whites have the luxury of insulating themselves from the harsh reality of race. Furthermore I beleive the collapse of the USD is not too far off in the future. How long can the Federal Government keep spending 1.3 trillion more than its taking in in order to keep the economy from imploding? Actually I thought this event was going to occur in 2010. I was wrong of course; but as sure as the sun sets in the west the day will come when the dollar will no longer reign is the world’s reserve currency; thus, when that water-shed event occurs, the standard of living in both the USA and the EU will drop precipitously and in turn it will function as the catalyst for the so called awakening we’ve all been talking about for low these many decades….....I hope. In the mean time, Prepare. Harden the mind and body. Get right with God.
57
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:03 | # Re Political thinkers: As I recall reading an article about how Margaret Thatcher mounted a successful campaign against the Labor Party, her teams main weapon was political advertising. Thatcher and team hired the advertising firm of Saatchi and Saatchi. The ad firm came up with the slogan/poster: “Labor isn’t Working” For those three little words her campaign paid millions. Was it money well spent? Well, it paved the way to her victory. My point is philosophical gobbledygook aien’t gonna resonate with the masses. It never did and never will. 58
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:09 | # Thorn, the world is made by men of ideas, not by the consumers of ideas. You only have to look at the ferocity with which even nationalist Americans cleave to forms of liberalism to understand how all-enveloping these ideas are. If we do not have ideas of our own (and we don’t - there is nothing foundational in the European New Right and nothing foundational coming out of the Regnery sector) we cannot escape the orbit of the liberal thought-world. Heavens above, I had hoped that a few people would have grasped this by now! One more time: Philosophy is not for “everyman” to contemplate, neither is it a displacement of activism. It is the most important and first strike in the war, without which no blow can be landed with any certainty as to the outcome. 59
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:13 | #
GW, the way I see it is the philosophical foundations for the “WN” cause have already been laid again and again…. Now it’s time for activism…but like I’ve noted, I don’t think the masses of whites are ready to move out of their liberal comfort zone until that liberal comfort zone no longer provides comfort. Secondly, IMO, everyman can’t escape philosophy wheather he realizes it or not. Or am I wrong to think that the way we think is informed by the great thinkers/philosophers that proceeded us? I understand that those great thinkers that came before us shaped our culture which in turn affects all of our individual worldviews to one extent or another, right? That said I think it’s a virtuous endeavor to study the great thinkers of the past and present; however, we should know our limitations lest we make fools of ourselves (of course I’m speaking of myself there). Great thinkers/philosophers—I mean the really brilliant ones—are few and far in between, no?
60
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:46 | # Thorn, There is no foundational truth to be encountered in Europe or in North America. The default in Europe is a vague idealism of the spirit whose ancestors are fascism and Nietzschism. Certainly, it is much attenuated and diversified in form, but it suffers from the same teleological deficiency as the 19th and 20th Century originals. North America is a desert of serious philosophy. We have race-realism, the exposition of Jewish culpability, the paleo tendency, the Christian revival tendency, a German-American apologetics, and some migration of the ideas of the European New Right. None of this speaks of us. It is all about something else, and it will have no agency, I promise you. I agree with you that liberalism is, while it still obtains, very attractive to the European mind, and possibly too damned attractive to the European American mind, as I stated in my piece on individualism. It is quite possible that the rootedness of Europe and the individualism of America require different consideration. But then that ceases to be necessary in a non-prescriptive system founded on emergence of what is true in and of us (I feel that the idea of emergence ties in with some of James’s thoughts, to which Daniel averred @ 44 a couple of days ago) On the engagement of philosophical thinking with the world, I strongly believe that ideas with the necessary quality engage with the world differently to arguments based in protest, however good those arguments are or just their cause. They operate above the world of the political. If they gain adherence at the level on which they engage, they set the possibilities for politics and order new outcomes. This is how popular revolutions are sustained. If the ideas are not there, the revolution must become authoritarian, at which point it has energised the force that will depose it. 61
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:18 | # Thorn said: “Harden the mind and body”. & “Get right with God”. Without being facetious I would have thought that a certain degree of adroit mental and physical flexibility would be more highly valued. As for the second part is this an echo of Heidegger’s cry that only a God can save us now? Really GW is essentially (no pun intended) right in his last couple of comments. The how and why of the trajectory of modernity and our present phase of ‘late-modernity’ (seguing into post-modernity) is not a simple or easy phenomena to grasp. However, the bleak landscape of philosophical modernity is haunted by a spectre – the spectre of nihilism. There is, I think, an enormously important and fascinating story to be told about the relationship between liberal-modernity and nihilism. The traditionalists answer to nihilism is, of course, a good dose of the old-time religion and perhaps the smack of firm authoritarianism. Both are radically superficial answers to the challenge. Just to focus on the religious ‘answer’ this simply ignores the historicity of Dasein. The Christian world-view was effectively foundational to Europe for a decent period of time, but such a cosmology will never again be the unquestionable foundation to a social-order and culture again. We really have ‘killed’ God in that there is no world in which religious scepticism disappears or retreats from the scene. For the traditionalist, with regard to Christianity recovering its ‘foundational’ status, they are simply deluded. One does not have to read Marcel Proust to realise that as time passes certain possibilities are lost forever. A man that was happy during his teen years and now reflecting upon them in his old age would cut truly bizarre figure if he attempted to live as a teen once more in how he dressed, talked, thought etc. It would be an impossibility to genuinely return to his previous state of being. Equally, at a civilisational level, we will not return to our previous ‘innocence’ in almost everyone being unquestionably ‘signed-up’ to the cardinality of the resurrection to history etc. The background assumption of methodological, and hence philosophical naturalism, along with a more or less explicit atheism, will remain the default intellectual position of thinking people as such. Not that one cannot be an intellectually rigorous theist, but let’s be honest it’s very much a minority sport. And even then the theist is hemmed in by the contours of atheistic scepticism at every turn. As for Christianity somehow being ‘implicitly white’ or some such nonsense, this ignores both the radically universalistic nature of Christian theology (in ideas such as Karl Rahner’s ‘anonymous Christian’ we are all, even we do not know it, Christians - according to Rahner a person could explicitly deny Christianity, but in reality “existentially is committed to those values which for the Christian are concretized in God”); and secondly the sociological facts on the ground show that the demographic heart of the Christian world is rapidly relocating to the ‘global South’. Our world will now always be a post-Christian one, in that ‘the truth’ of Christianity will never be taken as a given by all people ever again. As Billy Connolly amusingly notes - religion - it’s over boys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZ2k8xlTtU Of course the Kierkegaardian leap of faith will always be open to individuals, but I doubt it can ever be a genuinely hegemonic force. 62
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:43 | # For those who haven’t seen it - Free Speech is Sacred: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bzTA_D5NpU * He’s not good on the J.Q. but this particular rant is a good one. 63
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 04:05 | #
Only for the secularists because they are not reproducing themselves.
64
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:54 | # Dr. L, That “Get right with God” quote is probably only understood by white middle Americanos whom were targeted by Obama’s infamous ‘bitter clinger’ speech. IOWs the “get right with God” quote is an act of protest against how the elites are painting ordinary white Americans as insolent rubes for not quietly accepting their own dispossession. Yes, in the brave new secular moral relativistic world the rejection of Christianity or the belief their is no God indicates the level of intellectual sophistication one has achieved. I get that. However atheists have never proved that God does not exist just as theists cannot prove God does exist. But if one were forced to chose based on pure logic, those that beleive in a divine creator win hands down See here: Infinite Regression Fallacy http://www.atheismsfallacies.com/infinite-regression-fallacy/ Will Christianity save the white race? Not in-and-of-itself it won’t but who can argue it teaches moral absolutes? How bad are moral absolutes needed in today’s moral relitivistic/radical-liberal cesspool? Don’t get me wrong, liberalism and individualism is a good thing so long as they are tempered by opposing authorities and traditions; but radical-individualism (the drastic reduction of limits to personal gratification) is what happens sans the fear of God and the moral teachings of the traditional church. For example, one has to ask: How many of those tens of thousands of European women that go on sex vacations every year are active church goers? Then there’s technology. Imagine an EMP event over Great Britain. It knocks out all electricity, water and food supply chain for weeks….even months. Imagine the chaos! I wonder how many of atheists—when left helpless and fearful—do you think will suddenly find religion? My guess is quit a few of them. As an anecdote I vividly recall a funny thing happened the days and weeks and months after the 9-11 attacks. Suddenly the sparsely attended church pews were filled. But after a few months the fear dissipated and the people started to settle back in their comfy lives. Within six months those same church pews were back to where they were pre 9-11: barely occupied. That said I think Christianity can return and even flourish in post-Christian Europe given a certain set of unpleasant circumstances…which could very well occur in the not too distant future.
65
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:59 | # The absurdity of existence bedevils the “scientific” atheist as much as the atheist bedevils the religious man who, begging the question, attempts to reconcile himself with this absurdity by standing the creator “outside” of creation. The “scientific” atheist is, perhaps, an even less sympathetic “rube” in that he fails to make even the futile gesture of the religious “rube”. The best that can be said for the “scientific” atheist in this context is that he has, in not unduly complicating the situation, provided a more accessible reductio ad absurdum to his own position. 66
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 17 Feb 2013 02:28 | # I need to reply to a bunch of stuff here, but I’m booked for the next few hours, plus tomorrow. Just wanted to note that Thorn@66 is a great comment! Lister is regrettably probably correct that Christianity may not return to Europe for the foreseeable future, at least in historically identical forms, though the future of ideas is very unpredictable - as opposed to human responses to different types of recurring challenges, and their effects, which are highly predictable (import negroids / increase crime; print currency without concurrent productivity gains, inflation goes up; expand the franchise, grow the welfare state; weaken the military, invite aggression, etc). The atheist contingent has been predicting its irreversible future ideational conquest for a long time. Has the future arrived? Perhaps - or perhaps this is merely another stage in an endless cycle of decay and renewal. What is far easier to prognosticate than mankind’s future metaphysical proclivity is the coming physical extinction of the white race if we should fail forcefully to challenge the claims of ethical diversitarianism, as well as reignite a preference for our own in our own, and keep our historic territories sovereign and homogeneous (or reacquire such territories if we, as in the US, have lost them). Long before ‘Dasein’ negates its negation and reestablishes its Being-in-the-world, or, um, whatever, the West will have been wholly ‘muddied’ through colonization and miscegenation. Our task is a physical one. Bodily needs must be served before parlor-philosophy can commence. 67
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:49 | # Physically defending ourselves and Philosophically defending ourselves, viz. establishing our philosophical-moral order, is concomitant. It is hardly a trivial parlor game. On the contrary, lamenting the loss of moral absolutes and calling for a return to Christianity - which did not protect those absolutes anyway - is below the water-mark. The established classification of our European peoples corresponds with a moral order which is flexible and relative in that it is gauged against the interests of our people, but as such it is nothing like hyper-relative - rather, it is gauged against the interests of our people as a group among other earthly systems. Hence it is not nearly so relative as to allow our people to be put at risk on the whole nor trashed as individuals, arbitrarily: our thorough essence, those of ours willing and well disposed to the well being and continuance of our people, provide the standard. 68
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 17 Feb 2013 07:32 | #
EMP? All it takes is a good snowfall. 69
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:22 | # No point crying over split milk Leon. After all it’s the free-market place of ideas that has killed God. No-one can ever take theism as unproblematically and unchallengeably true ever again - let alone an entire civilisation work on that assumption and its seemingly ‘foundational’ importance (Christianity is important in the story of the West but isn’t foundational to us at all). As you know Leon no-one can ‘buck’ the market. A little bite-size of Nietzsche you may find useful…from ‘The Joyful Wisdom’ (1882). “Have you ever heard of the madman who on a bright morning lighted a lantern and ran to the market-place calling out unceasingly: ‘I seek God! I seek God!’ As there were many people standing about who did not believe in God, he caused a great deal of amusement. Why! is he lost? said one. Has he strayed away like a child? said another. Or does he keep himself hidden? Is he afraid of us? Has he taken a sea-voyage? Has he emigrated? the people cried out laughingly, all in a hubbub. The insane man jumped into their midst and transfixed them with his glances. ‘Where is God gone?’ he called out. ‘I mean to tell you! We have killed him, you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? - for even Gods putrefy! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife - who will wipe away the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event - and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!’ - Here the madman was silent and looked again at his hearers; they also were silent and looked at him in surprise. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished. ‘I come too early,’ he then said, ‘I am not yet at the right time. This prodigious event is still on its way, and is travelling - it has not yet reached men’s ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, deeds need time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard. This deed is as yet further from them than the furthest star - and yet they have done it!”. As old Marxists used to say it’s no accident that Nietzsche’s madman makes his pronouncements in the market-place. I for one do not have any problem in merely being an animal. In taking joy in an order of materiality, where in Wallace’s Stevens’ terms, ‘things merely are’. Our materiality and finitude is the only source of our glory as a form of materiality that comes to know itself and the natural-order from which it emerged. Instead of being ‘spirits’ made flesh, what wrong with flesh that makes ‘spirit’? Is it really a shame that we are merely material phenomena? What’s so great about thinking we are such creatures but with a special saving feature; a forever hidden slice of ‘God-stuff’ lurking within us? As for the loss of moral objectivity and so on, two thoughts spring to mind. What if Christian moral reasoning is genuinely ‘objective’ and the injunction to embrace the stranger as your own kin is the essence of the moral life? That one’s brothers and sisters regardless of background are radically and fundamentally one’s equal? In Rahner’s terms that no-one is ever finally in the ‘out-group’ of the non-Christian, even the most wicked and evil non-believers? I still have a great deal of trouble in seeing how Christianity ends up in the territory of moral particularity as its pivotal conceptual keystone. Secondly, theologians, often in the tradition of negative theology say that ultimately ‘God is God’. In that God goes beyond human understanding; he isn’t just like a super-nice big brother in the sky, he isn’t just like that table in your dining room etc. In fact he isn’t just like anything imaginable to humans at all. So what’s wrong with a slightly different credo? Namely that ‘life is life’ – an irreducible and ‘brute’ phenomena that doesn’t require ‘justification’ in any way, as for example of something ‘else’ at work (God, information or whatever). Rather life is the primary good of the natural-order that allows or all other secondary (but extremely important) goods to be experienced and instantiated. And this view, to my mind isn’t in conflict with the idea that human life can be lived in better or worst terms, that our natures dictate the broad shape of a well-lived life, that genuine human flourishing (both as individuals and communities) and various forms of excellences and virtues are not mere mythologies. Life is the primary and inherently good phenomena from which all other possible goods flow. If indeed life is a ‘gift’ from the the natural-order and the working of physics and chemistry which produced this curious emergent phenomenon known as biological life, why in any way does that diminish it? If Dasein is ‘only’ the product of natural selection so be it. 70
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:17 | # For some unknown reason Leon Haller reminds me of - given Bateman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIvd3zzu4Y ... is quite the fan of Genesis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUytEXTdx9A I wonder if Leon has been talking to Jesus all his life?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EprQGmZ3Imw And if so did Jesus tell him everything’s going to be OK? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SS3E1H_P24 Are you righteous? Kind? Does your confidence lie in this? Are you loved by all? Know that I was, too. Do you imagine your suffering will be any less because you loved goodness and truth? 71
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:26 | # Well that’s a fuck up. All my URL tags worked in preview. Why this site, from a users perspective, seems so difficult to use I’ll leave for the IT experts to ponder. Oh well here goes. Patrick Bateman =/watch?v=qoIvd3zzu4Y Genesis =/watch?v=gUytEXTdx9A Jesus and chit-chat =/watch?v=EprQGmZ3Imw Love goodness =/watch?v=1SS3E1H_P24 72
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:31 | # Ahh see what just occurred. I typed in the full youtube within the text (not as links per se) then on hitting ‘post’ they all went to watch=blah blah blah. I suppose it’s something as a ‘banned’ user I just have to live with. 73
Posted by God of the Mau Maus on Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:50 | # Obviously the gods are working against you, Graham. MUAHAAAHHAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAA! 74
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 18 Feb 2013 02:17 | # I’ve tried to unban you Graham, Im not clear what the problem IP address is. 75
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 18 Feb 2013 02:50 | # Mick Lately
Find a weak spot. Kick it till it breaks. Apart from anything else it helps keep you chilled.
Once upon a time there was a law saying the major food wholesalers had to keep a month’s worth of food. The EU changed it to three days. If something like the above happened it will probably be them who do it. 76
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 05 Mar 2013 06:59 | # Posted by stewart on February 08, 2013, 04:22 PM | # The writing could be clearer and tidied up. I’m not saying that DanielS doesn’t have meaningful things to say, but it tends to be verbose and confusing. Stewart, because this was an emotionally daunting piece for me in a couple ways - notably, taking on the taste and judgment of some of our most prestigious exponents - I did not find myself returning to it, to give it a relaxed proofreading. However, I have now made the time to take a look at it once again. It was not as bad as I might have feared. However, there was one paragraph in particular which badly needed to be unpacked and to have its transitions clarified. There were some points that needed to be highlighted. There were some other necessary clarifications and punctuation corrections that needed to be made here and there. 77
Posted by Scientist revokes permission in protest on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:25 | #
A 2009 Science paper that used Helicobacter pylori bacteria to trace the peopling of the Pacific relied on Treefinder to produce the microbes’ phylogenetic tree. 29 September 2015
78
Posted by corollary: slavery - environmental destruction on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:32 | # Places in Africa such as Congo and Ghana have minerals necessary to electronics manufacturing and, as Kumiko explains further, local leadership has been offered cooperative, socially and ecologically responsible means for procurement of the minerals. However, war-lords take hold and run these as operations, enslaving and subjecting people and environment to ruinous harm. There is also a great deal of sexual abuse of women in these circumstances. Here is NPR’s liberal take on these practices, where the rule of law fails and slavery and environmental destruction ensue. Kevin Bales, Professor of Contemporary Slavery at the Wilberforce Inst. for the study of slavery and emancipation in Yorkshire, England. His book - Blood and Earth, Ecocide and the Secret to Saving the World. NPR interview: file:///C:/Users/Admin/AppData/Local/Temp/20160120_fa_01.mp3 Corollary between slavery and environmental destruction. The role of slavery in Co2 emission Mangrove forest of S.E. Asia is the largest carbon sink in Asia. Carbon is taken out of the air and sequestered in trees and sea. Criminals step in where global law supposedly protect these forests. Slaves are used to clear-cut forest for wood, shrimp farms, rice paddies, etc. “While 3 billion tones of co2 are released from fuel burning, about 2 billion results from deforestation of forests such as these. Slave labor numbers are estimated equal the population of Canada and the third largest co2 emission after China and the US.” 79
Posted by Hillary imposed guinea pig fracking on Poland on Tue, 31 May 2016 19:45 | #
80
Posted by Need to assimilate green talking point fluency on Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:54 | # White Nationalism needs to assimilate the kind of green party talking points that Jill Stein is making so that we can comport its righteous positions absent the liberal, anti-“racism” that she predictably (because she is Jewish) tacks onto the program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4RV1q70gr4 ....she has a lot of things right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein 81
Posted by Half of all US food is thrown away on Sat, 16 Jul 2016 06:10 | # Guardian, “Half of all US food produce is thrown away, new research suggests”, 13 July 2016: The demand for ‘perfect’ fruit and veg means much is discarded, damaging the climate and leaving people hungry. 82
Posted by Chocolate market leading deforestation on Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:34 | #
Post a comment:
Next entry: MR Interview of Kenneth Humphreys by James Bowery Concerning the Syncretic Origin of Christianity
|
|
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 stewart on Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:22 | #
The writing could be clearer and tidied up. I’m not saying that DanielS doesn’t have meaningful things to say, but it tends to be verbose and confusing.