Posted by Thousands Celebrate Solstice at Stonehenge on Thu, 22 Dec 2016 05:14 | #

BBC, “Stonehenge winter solstice celebrated by a crowd of thousands”, 21 December 2016:

       
Thousands of people have gathered at Stonehenge in Wiltshire to watch the sun rise on the shortest day of the year.

Daylight on 21 December lasted for just seven hours, 49 minutes and 41 seconds.

       
Despite a forecast of cloud and rain, a large crowd of pagans and druids were among those to visit the ancient Neolithic monument.

The event is thought to be more important in the pagan calendar than the summer solstice because it marks the “re-birth” of the sun for the new year.

Posted by Happy Nimrod Day on Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:58 | #

Rebirth of the sun god

Nimrod and the tower of Babel

Posted by Dialectic and The Hermeneutic Circle on Mon, 26 Dec 2016 22:03 | #

Counter Currents, “Notes on Philosophical Dialectic”, 26 Dec 2016:

Greg Johnson

The concept of philosophical dialectic is quite mysterious and intimidating. Even among professional philosophers, dialectic often has connotations of mysticism, obscurantism, and slight of hand. I wish to dispel this aura. I will lay out the elements of philosophical dialectic by looking at specific arguments in Plato’s Republic[1] and Hegel’s Philosophy of Right[2] and then employ Heidegger’s account of the hermeneutic circle Being and Time and Husserl’s account of the logic of parts and wholes in his Logical Investigations to clarify the dialectical process.

[...]

To sum up, Platonic dialectic is the following process.

1. We begin with an inarticulate grasp of an idea or concept. The goal of dialectic is to fully articulate this knowledge.

2. Then we venture a provisional articulation.

3. We then test this articulation by comparing it to our inarticulate grasp. We have the capacity to simply “see” whether an articulation is adequate or not. Any serious attempt to articulate an idea we already possess implicitly will be at least partially true. Thus the way to test it is by totalizing it, by asking whether or not the proferred definition is not just part but the whole of justice, piety, etc. The way to test such a totalized definition is to use one’s knowledge of history, literature, and common sense to generate counterexamples: instances or scenarios that perfectly exemplify the definition that we are testing, but which reveal the definition to be incomplete in light of the very inarticulate grasp that we are trying to put into words.

4. Then, as each account is shown to be inadequate, it is then supplemented by additional distinctions or elements—finer and finer articulations.

5. This process can be repeated, until, it is hoped, we finally approach a complete articulation of the concept at hand, at which time dialectic grinds to a halt because no problems can be generated in terms of which the final account can be shown to be inadequate.

        [...]

Ibid.

2. Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Now let us compare the dialectic of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right to Plato’s. In the Philosophy of Right, Hegel states that “The subject-matter of the philosophical science of right is the Idea (Idee) of right, i.e., the Concept (Begriff) of right together with the actualization of that Concept” (PR 14).[5]

Concept + Concrete Actualization = Idea.

What Hegel means by the “actualization” of the Concept of right is its concrete realization in social institutions and practices. For Hegel, therefore, an Idea is nothing abstract. Concepts are abstract, but Ideas are the concrete actualization of Concepts—the world transformed in light of Concepts.

Hegel is too rigid and deterministic, of course, but he is mirroring something as the practical course of dialectic would go…

Greg says in his defense…

It is often claimed that Hegel’s phenomenology is not “reflective” but “speculative,” meaning that the Hegelian phenomenologist does not turn inward and reflect upon how things show up to us, or our ways of involvement with the world, but rather he simply looks outward at the Concept’s self-generation of determinations. It is also commonly claimed that Hegel’s phenomenology is presuppositionless, i.e., that it presupposes no determinate content, but simply the indeterminate Concept, which then generates determinations of its own internal “motion” without any external input on the part of the investigator.[6]

I wish, however, to argue that Hegel’s dialectic is actually much more “transcendental” than either he or his anti-foundationalist followers have claimed. Specifically, I wish to argue that a careful examination of actual dialectical arguments indicates that Hegel’s speculation is actually a form of reflection, i.e., (1) that all of the determinations of the Idea are latent in the Concept, such that Hegel’s dialectic can also be understood as explicative, as moving from the implicit to the explicit, and (2) that the implicit Concept is “possessed” by the dialectical investigator in such a way that dialectic is not the self­explication of the Concept, but rather the self-explication of the implicit knowledge of the dialectical investigator himself.

I also will argue that that Hegel’s dialectic is not presuppositionless at all, but rather represents the most advanced possible form of “dogmatism” or “positivism,” i.e., Hegel does not simply presuppose as “given” the rather innocuous determinate contents discussed by various empiricists—i.e., sense data, percepts, etc.—but rather Hegel presupposes all the contents…

This illustrates a similar misunderstanding that GW imputes to my efforts - that I am not working from facts and reality, but trying to impose concepts on facts, when in fact I am proceeding from facts.  ...then moving to working hypothesis and back to “empirical testing” and so on…

Greg’s discussion of the Heideggerian method is coming in part 2

Posted by Zeitgeist on religion on Mon, 26 Dec 2016 22:47 | #

Zeitgeist - segment on religion.

While informative on the sources of Judeo-Christianity, there is a slight of hand at the end of this segment wherein Europe’s problems and persecutions are blamed on Christianity in particular (and not particularly as sourced through Judaism) and the world’s problems are blamed on Religion generally and not largely as sourced through the Abrahamic prism of Judaism.

It’s a logical fallacy = “all are on the relatively bad list, such that it is not worth rendering an objective differentiation between them”: all religions are bad, therefore Judaism is no worse or more responsible than others.

All religions are bad, therefore Judaism is not worth singling-out.

Posted by Morgoth cites GW as major inspiration on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 09:08 | #

Hanging-out with Millennial Woes, Morgoth cites Guessedworker as his major inspiration in White activism. That’s nice..

But then there is the usual perfidy of the Alternative Right - “The Left” is the enemy and “The Left” are so flustered because “they” are losing. Guys, I know it’s hard to think, but just try:

The major adversaries to our racial interests, our racial systemic homeostasis and well being otherwise, are Jews and our own traitors - whose liberal betrayal is founded upon the idea that they are somehow objectively detached from their own racial interests - that can be because they think they are objectively better (or should be better than to be prejudiced, that they/we should accept “the objective facts”) and not be accountable to the limitations or peons of their race, or because they resent their own race and choose to side with the left of other races - but they are not of “the” Left, as in a “White Left”, inasmuch as they are betraying White, and nativist White, interests.

The major thing that Jews and de-racinated, White objectivist sell-out traitors - i.e., right wingers - have in common is that they want “the left” to be depicted as the enemy.

You guys of the alt-right are obliging them perfectly.

But what can I expect of Millennial Woes, who demanded that his link be removed from Majorityrights because I (DanielS) did not want (((The Truth Will Live))) defining “the Left and right” for us..

  .....really “deep.”

Posted by Hermeneutic Circle in Heidegger’s Being & Time on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 12:36 | #

Counter-Currents, “Notes on Philosophical Dialectic, Part 2”, 27 Dec 2016:

by Greg Johnson

Part 2 of 2

The Hermeneutic Circle in Heidegger’s Being and Time

Heidegger’s purpose in Being and Time[1] is to explore the question of the sense (Sinn) of Being (Sein). By “Being” Heidegger means the meaningful presence of beings to a knower. By the “sense of Being,” Heidegger refers to the meaningful presence of meaning itself. The “sense” of Being has nothing to do with sense perception, but rather sense and nonsense, the whole realm of meaning. The sense of Being is what makes it possible for us to think about the meaningful presence of beings, the fact that we experience a world of meaning rather than a meaningless assemblage of mere things. So for Heidegger, there are things (beings), the meaningful presence of beings (Being), and the meaningful presence of meaning itself (the sense of Being).

Meaning is not just the meaning of things, it is also meaning to a knower, which Heidegger calls Dasein. Dasein is a German word for existence, but Heidegger hears it as a compound of da (here and there, in the sense of location) and Sein (Being). Thus Heidegger does not speak of the human subject or consciousness. Instead, he speaks of Dasein, the “place” or “location” where beings become meaningful.

For Heidegger, Dasein and Sein, man and meaning, have a reciprocal relationship. There cannot be man without meaning, or meaning without man. Because man and meaning, Dasein and Being, belong together, it is natural to employ our knowledge of who we are in order to understand the sense of Being:

Thus to work out the question of Being adequately, we must make a being—the enquirer—transparent in his own Being. . . . The explicit and transparent formulation of the question of the meaning of Being requires a proper explication of a being (Dasein) with regard to its Being. (SZ 7, BT 27, BW 48)

As in Hegel and Plato, so too in Heidegger, philosophical investigation is ultimately a matter of self-knowledge and self-explication. This gives rise to the hermeneutic method of Being and Time:

Inquiry, as a kind of seeking, must be guided beforehand by what is sought. So the sense of Being must already be available to us in some way. As we have intimated, we always conduct activities in an understanding of Being. . . . We do not know what “Being” means. But even if we ask, “What is Being?,” we keep within an understanding of the “is,” though we are unable to fix conceptually what that “is” signifies. We do not even know the horizon in terms of which that sense is to be grasped and fixed. But this vague average understanding of Being is still a fact. (SZ 6, BT 25, BW 45–46).

Heidegger claims that “What we seek when we inquire into Being is not something entirely unfamiliar, even if at first we cannot grasp it at all” (SZ 6, BT 25, BW 46).  Heidegger then asks, “But does not this undertaking fall into an obvious circle?’’ (SZ 7, BT 27, BW 48).

If we must first define a being (Dasein) in its Being, and if we want to formulate the question of Being only on this basis, what is this but going in a circle? In working out our question, have we not “presupposed” something which only the answer can bring? (SZ 7, BT 27, BW 48)

The logical fallacy of circular argument, or begging the question, means making the conclusion one seeks to establish one of the premises of the argument. If we have to presuppose that we know the sense of Being in any attempt to elucidate it, is this not a circular argument? Having raised this problem, Heidegger then goes on to answer it:

Factically though there is no [vicious] circle at all in formulating our question as we have described. One can determine the nature of beings in their Being without necessarily having the explicit concept of the sense of Being at one’s disposal. . . . This “presupposing” of Being has rather the character of taking a look at it beforehand, so that in the light of it the entities presented to us get provisionally articulated in their being. . . . Such “presupposing” has nothing to do with laying down an axiom from which a sequence of propositions is deductively derived. It is quite impossible for there to be any “circular argument” in formulating the question about the sense of Being; for in answering this question, the issue is not one of grounding something by such a derivation; it is rather one of laying bare the grounds for it and exhibiting them. (SZ 7-8, BT 27-28, BW 49)

The Heideggerian solution to this problem is that we always-already know the sense of Being, but in a vague and tacit way. This makes inquiry possible. But we wish to know clearly and explicitly. Thus the vagueness and tacitness of our knowledge makes inquiry necessary. Thus inquiry is a process of explication or interpretation (Auslegung) in which an implicit, tacit knowledge is made explicit and articulate. This is not a vicious circle, for we are not deducing a conclusion from a ground, but rather descriptively laying bare the ground from which a deduction can proceed. It is, loosely speaking, an “inductive” not a deductive process.

Heidegger does, however, call it a hermeneutical circle. A hermeneutical circle is a process in which each part of a text being interpreted is understood in the context of the whole, while at the same time our understanding of the whole is being slowly constructed out of the parts. Heidegger’s process wherein the inarticulate is rendered articulate could be interpreted as a hermeneutical circle as follows. First, one advances a tentative articulation of one’s subject matter. Then one circles back, testing this account against one’s inarticulate grasp of the matter to be articulated, progressively supplementing each new account to accord better with the matter to be articulated.

But this is precisely what both Hegel and Plato—as I have construed them—are doing. Hegelian and Platonic dialectic both are a process whereby tacit, inarticulate knowledge is rendered explicit and articulate. Hegelian-Platonic dialectic moves with in a hermeneutical circle.

But if Plato and Hegel can be read as hermeneutical thinkers, does this mean that Heidegger is a dialectical thinker? The answer is yes. Heidegger does not, of course, describe himself as a dialectical thinker. The early Heidegger calls his activity phenomenology (which is couched in the language of reflection and description), and the later Heidegger calls it simply thinking. But, as we shall see in our discussion of Husserl on parts and wholes, there is a sense in which phenomenology is dialectical as well as reflective and descriptive. To put it paradoxically, “dialectic” is a better description of the activity of phenomenology than description itself. Beyond that, Heidegger’s “thinking” is always attuned to what is missing from the standard positions in the history of philosophy, the larger hidden contexts in which these ideas make sense, and this is essentially the activity of dialectic.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:26 | #

Millennial Woes Hangout.

The Essence of the Left

http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/08/the-essence-of-the-left/

Muslims vs Whites.  Don’t shoot the messenger.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/01/10/albert-pike-to-mazzini-august-15-1871-three-world-wars/

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 20:54 | #

We’ve already established that Millennial Woes is as gullible as it gets when it comes to “left and right”...  Greg Johnson and the rest of the Alt-Right aren’t much better.

If one is a Jew, who does he want people blaming? Jews? or does he rather want people to blame “the left.” ?

If one is a deracinated, right wing elitist sell-out, who does he want blamed? Also the left.

The problem is not the left, not a White left, anyway, but primarily the Jews and the right, with its proneness - naively or disingenuously - to un-accountable abstraction; that is the crux of the problem in the disruption of racial homeostasis.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 06:48 | #

If you don’t like abstractions then why are you down on Nietzsche?  His philosophy is about as non-abstract as it gets.  It is a philosophy of balls, plain and simple.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 20:31 | #

On the contrary, Nietzsche panders to puerile female predilection - it is virtually a homosexual perspective in the way it fawns over sheer masculinity. Richard Thpenther likes it - “its tho edgy”

Posted by Millennial Woes doxed on Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:32 | #

Mirror,</a> 9 Jan 2017: “Racist vlogger who became global YouTube sensation unmasked”

...etc., so the headline and the hit piece reads.

On 5 June ‘15, Millennial Woes came to Majority Rights and left a comment * insisting that his link be removed from this site because I, DanielS, would not accept his friend, The Truth Will Live, a.k.a. (((Ruth))), as a part of our struggle, let alone as having a place to define our terms. I consider his position in her regard to have been naive at best, but probably more like an unsavory deal with the tentosphere. I really don’t approve of this defense of the Jewish tent of the tentosphere. In addition, his going along with the Alt-Right’s attribution of “THE Left” as the enemy is unacceptable; finally, he is annoying in coupling this attempt to join the Alt-Right in muting our platform, while perhaps garnering some of our ideas and auguring to misdirect them.

Even so, the doxing and smearing of him by a purportedly objective news source, The Mirror, is way out of line. Even I don’t think he is remotely that bad or that he deserves that. But then again, beware the right, Alt-Right too - it’s an unstable arrangement - the right has come back to bite countless adherents and those with misfortune to find themselves on the other side of their reactions over the years.

* The post is called “The Lies Will Try To Live But They’re Not White, They’re Jewish.” The Millennial Woes comments that I am referring to are comments #6, #14 and #17 dated 3 - 5 June 2015.

Posted by Millennial Woes on Wed, 03 Jun 2015 12:27 | #6

Ruth, who has the channel “The Truth Will Live”, is a close friend of mine. She and I speak regularly about the key issues of the alt-right, including the JQ, and she is on-board with all of it. In particular, residing in a Somali-heavy area of the US, she has to deal with their shit just like the rest of us do, and she hates it and opposes immigration from the Third World as wholeheartedly as any of us do.

To repeat, she is a close friend of mine and I know that she is a good, kind, decent person. I think it is wrong of you to besmirch her unless you have some evidence that she is a fake.

PS. And no, she didn’t ask me to write this post! AFAIK she doesn’t even know about this article.

Posted by Millennial Woes on Fri, 05 Jun 2015 11:41 | # 14

DanielS,

I understand your position, and I do understand the danger. However, I cannot stand by as my close friends are bad-mouthed when they have done nothing wrong whatsoever. (Note that you conflate Ruth’s statements with Rachel Haywire’s, when they are two very different people.)

Though I am grateful to your site for linking to my channel this last year or so, I ask you to remove that hyperlink now. I do not want to be associated with a site, however worthy it might be, that insults and dismisses my own friends.

Thank you, MW.

Posted by Millennial Woes on Fri, 05 Jun 2015 20:26 | # 17

DanielS   “One extreme is to do the Christian services bit, helping Africans to no end. The other is to not care.” She says it is wrong and extreme because they cannot take care of themselves well enough and it is the White man’s burden to help them.
 
This golden rule is one of the most Jewy things imposed on Whites from the Bible.

MW: That’s very strange, because it was I, a non-Jewish, non-religious, British-native white guy, who introduced Ruth to the idea that the White Man’s Burden is a real thing - having arrived at this belief myself without any help, Jewish or otherwise. I came up with it, of my own volition, based on my own observations of my (white, non-Jewish, non-religious) people.

DanielS   If you are that defensive of these women then we would view your link as a bum steer anyway.

MW: I don’t even know what that phrase means. All I’m asking for is decency. Without a shred of evidence, you are ascribing a calculating, deceitful nature to a woman who simply doesn’t have such a nature. If defending her makes me “defensive,” so be it.</blockquote>

Millennial Woes argues that I conflate Ruth and Rachel Haywire, but I do not. In fact, my position with regard to Ruth was developed with interviews of her alone. Nor was I picking on her without evidence or for trivial reasons - it is most important to separate White advocacy from her sort of influence. For the record, I did not conflate Ruth’s position with Rachel’s: Ruth wanted to define the left for us, to encourage Abrahamism, she said that she believes in “the White man’s burden” (that we owe help to Africans); and in the end she would pursues an agenda to have us treat Jews as a part of our cause, having kindred issues and concern for Western culture. But for a myriad of reasons, it is critical that there be White advocacy platforms free of Jewish influence (active influence, in particular), however benign it may appear (and the reason to discriminate against this one (((Ruth’s positions))) wasn’t really particularly hard to discern).

 

Posted by Some churches aligned 2return 2natural religion on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 05:08 | #

Hope for return to proper, natural religious function piques through Spanish missions in California - some were configured to illumination of the solstice: 

Posted by Celebrate Tynwald Day on Mon, 20 Feb 2017 04:50 | #

White Manxmen celebrate Tynwald Day, on the Isle of Man