Scott Mannion and the being of the English

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 10 December 2022 01:12.

Here is the central difficulty with Heideggerian philosophy - the being of a thing does not, in itself, supply a cause for the thing to be. This is not quite an example of the Naturalistic Fallacy, because there is a difference between ethical choice as a construct of the higher emotions and thought, and sheer instinctual survival. It is a qualitative difference, obviously, but it is also an operative difference. For example, as the flame burns the hand, the nervous system signals the brain and the brain signals the muscles to tense and contract. The whole action is completed an eternity of microseconds before the emotions of fear and alarm well up. The intellectual faculty ... the considering mind ... lumbers into view only much later still. Considering is redundant. So, in this case “must” is operative, not “ought”. We don’t have a problem with Hume and Moore. We have a problem elsewhere, in the categorical separateness of being-there-then and the animus. Being (for example, being at the point of acquiring a burnt hand) never leaves its own site of reference. The animus has another site, in the organism’s primordial defence mechanism. If we hold that essence precedes existence (and we “ought”) we might consider that the animus is the cosmic will-to-be of the organism, while being is the consequent action of the organism in Time and Place.

This separateness is the reason that nationalist folks often see folkish-ness and traditionalism as tainted by a solipsistic “shire” mentality devoid of the politically necessary, hard cutting edge. That may or may not always be fair. But in the matter of a people’s existence there is a relatively small number of positive forces which supply, or contribute to supplying, such a cutting edge. Survival and continuity, identity, home are the stuff of the naturalistic, nativist pole of the nationalist axis, which just might array like this:
European nationalisms

Interestingly, these causes are also the stuff of jus bellum. Heidegger is in them but he is not them.

These few thoughts follow from a hearing of a conversation, distinctively Heideggerian in parts, conducted by a very interesting nationalist, a thinking nationalist, named Scott Mannion with my old friend, the cultural critic, essentialist, and speaker of truths, Morgoth. Indeed it is titled, “Morgoth – How to find trad meaning in modernist hell”:

It is clear that Scott is a genuine intellectual, possibly an academic, who has journeyed into Heidegger, arriving at experience, or re-experience, of what, I suppose, we must call our cultural heritage and tradition as signifier of our shared, particular and ethnic being. It is clear that Morgoth’s celebrated practise of rural walking in search of the permanent and authentic in his native north-east England holds a particular significance for Scott. I very much liked the easy overlap of their worldviews, and the courtesy with which Scott granted Morgoth time to speak of his. The whole conversation had a positive and hopeful mein.

Scott repeatedly referred to our being as a tangible permanence which the estrangements and machine-living of modernity can never banish or besmirch, and this is true enough. Of course, when listening to the thoughts of friends there are still always a few points of divergence. I am primarily interested in the ontology of racial awakening rather than in cultural archeaology. But it would be churlish to make too much of that now. It is enough just to encounter another intellectual realist in the impoverished home of English nationalism.

Tags: European Nationalism, Modernity

Comments:

Posted by Timothy Murray on Sat, 10 Dec 2022 21:15 | #

I love this stuff.

Re the Axis of Being <—> Becoming…I will add without comment (I haven’t the time or chops to contribute in a meaningful way) that according to Timothy Flanders’ podcasts on Catholic Social History (?) that “nationalism” *
is of recent origin.

According to Flanders, in Christendom , prior to the nation state, people did not think of themselves as “French” or “English” or “Basque” but as Christian, even while living in a feudal state in Gaul or England or Basque**
I do not know this, I cannot document it, I only heard it on a podcast by a decent Catholic who gave a pretty concise overview of the scheme of things (while I was driving the truck).

Now, assuming Flanders is correct, then that graph is incomplete.

For those interested, Flanders’ series can be found here: https://meaningofcatholic.com/page/2/?s=Social+History

*definitions matter, and I may be stepping into a competing defintion, if so, my apologies.
** apologies for not knowing the ancient names of European places.

Posted by Timothy Murray on Sat, 10 Dec 2022 22:11 | #

grrrr…..

yet, Flanders also states that it was the Armenians(?) who where the last to convert to Christianity….

which is a contradiction because “Armenian” had to precede conversion.

My apologies.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Dec 2022 23:24 | #

Religious people suffer the great disadvantage of always answering every question with “more God”. It’s a rigid behaviour.

From Elizabeth’s speech to her troops at Tilbury, 9th August, 1588, on the eve of battle with the Armada:

I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm: to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

No doubt, the priestly monopoly on education added to the notion that tribe and kind and land somehow did not reside in the minds of men before the invention of romantic nationalism in the late 18th century. Also, of course, the royalty and nobility were, by and large, not of the soil but from aristocratic European families which intermarried for power and self-preservation. It is mostly their history which survives. The mass of the people had little voice and left little record. One must trust, however, that their nature was not so very unlike ours, and that Catholics claiming a mass loyalty to the Church are doing what lefties do today, namely, denying Nature in Man in favour of the social origin of everything. But then Christianity has always been in existential conflict with Nature. It is, after all, Abrahamic.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 11 Dec 2022 03:47 | #

According to Flanders ?

Well , OK , Ned Flanders is a deeply committed Simpsonian Christian , so I will acquiesce .

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 11 Dec 2022 04:19 | #

There are , I believe , Timothy , London University External courses in Theology or Divinity. As we all know , Theology means knowledge of God , but , of course for hell - bound folks like me it means , because God does not exist , knowledge of nothing.

These LU courses provide working people who have had their infant minds impaired by Sunday School, with the opportunity to study ancient Jew - authored, Harry Potter style books, thus bridging the lacuna between Juvenile and Adult fiction.

For busy White truckers, a commitment to holding their atavistic, Aryan sense of reason and appreciation of observed reality in abeyance , is a desideratum , at least , were they impolite enough to ask intelligent questions of the Hebrew propagandists.

And you must be “Willin” :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNqv85coyTw

Posted by Timothy Murray on Sun, 11 Dec 2022 19:16 | #

Well , OK , Ned Flanders is a deeply committed Simpsonian Christian , so I will acquiesce .

I have never watched a Simpson’s episode as I have not owned a t.v. in over 30 years…. The clips on the internet are unavoidable. as is Doh! as is “Ned Flanders” whatever he is (please, no links to simpsons clips…life is short).

But, that is funny.

As we all know , Theology means knowledge of God

I thought it was “study of”...not “knowledge of”. am I mistaken?

Furthermore, the pagan Greeks derived God from first principles.

Let’s back up…..

“Most empirical scientists assume that empirical sciences are the only valid forms of science because of the fact that their methodology allows for verification, while the other sciences do not.
However, the empirical method is not the only valid method of proceeding for a science.

While the empirical method is proper to its own material and formal object,[3] it is not proper to philosophy which is also a valid science.

Very often, those working in the empirical sciences try to reformulate the definition of a science in order to exclude philosophy (and theology) from being considered sciences.

However, such a motion on their part is inherently contradictory, for the formulation of the definition of a science cannot be derived by the empirical method and therefore to give a true, formal definition requires one to engage in philosophy.

So either empirical scientists accept that philosophy is a science or they are left with the unseemly prospect of not having a “scientific” definition of science itself.

This is said in order to make clear that to enter into a philosophical discussion about the nature of evolution is a scientific approach, albeit not an empirical one.”

Ergo, accepting this definition of science* (which I do) it follows that Theology is a science. You reject it “for reasons” and mock it for fun, but your mockery is not convincing.

Btw, the author of that quote is Fr. Chad Ripperger. A practicing exorcist (yes, demons exist) and an author who is making a grand attempt to undo freud’s inversion of the human soul with his latest tome on a Thomistic model of human psychology (as described by MacDonald in the goy guide to world history)

Source

GW wrote:

Religious people suffer the great disadvantage of always answering every question with “more God”. It’s a rigid behaviour.

in general, I agree, the Sola Scriptura crowd are the worst. But the charge is not a universal “always” but a “often” or “too often” or ....

Also, thank you for the “u” in behaviour.

No doubt, the priestly monopoly on education added to the notion that tribe and kind and land somehow did not reside in the minds of men before the invention of romantic nationalism in the late 18th century.

Well, we all know the universal education prior to Christianity was so much better than what came before…Dr. Spartacus and all that…. And, it is quite the charge to state that the priests infused that idea into the pagans.
I will hold those ideas in abeyance…

Also, of course, the royalty and nobility were, by and large, not of the soil but from aristocratic European families which intermarried for power and self-preservation. It is mostly their history which survives.

I have seen this idea quite a bit on the internet. Miles Mathis (?) is one who floats it. The latest was a gab on gab stating that Jesus had red hair—a sign of nobility. I wonder if the #teambiological genetic crowd are tracking this stuff.

Assume it is true. Do you think the odds for “their” survival / continuity is on the upswing? steady? doomed?

One must trust, however, that their nature was not so very unlike ours,

agreed.

and that Catholics claiming a mass loyalty to the Church are doing what lefties do today, namely, denying Nature in Man in favour of the social origin of everything.

Completely untrue. But, that is for a discussion in a few years when I am up to speed. Also, thank you for the ‘u’ in favour.

Thank you for your graciousness and professionalism.

Cordially,

*there are others…some jew stated that “science is what scientists do” ...which is a problem given the reproducability crisis and the headfirst dive into lies and corruption. But, hey! if you want science that works for the people, be that jew.

Posted by Richard Yorke on Sun, 11 Dec 2022 23:22 | #

It breaks down due to the Christian ethos. Like that scene from the Terminator 2 movie… “Jesus you were going to kill that guy!”

Basically all the Aristocracy are Primogeniture(only the eldest son inherits), hence the concentration of economic/political power and inbreeding… Reason why farms in the UK can be over 10,000 acres. The tiny exception were *some* of the Whigs, and then only from Kent or perhaps Wales, the rest of the country was under serfdom. The only exception post Norman conquest at Gavelkind(Freedom of Testimony, equal inheritance) with Earl Status, was the Earl of Hardwicke,(Philip Yorke) which as a resident of Kent was ennobled into the Aristocracy and acted as Lord Chancellor and Regent.

Isaiah 5
8 Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!

Only really see 1 option out of a possible 3. The 3 being 1)Human Singularity/Omega Point.(Ephraim). 2)Pluralism. (Joseph) 3)Equilibrium. Which basically involves triage, the world can not be fixed, it will be destroyed. Although entertainment wise can be interesting listening to different views(might be missing something), I occasionally follow Nick Griffin a bit, Alex Jones…

Psalm 78
67 Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim:
68 But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.

Inheritance and property taxes wipe out accumulation of wealth, and political power.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:33 | #

The rich own nothing and pay no taxes. Property and inheritance taxes actually hit the middle class.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Dec 2022 16:54 | #

It is a category error* to conflate inheritance tax with wealth tax. The former is permitted under income taxation and the latter is prohibited in almost all jurisdictions except the most local, where they make the most sense: The sheriff is not only responsible for the protection of property rights but is at a small power distance from the property owners (at least in the US where he must be elected by popular vote of the county).

Moreover, the thing that eventuates the corruption of all civilizations is the replacement, as the aristocracy succumbs to the temptation to self-serve, of wealth taxation (as funding for the protection of property rights) with taxes on economic activity. That is what is depopulating developed nations—save Israel where the elite have held on to sufficient ethnostatism/ethnofascism/national socialism to implement policies that inspire recognition in its women that civilization is a womb war.

*“If engineers treated velocity and position the way economic policy think tanks treat income and wealth, the industrial revolution might never have created the cushy environment that has permitted economic policy to decay to a state more primitive than the Domesday Book.”

Posted by Richard Yorke on Wed, 14 Dec 2022 02:21 | #

My point is an abolition of inheritance and property tax. If taxes on economic activity are want to be set sky high, people have some option of avoiding it, which at present they have no choice.

Basically Manorialism.

Generational wealth. Which would allow for a gentry, and if in the case all their siblings die leaving them the sole heir, potential entry into an oligarchy.

The rich never pay taxes coming up with some BS or shell companies. Even if assessors are sent around, what about concealed wealth below ground. Or paying off the authorities, corrupt one at a time. When have they ever?

But I suppose it’s good news that “You’ll own nothing, and be happy.” so soon nearly everyone will be rich!

I suppose fundamentally every nationalist, is a National Socialist. Can’t exactly be a national capitalist, and fascism would be supremacy of the law of the state. Taken me a long while to realize that. Family above nation. Patriotism would be another ballpark.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:16 | #

While it is certainly the case that the present state of affairs is worse than feudalism, that isn’t saying much for feudalism since the present state of affairs is worse even than the antebellum south’s version of slavery which at least didn’t strive to wipe out (demographic transition) and replace (second demographic transition) its slave population starting with the castration (e.g. testosterone suppression, gay “pride”, valorizing drag queens and child sexual mutilation) of its male slaves.

Militia money ends up constructing what you want but you’ll have to get over the involuntary nature of tying serfs to the land in order to see it. You’ll have to let them vote with their feet to escape abusive lairds—and take their land rents with them.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 16 Dec 2022 04:32 | #

Always remember , Slavery got things done.

As you are an Atheist , like all rational Aryans , do you believe that Abolition was opposed by Atheists ?

The reason I ask is until William Wilberforce’s crusade , Christians were infinitely laid - back about that time - honoured Institution , which had the approbation of Semitic Heaven, hence the Hamitic Curse.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 18 Dec 2022 05:56 | #

RY , Ha Ha !

The Gentry are not your problem . They are middling people . I think you meant Aristocracy .

Here’s how inherited wealth works : Rich Male Aristocrats , in England , traditionally left everything to the initial male , of course , progeniture beneficiary .

He would go to White’s , Brookes’s or Boodles in SW1 and gamble a large portion away , incur debts, and mortgage his immediate financial posterity .

The family would arranged a marriage to an (((American))) and both sides would benefit.

The same rules ( mutatis mutandis ) apply to the the idiocy of Death Duties , or Inheritance Tax or whatever Jew- Marxoid euphemism is employed.

The UK tax situation is egregious. Imagine a bunch of illegal ,Third World, immigrants sitting happily on a horse - drawn wagon and the equines were replaced by people like GW .

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 19 Dec 2022 22:41 | #

Moving Through the Chaos

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/12/18/moving-through-the-chaos/