|
|
|
The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right by Graham Lister For the philosophical communitarian, the Sartrean cogito, spontaneously reinventing itself ex nihilo, permanently free to choose and revise its definition of the good, is a fiction that pervades all modern liberalism. From Hobbes, Locke and Kant, through to Mill and Rawls, the rootless, solitary and “unencumbered self”, as Michael Sandel describes it, prior to and independent of its ends and rationally deliberating on the value of its voluntary attachments, is adopted as the starting point of social analysis. This conception of the subject, it is argued, precludes from the start the possibility of genuinely communal forms of association, of “constitutive” communities “bound by moral ties antecedent to choice”. This is why communitarians stress the cultural constitution of the subject, the way the individual forms his or her identity, sense of self, and intuitive system of values by inheriting and passing on an unchosen legacy of collective orientations, shared meanings and standards, networks of kinship and pre-contractual forms of solidarity which are a prerequisite for, rather than the outcome of, the subject’s capacity for moral commitment. Rising discontinuity is accompanied by the diversity of visible cultures and lifestyles. This is promoted by the density of urban populations, high social mobility and change, unprecedented choice for the individual consumer - albeit at the potential cost of a rapid decline in the overall diversity of our natural stocks - and the impact of transport and communications technology, especially on the tourist industry. Exposure to different forms of life, particularly those that are too exclusive or stylized to permit participatory understanding by outsiders, inevitably creates a sense of cultural relativism. Where ethnic, class, national and religious traditions do intermingle and combine, discrete cultural narratives are severed or reinvented, and hybrid cultural forms emerge which lack historical precedent, thus weakening the constitutive bonds between generations. There is also the well-documented impact of the mass media, another factor which has served to heighten many of the trends already noted. The entertainment media have encouraged the privatization of society and the decline of face-to-face interaction through which communal narratives are reaffirmed and passed on. The proliferation of sophisticated images has blurred the boundaries between the real and the imaginary and saturated social life with ubiquitous representations of novelty and difference, representations which typically incorporate easily identifiable elements of ordinary life and recycle them in impossibly exotic, erotic, and alluringly faultless images. Moral and cultural relativism reflects the success with which the media has, by providing simulated substitutes for human interaction, made us wide-eyed strangers to those lives and cultures whose basic elements - from the mundane aspects of work and play, to the feelings and puzzles which human existence gives rise to - we all share in common. At the same time, our insatiable appetite for remote and alien experience has attenuated our capacity to recover something of the child’s original wonder at the everyday world, to yield to a curiosity for the most familiar aspects of our surroundings, to find joy in the simple passage of the seasons, to marvel at the growth of children, to renew our affections and attachments without the aid of imported novelty and change. Today’s “imaginative hedonism”, this limitless and self-gratifying appetite for rootless novelty and conquest which seems so hostile to our need to re-establish an ethic of self-limitation, is not a “postmodern” phenomenon, as is largely assumed, but is better described as a characteristic of “hyper-modernity”, in which society has failed to steer the emancipatory dynamic of modernity towards a political end. Daniel Bell saw it as a radical extension of the trends in modernist culture itself, reinforced by the hedonistic compensatory mechanisms of organized capitalism. Christopher Lasch believed its origins lie in our failure to achieve psychological individuation, a process demanding that we repudiate our memories of pre-natal bliss and find connections with a world that is independent of our wishes yet responsive to our needs. Robert Bellah and his colleagues identified the clear emergence of this “expressive individualism” in nineteenth-century America, contrasting it with a scientific culture of utilitarian calculation to which it was both a reaction and a complement. And with greater precision, Colin Campbell has located the religious source of the consumerist outlook in the Pietist strand of the same Protestant ethic that helped generate the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism. For the philosophical communitarians, then, it is the cultural and historical heritage of individuals, their identities as “bearers of a tradition”, which provides the moral particularity essential for an authentic life. In MacIntyre’s account, it is the roles and attachments of one’s family, one’s profession, one’s city or nation, which incur “a variety of debts, inheritances, rightful expectations and obligations” that “constitute the given of my life, my moral starting point”. This theme is taken up by Sandel, who rejects what he refers to as liberalism’s depiction of a “deontological” self whose identity is never tied to its aims or attachments. He writes:
A person without such constitutive attachments, Sandel continues, would be lacking in moral character and depth:
The “deontological self” which is the starting point to liberal contract theory is, by contrast, a self so bereft of character that it is incapable of self-knowledge, and therefore self-direction. Being “unencumbered” by its conception of the good, having no attributes and aims other than those it has voluntarily chosen, its enquiry into its own motives and ends “can only be an exercise in arbitrariness”. Sandel’s belief that “some relative fixity of character appears essential to prevent the lapse into arbitrariness which the deontological self is unable to avoid”, is shared by MacIntyre, who sees the work of Sartre as the epitome of this liberal individualism. Should we follow MacIntyre and dispense with Sartre’s existentialism for depicting “a self that can have no history”, that is “entirely distinct from any particular social role which it may happen to assume”, and that creates a human life “composed of discrete actions which lead nowhere, which have no order”? Comments, thoughts, reactions? Comments:2
Posted by dc on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:45 | # Lovely, lovely! Can you do it again? Never thought you’d try “speaking in tongues”. My thanks for the chuckle. 3
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:02 | # I feel like I’ve encountered the verbal equivalent of the “Yellow Mist” Søren used to fog James Bowery in der Voxelhaus. But, I am resolved to first fight the fog, and only after vanquishing it will I seek to eliminate its source. 4
Posted by uh on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:13 | # tl; dr — jk!!
A political end precludes ‘emancipation’, presupposes its opposite. Criticizing liberalism is one side of the story; nationalists themselves are on the life support provided by the same system that affords the hedonist underlings their bread & pills, and what’s more, have only just begun to turn against the free society that flows from the very blood (‘genes’) Guessedworker invokes above. More exactly, our own race is the root of the problem. And even if we could overcome our own inclination to fairness, nationalism cannot, without immense unfairness dwarfing those history book fables, reckon with enfranchised multi-millions in residence in its lands, and with good reason — a nation has never had to deal with a problem so acute and plain big. It demands of men, men who have turned their backs on blood, a thirst for blood not seen since the Yugoslav Wars. And we are not those men! But Guessedworker’s comment is priceless. Next time I am pressed to give account of my worldview, I will repeat that last line, word for word. 5
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:47 | # @GW Those introductory comments are nothing like the final word on (or from) the communitarian tradition. After all the most coherent societies are those with the least diversity – that is to say built upon a maximalist bedrock of ethno-linguistic homogeneity. Of course communitarian discourse has its own internal spectrum from right to left but why not build a powerful critique of multiculturalism et al., from within its framework? Could the likes of Griffin et al., even begin to articulate such a case? Also a parallel tradition – that of virtue ethics – comes in for ferocious criticism from liberal circles as it is accused of always being rooted in cultural particulars and not the abstract universal. Precisely! That is the greatest virtue of virtue ethics (pardon the pun). It’s really part of developing the map of the problématique – no that’s not one of my semi-regular typos - the problématique is a French concept that has been defined as both the art of formulating a problem and as the presentation the various aspects of a problem. The assumption behind the problématique is that a question or problem needs analysis before it can be answered properly, because any question or problem tends to be more complex than might at first be thought. Problematization involves making the implicit explicit. This may mean no more than the identification and application of appropriate technical terminology, but often goes beyond this. The problématique may ultimately consist of breaking down an original question into a number of individual questions and then organizing those new questions into an appropriate hierarchy. But at least no aluminium-foil was harmed in the production of this thread. 6
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:10 | #
I will not be foiled by Yellow Misters! 7
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:18 | # @Jimmy The thing I like about you Jim is at least you have a sense of humour; which is refreshing around these parts. 8
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:33 | #
I have a comment, a thought, and a reaction: What is this Mickey Mouse bullshit? (note: those cruel words are best served with charming Croatian accent). Dr Graham did it again: he mastered a treatise on liberalism without mentioning the J word one single time. What is the purpose of discussing a disease in arabesque styled language while carefully avoiding the cause of the disease? 9
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:39 | #
The thing I don’t like about you Dr Graham is you have no sense of humour at the least; which is depressing around these parts. 10
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:10 | # @Ivan Hobbes, Locke and Kant, through to Mill and Rawls are all those J-things? Are you sure? Is not the burden of proof upon those that subscribe to the ‘Icke-Richards conjecture’ to account, via their exceedingly inflationary explanatory scheme, for both the gestation and trajectory of the entire Western liberal tradition in political, economic and social thought, in their own suggested monocausal terms? Sense of humour you say? Oh diddums did you sit on your aluminium-foil hat again? Now I understand why you might be depressed…still I can think of one or two long-running jokes at MR. 11
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:22 | # Thank you, Graham. But, as I suspect of the Yellow Mist, my humor is employed as a defense mechanism to momentarily obscure the horror I feel as weapons of mass destruction steam toward the Straights of Hormuz. It is beyond the powers of my imagination to envision a cause for this impending disaster without recourse to an indictment of the institutions of Jewry and the usurious nature of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. If such a view depends heavily on aluminum, I appear to be in the company of prescience. 12
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:04 | # @Dr Graham There is no such thing as mono causal event. Neither J Richards nor I claim that there is one. Strictly speaking, everything in the universe is related, one way or the other, and affected by any other thing in the universe. When we say this event was caused by that event, that does not mean that all other things did not have any impact on the cause-event arrow. As a Dr you should know that when we speak of a cause, all it means is that the event we consider as the cause was the most immediate and the most significant one, in comparison to which all others can be safely ignored as having insignificant impact on that arrow. And that is exactly what is meant by saying: the germs cause the diseases. We know what the disease is - liberalism is the disease. And we have a very simple task at our hands: to identify the KEY cause of that disease. What you are doing is anything but identifying that KEY cause. All your mumbo-jumbo is nothing but obfuscation. What is more, it looks to me that the obfuscation is not due to your stupidity - the obfuscation is deliberate. 13
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:27 | # For those interested the original quotes are from/and works mentioned are (in no particular order): Michael Sandel, “The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self”. Michael Sandel, “Liberalism and the Limits of Justice”. Daniel Bell, “The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism”. Christopher Lasch, “The Culture of Narcissism”. Robert Bellah et al., “Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life”. Colin Campbell, “The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism”. Alasdair MacIntyre, “After Virtue”. Apologies if this list lowers the intellectual tone from its normally stellar heights, eh Ivan et al.,? @Jimmy Well in any complex situation there can be many interacting causal factors at work. For example, the likelihood of death occurring from an infectious agent depends upon the virulence of the pathogen itself, the efficacy of its transmission vector or mechanism, the robustness of the hosts immune system, the nature and timing of any medical treatment, the cleanliness (or not) of the environment, the access to clean water and fresh food etc. Under the wrong conditions flu can be a killer but normally it isn’t. Equally there can be primary symptoms and then secondary ones etc., in any disease process. Now I just know that analogy is going to be wildly misread!
14
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:56 | #
Yes it does, and your apologies are accepted.
It takes the genius of Dr Graham to obfuscate this admirably simple and lucid thought.
A Jew takes a shit right in the middle of Red Square and exclaims: Now I just know that I will be mistreated for my innocent action of civil disobedience! I guess that’s how jokes come to existence. All credit for this joke should go to Dr Graham. 15
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:04 | #
Its a double-whammy, Grahammy: The pathogen in question incorporates not only the inexorable logistics of its own vampiric porosis, but also works to introduce third party pathogens to hasten the host’s mortality. A theory of Jewish virulence put forth by James Bowery is that it evolves from horizontal transmission of Jews between nations, in the form of repeated migration, since at least Babylonian times. Moreover, since diaspora Jews have become dependent on virulence for survival they promote immigration and naturalization laws that are friendly to horizontal transmission more generally, resulting in virulence evolving in other populations. This makes Jewish virulence more analogous to immunosuppression virulence, such as HIV creates. This theory of Jewish virulence is complementary to both Kevin MacDonald’s thesis documented in The Culture of Critique and to Richard Faussette’s Niche Theory. Under Bowery’s hypothesis, Jewish virulence evolved from the following horizontal transmission cycle (see Richard Faussette’s Niche Theory for a possible starting point): 16
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:31 | # <h2>Criticism of Dr. Graham Lister’s argument: Part 1</h2> Dr. Lister fails to account for libertarianism and the dialectic paradigm of narrative! “Class is intrinsically a legal fiction,” says Marx. Thus, Werther[1] suggests that we have to choose between textual narrative and submodern Marxism. The characteristic theme of Hamburger’s[2] analysis of textual neosemanticist theory is a mythopoetical totality. The premise of the dialectic paradigm of narrative holds that the Constitution is elitist, but only if sexuality is interchangeable with consciousness; otherwise, Sontag’s model of prestructural materialism is one of “textual capitalism”, and thus fundamentally unattainable. However, an abundance of theories concerning not construction, but neoconstruction may be found. If one examines textual neosemanticist theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept subcapitalist discourse or conclude that truth is capable of social comment. Sartre promotes the use of libertarianism to modify sexual identity. It could be said that Derrida’s essay on textual neosemanticist theory suggests that the purpose of the poet is significant form. In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the distinction between closing and opening. The subject is contextualised into a dialectic paradigm of narrative that includes narrativity as a whole. Therefore, in JFK, Stone affirms libertarianism; in Heaven and Earth, however, he deconstructs textual desublimation. Any number of theories concerning libertarianism exist. It could be said that if neodialectic cultural theory holds, we have to choose between libertarianism and the postmaterial paradigm of reality. Many desemioticisms concerning the role of the reader as writer may be discovered. However, the primary theme of the works of Stone is the common ground between class and sexual identity. De Selby[3] states that we have to choose between textual neosemanticist theory and capitalist sublimation. In a sense, the characteristic theme of la Fournier’s[4] analysis of libertarianism is a self-falsifying totality. If the dialectic paradigm of narrative holds, we have to choose between libertarianism and neodeconstructivist socialism. Therefore, Buxton[5] suggests that the works of Joyce are an example of mythopoetical Marxism. The premise of textual neosemanticist theory holds that consensus is created by the collective unconscious. However, the subject is interpolated into a libertarianism that includes sexuality as a whole. References 1. Werther, B. E. C. (1984) Libertarianism and textual neosemanticist theory. Loompanics 2. Hamburger, I. F. ed. (1973) Cultural Discourses: Libertarianism in the works of Gaiman. Cambridge University Press 3. de Selby, E. (1980) Textual neosemanticist theory and libertarianism. Loompanics 4. la Fournier, J. B. ed. (1999) The Circular Fruit: Libertarianism in the works of Joyce. And/Or Press 5. Buxton, S. (1983) Libertarianism and textual neosemanticist theory. Loompanics 17
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:32 | # <h2>Criticism of Dr. Graham Lister’s argument: Part 2</h2> Whereas Dr. Lister talks about the communitarian critique of liberalism, it’s mighty surprising that he fails to address modern nationalism in the works of Gibson. In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the concept of precapitalist culture. Several narratives concerning the role of the reader as writer may be found. The characteristic theme of Brophy’s[1] critique of patriarchial neotextual theory is a self-supporting paradox. However, the example of modern discourse intrinsic to Mona Lisa Overdrive emerges again in The Burning Chrome. The main theme of the works of Gibson is not theory, as Marx would have it, but posttheory. It could be said that in Neuromancer, Gibson denies Baudrillardist hyperreality; in Virtual Light Gibson deconstructs the precapitalist paradigm of narrative. The characteristic theme of Wilson’s[2] model of modern discourse is a postdialectic whole. In a sense, the premise of modern nationalism implies that expression must come from the collective unconscious. Bailey[3] states that we have to choose between materialist deconceptualism and modern nationalism. Therefore, the primary theme of the works of Gibson is the role of the artist as reader. Foucault uses the term ‘modern discourse’ to denote the bridge between reality and sexual identity. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a that includes narrativity as a paradox. If modern discourse holds, we have to choose between poststructural discourse and the precapitalist paradigm of narrative. “Consciousness is part of the rubicon of culture,” says Marx; however, according to la Tournier[4] , it is not so much consciousness that is part of the rubicon of culture, but rather the economy, and subsequent rubicon, of consciousness. However, Pickett[5] suggests that the works of Gibson are empowering. If modern nationalism holds, we have to choose between modern discourse and the precapitalist paradigm of narrative. Thus, a number of discourses concerning capitalist narrative exist. Baudrillard uses the term ‘the precapitalist paradigm of narrative’ to denote the genre, and eventually the collapse, of postcultural class. In a sense, the characteristic theme of Hanfkopf’s[6] critique of the capitalist paradigm of narrative is the difference between society and sexual identity. An abundance of deconstructions concerning the role of the poet as observer may be revealed. References 1. Brophy, H. ed. (1978) Modern nationalism in the works of Burroughs. Schlangekraft 2. Wilson, R. F. M. (1980) The Genre of Class: The precapitalist paradigm of narrative and modern nationalism. And/Or Press 3. Bailey, R. Y. ed. (1973) Modern nationalism and the precapitalist paradigm of narrative. O’Reilly & Associates 4. la Tournier, H. (1981) The Discourse of Absurdity: The precapitalist paradigm of narrative and modern nationalism. Loompanics 5. Pickett, C. J. ed. (1975) Modern nationalism in the works of Cage. O’Reilly & Associates 6. Hanfkopf, E. (1987) The Forgotten Sky: The precapitalist paradigm of narrative in the works of Stone. Oxford University Press 18
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:35 | # <h2>Criticism of Dr. Graham Lister’s argument: Part 3</h2> Failure to address prepatriarchialist nationalism It could be said that a number of deappropriations concerning prepatriarchialist nationalism exist. Debord uses the term ‘submodernist semanticism’ to denote the common ground between society and class. But the main theme of Dahmus’s[1] critique of the postdialectic paradigm of expression is the role of the artist as participant. If the textual paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between prepatriarchialist nationalism and textual semanticism. In a sense, Baudrillard suggests the use of the textual paradigm of discourse to deconstruct class divisions. Sartre’s model of the submodern paradigm of context implies that sexual identity, surprisingly, has significance. However, the example of the textual paradigm of discourse prevalent in Spelling’s Charmed is also evident in Models, Inc., although in a more mythopoetical sense. Several theories concerning not narrative as such, but prenarrative may be revealed. In a sense, Drucker[2] suggests that we have to choose between postdialectic capitalist theory and preconceptualist socialism. If one examines the textual paradigm of discourse, one is faced with a choice: either accept submodernist semanticism or conclude that academe is meaningless. The subject is contextualised into a prepatriarchialist nationalism that includes culture as a totality. But Finnis[3] holds that we have to choose between the textual paradigm of discourse and Lacanist obscurity. Prepatriarchialist nationalism implies that narrative comes from the masses, but only if Debord’s model of subtextual discourse is invalid; otherwise, we can assume that reality is capable of truth. However, the subject is interpolated into a submodernist semanticism that includes truth as a paradox. If capitalist neotextual theory holds, we have to choose between prepatriarchialist nationalism and Batailleist `powerful communication’. In a sense, Lacan suggests the use of capitalist nihilism to deconstruct class divisions. The subject is contextualised into a textual paradigm of discourse that includes art as a reality. However, many theories concerning submodern discourse exist. Marx promotes the use of the textual paradigm of discourse to attack and read society. But the subject is interpolated into a dialectic paradigm of reality that includes sexuality as a paradox. In The Heights, Spelling deconstructs prepatriarchialist nationalism; in Beverly Hills 90210, however, he denies the textual paradigm of discourse. Therefore, Buxton[4] suggests that we have to choose between Baudrillardist hyperreality and neodeconstructivist socialism. The subject is contextualised into a textual paradigm of discourse that includes culture as a whole. Thus, Bataille suggests the use of prepatriarchialist nationalism to challenge sexism. References 1. Dahmus, K. L. H. (1974) Marxist capitalism, nihilism and submodernist semanticism. And/Or Press 2. Drucker, N. U. ed. (1981) Deconstructing Derrida: Prepatriarchialist nationalism and submodernist semanticism. Harvard University Press 3. Finnis, O. D. ed. (1984) The Collapse of Consensus: Submodernist semanticism and prepatriarchialist nationalism. Loompanics 4. Buxton, R. (1990) Prepatriarchialist nationalism in the works of Rushdie. And/Or Press 19
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:39 | # <h2>Summary of Criticism of Dr. Graham Lister’s argument, for the layperson</h2> In the three-part criticism of Dr. Lister’s argument above, a computer was used to generate text from recursive grammar that’s of comparable scholarship to Dr. Lister’s thesis: a meaningless seemingly-academic thesis that’s pure nonsense. The readers can generate such texts and criticisms of Dr. lister’s argument for themselves by visiting the following pages and refreshing the page to get a new randomly generated article manifesting the fine scholarship of Dr. Lister: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ For those interested in the context, my awareness of the type of scholarship by Dr. Lister came about when a professor shared his frustrations over the sociologists attacking the sciences for no valid reasons. The professor’s lamentations struck a chord because I, too, had encountered literature on all the biases and world views I allegedly possessed for having certain beliefs, biases and world views that were alien to me. As far as the professor and I were concerned the only reason we held certain beliefs that these sociologists found offensive was that we had encountered evidence and had done some analysis. I also noticed that whereas the professor had some world views to share, I hadn’t developed world views to fit the same factual items, data and information that we agreed upon. So I had more of a reason to be outraged because even if I could be accused of biases, I had yet to develop major world views! The matter had to be investigated and the problem was traced to the postmodernist school of thought coming from the Frankfurt School. The attacks coming from sociologists had frustrated a large number of scientists. A Physicist, Alan Sokal, came up with a purely nonsense article on physics and postmodernism and managed to get it published in a well-ranked sociological journal. Then he exposed what he did and that was a big strike against these miserable creatures: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/ The postmodernism generators are part of a further expose of these postmodernist sociologists. My initial understanding of the Frankfurt School was that it was a development in sociology aimed, not toward understanding social phenomena, but to effect some types of social change and undermine all attempts that would interfere with this social change. They have a discipline called “deconstruction,” which they use to undermine an argument they don’t like by assigning ludicrous viewpoints to their opponents and never discuss the factual bases behind the opponent’s argument. This is ad hominem by a different name, dressed in pseudo-academic babble. Dr. Lister’s on record at MR for indulging in this behavior, refusing point blank to address facts pertaining to some very specific fact-based arguments of mine that he loathes. It’s relatively recent that I’ve understood that the Frankfurt school was 100% kosher and purely intended to implement Jewish goals. The Frankfurt School is a prominent aspect of the manifesto that was released in the context of the Norwegian massacre on July 22, 2011, and I’ve covered the circumstances leading to the development of the Frankfurt School, listing mainstream scientific criticism of postmodernist sociology, and much more, including a pdf of Kevin MacDonald’s work on Jews and the Frankfurt School: http://www.majorityrights.com/norwegian.massacre#manifesto The reader can note the complete absence of any useful information in Dr. Lister’s piece by noting his response to Ivan. Suppose that a person mentions that in America blacks are much more likely to commit violent crimes than whites, and are disproportionately responsible for the violent crime victimization burden of America. How good is a counter-argument that says, “so we don’t have white muggers, rapists and murderers, do we?” and adds racist and supremacist motives to this person for mentioning something that’s verifiable, evident to any person who cares to observe, regardless of world view? Yet when Ivan points out that Dr. Lister’s thesis makes no reference to Jews, Dr. Lister comes up with a sarcastic retort, “but was this white liberal a Jew, was that white liberal a Jew?” and then makes a reference to aluminum foils, Icke, monocausality… discrediting by suggesting that the point is motivated by the harboring of stupid, retarded beliefs and conspiratorial nonsense… facts be damned. Starting here [scroll down all the way to the end of the discussion], Dr. Lister was pointed to hard evidence of a very small minority of people lying at the liberal extreme of the liberal—conservative dimension, and it’s very clear that the enforcement of liberal extreme policies on the population couldn’t possibly be a result of the indigenous liberal extremist population as there’s no way any sort of democratic voting could place them in positions of power to effect the enforcement on the population. What happened? Dr. Lister discombobulated, coming up with criticism of the scientific literature that showed that he either didn’t read what was provided to him or couldn’t understand it, and he revealed what exactly he’s been doing here. Claiming to have an advanced degree in the biological sciences, Dr. Lister’s treatment of the biological literature I referred him to showed no understanding of some fundamental concepts in the field, and Dr. Lister gave the game away by using terms/concepts such as “phenomenology,” straight out of the postmodernist cookbook, one that isn’t used in science! Dr. Lister is phony and a pseudo-scholar. Leon Haller, Dr. Graham Lister and other malicious, arrogant detritus have no respect for our education. They think they can fool us by using complicated words, but the only thing they achieve is to expose themselves in the process. 21
Posted by OMG Whitey on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:41 | # Paraphrasing: Moral relativism and a hostility to traditional cultural institutions keeps people from having a “true self” because they are simply a collection of randomly chosen experiences, more of a consumer than a man. “For the philosophical communitarians, then, it is the cultural and historical heritage of individuals, their identities as “bearers of a tradition”, which provides the moral particularity essential for an authentic life.” I can’t really disagree, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking this is “raising the intellectual tone” of the site. This is something some Tory in the Church of England might write for a Sunday sermon. Thanks to MVP J Richards for that great paper on recursive transition networks and the Dada Engine. “They have a discipline called “deconstruction,” which they use to undermine an argument they don’t like by assigning ludicrous viewpoints to their opponents and never discuss the factual bases behind the opponent’s argument.” Succinct. 22
Posted by OMG Whitey on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:54 | # “they promote immigration and naturalization laws that are friendly to horizontal transmission more generally” ... “Grab and convert wealth in easily transported forms” Hence the relentless drive for economic globalism, opposition to a Tobin tax, population resettlement, etc. TOQ once had an article about the Original Globalist Cult. The network of central banks can be seen as a parallel government, often working together against the domestic populations they ostensibly “serve.” 23
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:20 | # I’m rather busy watching the Superbowl (honestly it’s on the BBC) to response to all the interesting posts. Without self-aggrandizing I would suggest that if I don’t raise the tone at least I don’t radically lower it by discussion of the non-reality of various figures etc., and other toxic themes (in a less than epistemically sound manner I might add). And what CofE services have you been to lately OMG? - they do tend to be ultra-PC - reflects that whole Christian universalism thing. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:30 | # JR, I am sorry to tell you that I understood every word of Graham’s post. If anything, it was too rushed. It needed more time to unfold itself. That might be what gives the impression of a jargoniser on amphetamine. I struggle with some things - I am not numerate, for example. But I find non-Marxist philosophy a fairly open matter. I am sure everyone would with a little application. 25
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:32 | # Woke up this morning and wished I’d not 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:48 | # You may read “non-Jewish philosophy” for “non-Marxist philosophy”, if that would help, Jimmy: 27
Posted by OMG Whitey on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:53 | # “Without self-aggrandizing I would suggest that if I don’t raise the tone at least I don’t radically lower it by discussion of the non-reality of various figures etc., and other toxic themes (in a less than epistemically sound manner I might add).” I don’t understand how “discussion of the non-reality of various figures” would “lower” the intellectual tone, nor would a “toxic” theme necessarily lower the tone, would it? After all, “racism” is a “toxic” theme to most. I prefaced the CoE thing with “Tory” to suggest a conservative church marm type, forgive me if I get the details wrong, I’m an American. Taking out the rhetorical flourishes and ten dollar words and the essay makes a pretty pedestrian point, now doesn’t it? “Should we follow MacIntyre and dispense with Sartre’s existentialism for depicting “a self that can have no history”, that is “entirely distinct from any particular social role which it may happen to assume”, and that creates a human life “composed of discrete actions which lead nowhere, which have no order”?” Questions about the “self” and indeed consciousness are perhaps better understood through neuroscience as opposed to taking Satre too seriously. I think you may suffer from a crippled epistemology. 28
Posted by Ivan on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:11 | # Jimmy Marr, awakened by the doorbell buzz in the middle of the night, put on his robe, and peeping through the peephole asked: 29
Posted by Bo on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:49 | # The essay and comments were admirably lucid and concise, and there goes 15 minutes I will never see again. Lister’s first sentence was cleverly intended to impress, and it did. “For the philosophical communitarian, the Sartrean cogito, spontaneously reinventing itself ex nihilo, permanently free to choose and revise its definition of the good, is a fiction that pervades all modern liberalism.” But inventing a thing from nothing can never be a “reinventing,” it is just another inventing. And the rest of the essay is as pretentious and fraught. This was a good one, too. “Of course communitarian discourse has its own internal spectrum from right to left but why not build a powerful critique of multiculturalism et al., from within its framework?” The problem with that sentence is that multiculturalism arose from pluralism which came to the USA from Europe around 1890-1900, and finally managed to hatch itself into multiculturalism. However, multiculturalism hatched itself into multiracialism in the 1990s, which will shortly hatch itself into multinationalism, probably in the 2020s. Possibly it will be sooner in the UK what with Wales and Scotland acting the adolescent role. A critique of multiculturalism is far too late except as an explanation of an historical tragedy. Multiculturalism, like God, is dead. 30
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:50 | # Even when reading as non-Marxistic 31
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:20 | # From Hobbes, Locke and Kant, through to Mill and Rawls, the rootless, solitary and “unencumbered self”, as Michael Sandel describes it, prior to and independent of its ends and rationally deliberating on the value of its voluntary attachments, is adopted as the starting point of social analysis. Why? How did such a stupid idea wind up in the heads of such smart men? 33
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:09 | #
OK.
As it stands your definition of communitarianism merely describes another virtual reality entity of choice. The example of the Old Order Amish are available as an instructive contrast. They are not merely a religious community of like-minded persons. They are economically co-dependent. It is only in this context that the deterrent discipline of “shunning” can be fully understood. It is not merely a ‘social’ sanction, although it is and therefore exerts the greatest fear deterrent on Amish women. It is equally an economic sanction. Until comprehensive disciplines like these are available to pro-whites the non-Movement is doomed to remain just another momentary emotional choice of the liberal “Sartrean cogito, spontaneously reinventing itself ex nihilo, permanently free to choose and revise its definition of the good”.
All of these effects are enabled by and are a consequence of “multi-diversity” economics.
I think “atomization” is preferred to “privatization” as a description of what happened in the 20th Century. I am starting to doubt that “mass media” was either a primary causative factor or that it can ever play a major role in advancing the pro-white cause. Accumulating experience suggests that it cannot acquire its (fairly weak) mass power until other social-economic structures are destroyed. Put another way, a homogenized mass media was not a weapon of an alien elite coup. It is a tool subsequently used by a hostile elite to direct an atomized polity, similar to the way rails in a cattle chute direct cows in a feed lot or abattoir. As we are seeing in the US election cycles, the capacity of the “mass” media to positively galvanize individuals into action is subject to a law of rapidly diminishing returns. The Social Nationalist recognizes community structures that exist in between Rothbard’s false Hegelian paradigm of “individual” and “state”. “Family” is first stop after “individual”. Although to be perfectly honest, Rothbard also recognized non-state intermediary organizing structures to a degree. But in Jew Rothbard’s universe these were all (get your smelling salts, big surprise coming) simultaneously defined and commoditized by legal contracts valued in strictly monetary terms.
34
Posted by Helvena on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:22 | # @GW, “If anything, it was too rushed. It needed more time to unfold itself.” Please carry the thoughts further for us, perhaps then I won’t feel like I’ve been violated by a limber tongue. 35
Posted by Joseph Heller on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:07 | # Will noone rid of this troublesome priest Haller? The spam has more intellectual content and at least is true to its purpose. A few shots of platitudinous waffle distilled from other men’s thoughts, served over a mixer of whining pretension. It gives nauseau without even drinking it. 36
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:46 | # @Leon
fwiw, I really do believe you are a lawyer who probably attended an expensive school. Your mode of argument is suited to an adversarial proceeding. As is well known, lawyers will persist in advocating the most ridiculous propositions until they are either laughed out of court or are ejected by the bailiffs. They never admit fault and do not engage in any sort of Socratic discourse. You have clearly either been to law school and/or have spent many years in a yeshiva. However, I do not believe you are either studying Catholic theology or are a white nationalist. In you we have an example of; a. a “Catholic graduate theology student” who shamelessly boasts of regular fornication. b. a “white nationalist” who boasts of fornicating a non-white woman. Although you claim to do this I believe ‘she’ only exists at most in RAM as a graphic image. I lack sufficient imagination to envision a female of any species enduring more than one encounter with you. What is important is your claim to do this. c. A “white nationalist” who constantly tries to associate positive ideas and images with the word “Zionism”. d. Your love of money and Jewish economic ideas above all other things is well established. This kind of mocking contradictory behavior is typically associated with a short dirty looking ambulance chaser. I envision you as very short grungy-looking Jew like the pimp portrayed by Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy. This is the first time I have ever accused anyone of being a covert Jew troll. In your case I do so with a great deal of supporting evidence. p.s. Unlike Danielj my greatest hope is that you don’t reproduce and certainly don’t reproduce with a white woman. I think not having inflicted your genes on yet another generation is your sole virtue. 37
Posted by Not Impressed on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:46 | # “They are pretentious idiots, who offer a kind of facsimile of erudition is lieu of the real article.” I think that JRichard’s nailed the “false erudition” earlier in his reference to the Sokal hoax. Heller and Lister are boring twats dressing up truisms in fancy words to try to impress people, but any undergraduate English prof would mark the essay down for its showy verbiage. The essay is mostly content free, as is Heller’s breathless, thesaurus addled defense of it. “First, I am anti-deconstruction, because I absolutely believe in the possibility of metaphysics. Second, deconstruction is extremely complicated (and it is arguable there is less ‘there’ than there appears to be), but in essence, it is a radical critique of the possibility of metaphysics conducted by attempting to undermine the possibility of stable assignations of meaning. The deconstructionist focuses on the alleged indeterminacy of texts, positing a kaleidoscopic cosmos of interpretations where formerly there were thought to be hierarchies (ie, one understanding being better than another). Anyone with a scintilla of knowledge knows this tripe is associated with the late Derrida, an obnoxious leftwing Jew, to be sure, but not a “critical theory” ‘Frankfurter’.” This is an example of “false erudition” and Richards nailed these people in his discussion of pomo above. Lister and Heller are not just boring, but content free. The flowery language only appeals to those who wish to impress as opposed to making a clear point. It’s clear why discussion of science, physics, facts and evidence are routinely attacked here, about the so-called “existential issues” while pretentious crap spewed from the Listers and Hallers receive mutual reach-arounds from the usual suspects. “You are your own parody, a veritable (cyber)embodiment of the most unrivaled peevishness.” An excellent example of Jung’s idea of projection. What is the traditional solution to the meddlesome priests? Something about hanging them by their entrails? Now that is a tradition I can endorse. 38
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:01 | # @Leon and others with sensible comments, thanks. Yes atomization is a better term. The Sartrean cogito is of course not a scientific description but it is one of the most clear formulations of the absurd assumptions contained within liberal theory. At the level of lived experience if people really acted like the possessors of a Sartrean cogito – or indeed as Ayn Rand suggested - then the texture of that society would be very different from one with alternative values and differently grounded model of the self. That is why the issue is pretty damn important in my view. It was but a fragment of a longer piece, hence the rushed feeling and as both GW and Leon H. pointed out, the themes only touch the surface – it really was a test item. I mean at under 1500 words (seemingly far too much for some) how could it be otherwise? I don’t actually think it was a very difficult piece at all, in that it had no technical terms etc., (obviously some people have never read a serious piece of political philosophy). As for Richards and his tendency yes they are annoying (in so much as they do more harm than good in lots of ways – they should be ignored as a rule of thumb). I did explain what was generally wrong with their general methodology a while back. Discussion with the ‘raving nutter in the pub’ is a waste of anyone’s time. Intellectual honesty, a full and balanced assessment of all the available evidence etc., is the foundation of all serious enquiry which is sadly lacking in some characters around these parts. As for self-styled ‘elitists’ some middle-brow, middle-Americans do seem to run a mile from anything with several multisyllabic words, yes? As for Richards and his ‘biological insights’ two things: (i) they hardly represent the subject area in its totality (more cherry-picking of evidence) and (ii) the alleged specific qualities of different groups is very much a second order question - I’ve used this example before but it is useful – it could be frightfully nice ‘objectively’ superior ‘little green men’ with 200+IQs taking over the society I live in – the effects of becoming anything like a minority in a polity in which I was a member of the former majority group would largely be the same (i.e. a devastating loss of collective social and political power). That is political sociology 101. It is the persistent differentiation of groups and the political and social consequences of such within a society that is the issue. Think Northern Ireland or the partition of India – horrible and explosive intra-societal cleavages, not grounded in race, but mere politics and culture. Of course, ethnic origin can also be a source of very deep-rooted and persistent differentiation. However, in making your politics revolve around the polarity of inferiority-superiority, is to miss actually what is structurally important in the argument, as well to embrace a whole series of tropes that signal to a wider public moral turpitude, all for no positive gain whatsoever – unless of course being a marginal ‘martyred’ antinomian is how one gets one’s kicks, which frankly is the case with most WN types. I suspect they are a classic sub-culture in that sense. I’m not a WN, neo-Nazi, a fascist or whatever. I’m a European patriot with important and real ethnocentric concerns – quite a different beast so to speak. Let alone the added crackpot ‘conspiracy around every corner’ routine which again just signals to anyone remotely normal that they are dealing with fruit-loops; hence all of what they say can be safely dismissed. And people wonder why such ideas are so marginal and why the educated middle-class (a key group) generally avoid them (and the characters promoting them) like the plague. OK well Dan Dare suggested a while ago more book reviews and essays on wider cultural topics – if I can get GW to agree there might be one or two items of that type coming soon. Oh and now I see DC aka ‘Prof. Logic’ has now piped up – he wouldn’t know a post-modernist from Postman Pat - even if he was bitten on the arse by one or both. For the record, I and Mr. Haller do not agree on any number of issues. The sociological significance of religion being one, for example. On top of that I have also compared Catholicism to Voodoo – hardly Haller’s take on the topic. By the way Prof. Logic did you seriously respond to any of my posts concerning the faulty thinking typically displayed in ‘generic conspiracy’ talk and pseudo-scholarship? Finally returning to the content of the post – Leon is not both the suggestion that we have inter-generationally transmitted duties and obligations to our particular bio-cultural inheritance and a robust notion of the concept of moral particularism – both of which are not typically liberal thoughts – of interest to you in your own work? 39
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:18 | # Not impressed,
Who by? 40
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:18 | # I have no issue at all with identifying the demarcation between a closed epistemic community and an open one. Does ‘not impressed’? Indeed I can even tell the difference between pseudo-science and the real thing. One feature of real science is that it attempts to be systematic; one does not generally ignore data that goes against your hypothesis, nor at a meta-level does one ignore all the experimental and empirical evidence that might go against one’s hypothesis. Even if individual scientists act like a lawyer and put forward the best possible positive case for their hypothesis, the broader epistemic community of which they are a part will, in the long run, not allow significant counter-evidence or creditable alternative explanations to be ignored. It’s a pattern of confirmation and refutation that is seen in the history of science. There is a large and sophisticated literature - the philosophy of science - that has much, much more to say on such topics. Forgive me if I think it might be beyond the ability of people that think David Icke, or Richards are ‘thinkers’ to grasp even the basics of such debates. Science as a model is very good to think with. I’m no post-modernist. I do think there is an ontologically independent reality and we can gain real knowledge about. But funny enough when discussing political philosophy we not really debating, in any strict sense of the term, ‘scientific’ propositions are we? Unless ‘not impressed’ is of the ‘scientific socialism’ school of Marxism perhaps? 41
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:26 | # @Graham Lister Graham, no doubt many philosophers of science write creditable pieces on the scientific method, how it proceeds, ever edging closer to the truth and building up a larger more representative picture as it progresses. Yet when we look at scientific areas that have some level of contention we see a different picture resulting in reality world, do we not? Theory does not always agree with practice and in fact sometimes is wilfully used to obscure it. Reports from the frontline in the social sciences, biological sciences, psychology, environmental sciences (not to mention other fields such as philosophy, humanities and so on) are replete with stories of scientists who are shunned and smeared by their peers, whose leading journal doors are closed to their contributions, whose grants are rarely given for their fields of interest who struggle to proceed in their careers or find suitable positions or tenure. 42
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:03 | # <h2>Addendum to reply to Dr. Lister’s post</h2> Guessedworker @24
I don’t see why you should be sorry. I understood it, too. Let me expand on my understanding. Many of us in the sciences have learned how to deal with the likes of Dr. Lister. We’ve learned that it’s useless to cite scientific evidence because they couldn’t be less interested in facts, analysis of facts or evidence-based reasoning/conclusions. Lister et al. revel in the fact that a good deal of the scientific literature is beyond the common man and thus the common man can’t, via a reading of the scientific literature, be made to see through the empty arguments Lister et al. bring forth. So the facts used to expose these creatures had better be of a historical nature, if applicable, not because these postmodern sociologists/philosophers have any greater interest in historical facts but because the common man can be exposed to historical facts and thus made to see the garbage coming out of these individuals. The historical facts pertaining to liberalism remain a discussion for the future. The second approach is exemplified by Alan Sokal and the computer programs developed subsequently. One needs to talk to Dr. Lister et. al. in their own language. If I hadn’t added a comment to Parts1-3 of my criticism of Dr. Lister, you wouldn’t see him attempt to critique it, and he couldn’t critique it because if he attempted to to so, he couldn’t maintain that his own writing has any value——this is why a leading sociology peer-reviewed journal published Sokal’s nonsense paper. A third approach has been undertaken by a few researchers with apparently a lot of time on their hands. Anyone who can handle arcane words and concepts in science could easily handle the words and concepts coming from the likes of Dr. Lister. Now what happens if one looks up the references and traces back the development of the field/argument to the original sources? Those that’ve attempted this task noted that the bulk of the writings comprise of references to each other without any content, and by the time one arrives at the original sources, one doesn’t know whether to be amused or appalled. I’ve included these excerpts before, but if you look at the roots of much of the sociological understanding of political orientation, personality, etc., you end up with things like:
Now, because MacDonald has traced the matter to Jews, he’s beyond the pale of the mainstream, but you can look up the conclusions of the mainstream that has browsed the postmodernist sociological/philosophical literature to get to the original sources and figure out their development:
Now if you’ll recall, sociologist John Ray used to blog here. There were a couple of issues with his approach, and on one count he frustrated many but was in reality impeccable on scholarly grounds: his analysis of political orientation (left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative). Using statistical tools, Ray clearly showed that nationalists types [true, not phony hasbarim] were of a leftist political orientation and that national socialism was a leftist ideology. One can only imagine how outrageous this sounds to a large number of people, but in the decades of statistical literature Ray cited, nothing ever refuted him and not one critic ever attempted to challenge him on statistical methodology or scientific grounds. Starting from roots such as the excerpts MacDonald cites, the Frankfurt School and its developments such as postmodernist sociology led to a picture of political orientation that serves Jewish agenda, not reflecting underlying reality. Accordingly, a large number of people waste their time debating the structure of political orientation, and many are outraged at John Ray for using statistical tools to show what really underlies political orientation and at the behavior geneticists for confirming the structure of political orientation as argued by Dr. Ray. Dr. Lister openly discombobulates when I refer him to this literature from behavior genetics. But undeterred, Dr. Lister posts a “promising” article at MR that will supposedly show us the way out of our predicament if expanded into, say, something ten times as long. They’re wasting our time with nonsense and distractions. I’d advise you not to look to these individuals for an analysis or solution. The only “solution” coming from them is a Marxist twist on Hegelian dialectics: provide the thesis, provide the anti-thesis, provide the syn-thesis; no matter which you choose, with Jews you lose. 43
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:06 | # Joseph Heller @35
Sorry, this is one stubborn creature. I send his comments to trash as soon as I come across them. Unfortunately some people encourage him by replying to his posts. Trolls shouldn’t be fed. A couple of hours ago, I sent an incredible 15 comments to trash! Only two of these were reposts of trashed comments, a number were lengthy comments and one even stated that he’s too busy to blog at his own website! Haller had his own blog, but nobody ever commented on his useless posts: https://hallerontheright.wordpress.com/ So Haller scoured the net for where hasbarim activity is most needed, and unfortunately set his eyes on MR. Speaking of this creature being too busy to blog or even comment, Haller was recently challenged to a theological debate. The sincere Catholic that he is, he said that he had to go eat dinner, and a reader responded “I hope you eat shit faggot,” knowing fully well that Haller won’t be back to participate in the theological debate. Indeed, Haller was gone for two days, and when he came back, he said that whereas he’d like to comment, work was piling up and he won’t have much time for commenting for the next couple of months. And now look at how desperate he is to comment here: 15 posts, some lengthy, in less than half a day! 44
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:09 | # Dr. Lister @38, 40
In order to show that I’m cherry-picking and citing non-representative scientific literature, you’d need to cite the scientific literature I’m omitting and show that this was published in places prominent enough for me to not miss it. You’ve done nothing of the sort. As to your political sociology 101, if the ‘little green men’ with 200+IQs have benevolent attitudes toward the human species, humanity will benefit from them. Higher IQs don’t necessarily accompany a desire to subjugate or rule over others. And the analogy isn’t apt to anything relevant. We’re not dealing with separate species and extreme IQ differentials. We’re dealing with Jews, not “specific qualities of different groups,” and IQs are irrelevant to their success: http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/intelligence_or_control_of_the_money_supply
Irrelevant digression.
So when will you be citing the scientific studies/data I’m ignoring?
Postmodernist sociology/philosophy 101: discredit by association [even when I’ve never cited Icke to support any of my arguments], never address facts. 45
Posted by marloe on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:53 | # Richards why do you keep removing Leon Haller’s posts? I read them in Trash, and they are completely on point for this topic. Maybe because on the longer one he showed that you really don’t know what you’re talking about (I did a internet check, and from what I could tell he’s right)? I think this censorship is shameful, worse even than getting rid of a smart Jew or black because you don’t like them. Here it’s just personal antagonism. They do this at samizdat also (not to mention yahoo). If that isn’t true Jew behaviour, what is? I think Richards is a Jew out to make majorityrights look bad or creepy. 46
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:24 | # We can’t precisely characterize Dr. Lisper’s PhD as a creatio ex nihilo as he pryed it lovingly from the bottom of a Cracker Jack box. LOL 47
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:04 | # GW, Just what is so problematic for you in agreeing to Richards’ argument that Lisper is either a pretentious cunt rag or a lying kike? Also, it seems that in (ever so softly) defending Lisper against Richards’ withering barrage you are working at cross purposes with yourself. It was after all your decision to give Richards’, with full knowledge beforehand of his tactless eccentricity, Power of Kapo. Whither English Moralism? 48
Posted by anon on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:44 | # Liberalism (or applied universalism) is a NW European phenomenon rather than a white one. For Southern and Eastern Europeans the problem is the Liberalism of white people elsewhere - particularly in America because of the global hegemony of the federal government. So why did it evolve there, why was it so successful initially and why is it so maladaptive now? I think it happened because NW Europeans outbred (or outbred first) past a certain tipping point. I think the default human morality is blood-morality i.e. “me against my brothers, me and my brothers against my cousins, all of us against outsiders” and it’s the default morality because close intermarriage is the default human state. Imagine two villages that don’t intermarry at all and then say the default human state is that the moral value of a death is equal to your relatedness. If someone in your village dies then it matters a lot because you are highly related to them. If someone in the other village dies it doesn’t matter at all because you’re not related at all. Say the villages start to intermarry a little such that you’re a little less related to your own village and a little more to the other village. A death in your own village still matters a lot more but now a death in the other village matters a little. To put it in numbers, where you define relatedness as how many of your maximum 16 great-grandparents come from either of the two villages: relatedness 16-0: a death in your village matters infinitally more Close blood-ties act as a kind of gravitational force which pull a population’s moral balance towards particularism. If a population outbreeds then that force will gradually weaken until it reaches a point where an alternative morality becomes neccessary which has to be more universalist - the question is how much more. (nb Although Christianity is universalist no-one took any notice until the biological tipping point was reached.) If this is the case and liberalism only comes into existence among outbred populations then
is both quite literally the point but also the problem. If liberalism is a biological phenomenon then the blood part of blood by definition isn’t enough. The physical blood-tie needs to be leveraged somehow. One very clear, but probably unpopular, option is simply biological counter-liberalism which accepts the greater good as the arbiter but contests what provides it. To a large extent this is what conservatism was without realising i.e. most aspects of conservatism had evolved over time for a reason, but conservatives contested traditional morality against the liberal’s greater good on the basis of tradition rather than on the basis of the greater good and lost because most conservatives were liberals too (using my biological definition) and so are at least subconsciously swayed by arguments based on the greater good. It’s becoming ever more obvious that common blood, particularly in exogamous form, is a requirement for high social capital, high trust, prosperity, low crime etc so the argument would be an easy win if it was allowed to take place on a level playing field. .
I think liberalism exists (as a biological phenomenon) originally particularly focused on the educated upper middle class of NW Europe (although it’s spread much wider now) because they were the most outbred. What we’re living under is a left-liberalism modified to explicitly serve Jewish ethnic interests but they used a foundation that already existed imo. .
It so blindingly obviously was and still is i’m going to assume this opinion is based on a temporary blindness related to your later point.
That’s not what you’re seeing. The power of mass media is proportional to how trusted it is. Trust in the MSM is declining hence it’s power.
49
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:01 | #
It seems we have two options then, Wandrin, either get busy fucking our cousins or go with National Socialism (“we will militarise” as GW so quaintly puts it). Which would you prefer?
50
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:28 | # Richards, if you wish to carry on in the fashion of the self-styled Torquemada of counter-Semitism I think it would behoove you at this time to confess your own ancestry. Are you now or have you ever been a Limey? 51
Posted by anon on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:57 | # To put the same point in a more philosophical way. I don’t think most people in history had much of a sense of self. I think what happens among people who are very inbred i.e. the vast majority of the people who have ever lived, is they have a strong sense of themselves as part of their extended kin i.e. they feel part of a group organism. Outbreeding creates a void where that strong feeling used to be and out of that void comes the NW Euro cogito ergo summing for a sense of self to replace nature’s instinctive immersion in a small and localized kin-mesh. A replacement sense of self for an outbred individual might come from accepting that reality and adopting a hyper-individualistic Nitchyism. A blood-orientated alternative might be a conscious and wakeful submerging in a broader kin-mesh entered partly on an intellectual level - a bit like those advanced scifi races who are always telepathic - a sense of self as part of a collective intelligence or Auftragstaktikmensch. You could almost imagine that is what ultra-liberals are trying to do when they try and submerge themselves into the human race - except that’s too far, at least for now - as proved when they get eaten by Haitians.
There are two we’s. The less outbred “we” can follow a standard nationalist path and either work or hope for the collapse of US hegemony so the liberalized whites are no longer in their way. The outbred “we” should go the Auftragstaktikmensch (to coin a phrase) way which leads by trial and error in whichever direction works best.
52
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:18 | #
It’s because Hobbes discourse, created to defend centralization of government and the monarchy, fails if individual liberty does not exist.
The individual is at liberty, per Hobbes, to chose life over death. 53
Posted by Momus is my homeboy! on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:39 | # Sorry I know I shouldn’t but I can’t help myself. The Icke-Richards conjecture in the form of a rather pithy song – Space Jews! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1UUgAmNMw0 From the ever wonderful Momus (not the Greek god). The original Momus was, in Greek mythology, the god of satire and mockery (if anyone didn’t know). OK so from here on in if the Aluminium-foil brigade want to do their thing I’ll leave them in peace to outline the latest twists and exciting turns in the conspiracy that is human history. 54
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:00 | # CC, It is the long-standing policy of this blog to accommodate but not represent all opinion, and to allow the natural competitive process free rein (within English law). This requires a level of tolerance that JR will not or cannot exercise, yet he is himself as much a beneficiary of it of anyone. I am waiting for JR to turn inward and examine this dichotomy. He is not the first to struggle with it. JWH also did so, though in fairness the experimental function of the blog in those days, being macro-ideological, always tended to combustion. It ended in January 2008, and since then another and more conventional experiment - this time in ideas - has been in train. It hardly needs saying that an experiment in ideas still requires a high level of mutual tolerance and a commitment to free expression. I am hoping very much that JR will see this, and that he does not, therefore, need to fulfil the role of MR’s white blood cells. Further, if we are, as he sincerely believes, seen as a threat by some parties, it is only because we pursue freedom here and, out of it, ideas that are meaningful in our struggle. No such pursuit is possible within a fearful, locked-down, policed environment. Intellectual freedom is the parent of any success we have in developing and disseminating our ideas. For your information, JR and I have been discussing the Leon issue at some length, and I have stated that we do not trash commentary because we disagree with it or even because we suspect its author of a destructive agenda. There is a point at which destructiveness becomes sufficiently overt and egregious to warrant “the trash bin”. But, actually, the blog cannot be destroyed by argumentation, neither, as nationalists, can our guiding principle and belief be destroyed, for they are, in essence, the principle of and belief in life itself, and as such are imperishable. Mistakes have been made - we all make them. JR must understand that he can let the threads be blown by the winds of debate without fear. Leon, in turn, really must take on-board the criticisms that are made of his commentary, and not simply react against them. That will be difficult for him because these criticisms are at the level of his foundational values, which are too shallow. Traditionalism, faithism and economism are not the real deal, especially the latter, and do not evince a fully-mature and informed nationalist mind. Accordingly, it will also be difficult for Leon to accept that JR - the “anti-Semite”, “conspiracy theorist” and sometime rash philosopher - has truer values and a more complete and grounded Weltanschauung than he has. But this process of dissonant self-experience is the freeing process which all men and women who journey out of liberalism must undergo. As I stated at the beginning of this thread, stops along the way like communitarianism, civicism, culturism, etc, are, for an honest thinker, never destinations in themselves. 55
Posted by Helvena on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:33 | # Free Speech is a noble ideal and much touted in the ivory towers of academia yet it is exactly in academia where ideas that corrupt the ruling elite’s power are most shunned. We are constantly fed the Jewish point of view so much so that most people do not even recognized it as such, must we really be force to wallow in it here? People are not individuals, they are link by community, the law recognizes this with imminent domain. When wealth becomes too concentrated, it’s time for a redistribution. “Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the ‘80s, ‘90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).” Edward Wolff - so the “trickle down” theory didn’t work. 56
Posted by anon on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:06 | # http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2012/02/voice-of-people-ii-arab-democracy.html 57
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:15 | # Helvena, I’ve said before that I’d publish old Abe himself, or little Timmy, if they would stay and face the music playing sweetly afterwards. This is not a resource for WNs who need their principles and beliefs confirmed, but for those who seek to expand and deepen them. We need have no fear of our intellectual opponents. 58
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:13 | # Graham Liberalism in its hybrid modern form also exhibits a strong communitarian aspect demonstrated by a limp wristed civic nationalism that demands that yet another imported communitarianism (Islam) conform to Western norms as promenaded from time to time by the likes of Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy. In fact, in many forms of leftist thought generally, loosely grouped under ‘progressive,’ people are considered to be born into systems not of their own making that limits their choice or spheres of action, as for instance found in writings of critical race theorists and also older forms of Marxism etc (the latter perhaps due to its partial Hegelian origin). 59
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:39 | # Marloe @45 If you care about Haller, why don’t you ask him why I’m trashing his comments? He knows as I gave him repeated warnings after repeated requests failed, and then Haller violated a final warning repeatedly. I don’t care to repeat the substance matter of the requests and warnings. Haller left his email in one of his trashed comments. Get in touch with him and ask him. 60
Posted by Marlowe's Ghost on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:00 | # I’ll lay you $100 that Marloe is Leon Haller, trying a new approach 61
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:20 | # I have to say that Leon has been treated appallingly – he skewed Richards and his buddies on their foolish take on post-modernism and in a fit of pique Leon’s very much ‘on topic’ posts are gone. That is an total abuse of privilege by Richards. Speaking of which I have been ‘banned’ from posting/IP blocked for ages. As Richards is the IT person at MR, if one was paranoid.. I have no wish nor desire to seriously engage with a conspiracy nut-job that has a single ‘explanation’ for everything under discussion. In my judgement that particular individual has consistently provided himself to be incapable of rational argument, intellectually dishonest, and over-emotional. I have very many disagreements with LH – I’m not a fan of Catholicism for example, nor extreme ‘free-market’ ideology – we do not form some double-act. I mean Richards seemingly, for an expert in biology, doesn’t know what phenotypic plasticity is, what heritability actually means, what hierarchical selection theory is etc., (let’s not even start on Charnov’s life-history invariants or other substantive topics). Time and intellectual energy are always limited resources so why burden one’s self with unnecessary ‘opportunity costs’ for no positive purpose. His performances at MR are very weak indeed. For example, apparently we are not extreme liberals (someone else came up with liberal theory and imposed it upon, unwilling but totally weak-minded Europeans, and any historical comparison within European life and societal values is irrelevant), apparently Jews are not ethnocentric etc., and anyone that questions these absolute truths (established by methodological questionable single studies in both cases I believe – hence at the meta-level they represent singular datum points) are foolish or controlled opposition – and the idea is that is the basis for a serious discussion? Funnily enough Richards reminds me of those loathsome creationist types that I encountered in the USA – equally they too are not familiar with the rules of genuine scholarship and are monomaniacs with a single, very inflationary, ‘explanatory’ cause for the nature of things. What is unfortunate is that people who are sincerely concerned about the future development and direction of their societies have to find themselves in the presence of such effluvia. GW is right in that arguments for the preservation of European nations/peoples should aspire to the highest standards of enquiry not the lowest. Speaking of which we have Captain-Cunt and his ‘costume politics’ tendency– obviously you must be rather dim, or very self-hating, or perhaps both, as the regime you so willing embrace was disastrous for the German people themselves (how many Germans died on its watch? What state was that nation in by the end of their exciting political experiment?) as well as being so pathetic it couldn’t manage a mere 15 years on Earth (hardly the Roman Empire was it?) – even the Soviet experiment lasted the approximate length of one human life. As such you reveal yourself to be intellectually nugatory, politically illiterate, morally bankrupt and very much a lightweight. I hear Kai Murros likes costumes too – maybe you and he could raid the ‘Tom of Finland’ catalogue or whatever you type of people do of an ‘esoterically orientated’ evening. I said earlier today that the fans of unusual hats can get on with it (GW gives them house-room and it’s his call - we are all his guests) but leave the grown-ups to have our ever so, marginally more, rationally grounded disagreements and discussions perhaps? Don’t worry if you don’t understand phenomenology or ontology etc., it’s really not for your type. 62
Posted by dc on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:30 | # GW, You write
and again
and again
I understand and largely share your position, but I should like to add that the mutual tolerance and commitment to free expression that we wish depends on trust in the sincerity and integrity of the people with whom we are dealing. Unlimited “mutual tolerance and commitment to free expression” gives anyone the power to disrupt the discussion. When I read Graham’s piece, my first reaction was delight. I am a trusting person and at first supposed that the man had been drunk when he wrote. Apparently he was not. You say that you can make sense of the piece. Fine, but it seems certain that it was not written with any desire for communication or debate. Why was it written? Perhaps as the foundation for a game of verbal ping-pong with Haller, a game to seize the attention of readers and try to obscure the memory of the video of the crazed she-jew? It costs me a great deal of time and effort to write as clearly and simply as I can. I envy you your easy lucidity; JR, Ivan, CC, Helvena and all of your best commentators always express themselves with great clarity. Only Haller and Lister throw out mountains of verbiage with such careless abandon as to dominate the blog and stifle the debate you want, and are themselves the injurious censors. To my mind, Richards has shown great forbearance. I think it was an editorial error to put up Lister’s submission in the first place, but once published the bloodstream of commentary needs the white blood cells. One final note. I can not imagine commenting at a website where I found myself opposed to most of the writers. And if my comments were reviled, exposed as malicious and removed, I can no more imagine sending in note after note shreiking about some supposed right to be heard. This is unaccountable behaviour for any honest person. 63
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:41 | # typo - should read ‘consistently proved’ - damn auto-spelling setting! Whatever the point remains. LH was not trolling and was making perfectly reasonable and cogent points. There can be honest and quite reasonable differences of opinion. If this is ‘the Richards show’ fine but can we all be told that is the case. And if it is then we can all decide how to spend our time in future in the light of that development. But if the methods and content of arguments are so weak that no disagreement can be tolerated - well it hardly suggests they are robust does it? 64
Posted by uh on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:50 | #
Except JR has a paranoid and controlling personality type, pushed to its limit by Haller. He isn’t afraid of some tangible thing called “Austrian economics”. He is afraid of spooks in his brain. Now this buzzard “Ivan” is impugning ... Jim Bowery, of all people. Again, it’s enough to make a man wish for the return of Fred Scrooby.
How is it even possible to think this way? JR’s consistency is that of the Ministry of Truth. Haller is fallible because he actually absorbs others’ opinions. This leads to silly contortions like leaving comments here about Catholic theology and elsewhere deep nods to evolutionary theory. If you review his commentary, and his commentary about his commentary, you will find no dissonance. If you call his insistence on a single platform, ending immigration, “dissonance” or inconsistency, than every nationalist party in Europe is to that degree inconsistent and “dissonant”. Now I understand that MR is not a place for surface-level focus, but it is not grounds for witch-hunting nor is it proof that this much despised character you’ve set up as moderator has a firmer worldview than Haller. Haller’s worldview is wrong, but it isn’t exactly immature. He goes a long way in attempting to assimilate new ideas. He was probably exposed to the economic mumbojumbo too early to have much hope of making him budge from deep-seated belief in markets ueber alles. However, I agree with JR that full articles should not be posted in comments. Haller did repeatedly ignore that request, and his style is usually to talk clear over any subject to push his own, to our eyes superficial, plan of action. JR’s presence is not malign, even though he accused me of being a Jewish pedophile, but he is overbearing. It’s like being a child overshadowed by a heavy-handed and mocking authority figure. This, it ought to go without saying, corrupts the psychological balance of the usual rogues’ gallery by introducing — you said it yourself — fear: JR’s fear of the spooks in his brain, and our fear of being corralled by his pushy behavior. He’s also backward on a number of things. A few of you are so impressed by his loquacity that you don’t see it. Remember, leftists are notorious for being long-winded. Their books are always the longest. Hundreds of pages can be written to “prove” the absurdest of ideas, and legions of students will accept them as truth. That isn’t to say JR is a crypto this-or-that, only that his is a highly idiosyncratic mind, as we see from his feminine-beauty.info website. Minds like his, in their relentless ordering of phenomena to suit the “plan”, actually warp facts for the purpose. What results is a superficially coherent system capable of impressing those of less nuanced thinking. This is not the sort of mind to have preside over a free thought forum, for its nature is compulsive. 65
Posted by uh on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:31 | #
I’ve just noticed that JR, Ivan, and dc are, or purport to be, good with numbers. At least dc and Ivan are mathematicians. This congruence probably has to do with their alignment against ... well, everyone else. The hilarious thing is that a few of us have met in real life. I would guess Soren has met GW, whom danielj has also met, and of course I know the latter, etc. Danielj has also met Greg Johnson, who I am also going to meet this month, along with MacDonald, Stark, Polignano, et al; he also met Jimmy Marr. I am acquainted with Jack Donovan as well. With some coaxing, or it appears bribery, I believe Haller could be brought to table as well. A close friend of mine knows Farnham O’Reilly, who knows a lot of other people. Soren and Constantin are good friends, and I entertain the borderline-homoerotic hope of one day meeting the latter myself. Haller claims to have met Jared Taylor. Of those dc lists above — JR, Ivan, CC, Helvena, dc — not one is known to the other in real life, as far as I know. They are all perfectly anonymous. This is in fact all important, for the internet is pure illusion. Humans must make flesh-based connections to fully satisfy their need to trust. Digital confirmation bias won’t do it. It follows that those too shy to enter into flesh-based connection have a fear of intimacy, and possibly of real life, that at the very least ought to put everyone on guard and call into question Guessedworker’s judgement. (But perhaps GW knows JR in real life as well.) So you are perfectly right, dc, in spite of yourself: this is a matter of trust, and all of you fail as trustworthy individuals. Which is exactly why you have not made, and will never make, the feeblest effort to reach beyond the internet to your fellow commentators. And it is exactly why you find “Jews” in those with whom you disagree all too easily.
You’ve sunk to the level of tu quoque, proving nothing. In fact we are dealing here with the separation of deep personality differences into two distinct camps: the trusting and the mistrusting. You’re in the latter, but across the divide the charges are the same — each sees the other as verbose and censorious, as “Jews”, etc. Objectively, though, it is to date only J Richards (and probably Soren here & there) who has censored anyone by redirecting their comments to “basura”, albeit after several fair, if belligerent warnings to play by the new sheriff’s rules. Graham Lister as far as I know has no ability to censor, and of course Haller hasn’t. Moreover, neither is a hostile type; Graham can’t open his mouth or move his fingers without flogging Americans with boilerplate from Le Monde and his many books from Verso, but he makes no secret of anything and is a much more open, normal sort of personality than the shadowy Richards Bot. Ditto Haller. Even if Lister lies about watching football and Haller about being at college, at least they’re lying about private realia — and not reality itself. So dc, you need to remember some of that goodwill that is born to each man, and stop going along with the suspicious harriers of the JR bandwagon. I sense you are not a bitter type like Captainchaos who mistakes his disastrous personality for superior intellect. Act the part. Be more willing to trust your fellow dissidents here than to write them off from hot-headed prejudice. We are in fact all on the same side despite the many stumbling blocks in the way of total concord. Thus I have this sick compulsion to mock Soren Renner as though he were a retard doing jumping jacks, but I know he isn’t a Jew and is alive to the Jewish problem. Thus I savaged Randy Garver a few months ago for having mixed-race children, but with admirable patience, he was able to talk me down into reasonable tones. There is no justification for all the suspicion and hostility. Making fun is fine, we walk away from it harder for the burning; but beyond that it’s clinical psychopathology.
Here’s a question. Why wasn’t J Richards’ first thought — if he was genuinely concerned to limit the length of Haller’s comments and not to censor an “Austrian” — to ask Haller for his e-mail and ask him nicely in private, or even have Guessedworker do it? why didn’t he ask nicely here? Well, that isn’t his personality. Instead he stiffly demands that Haller drop a gear “or else”. There was forbearance, but the root of the problem is a fork: Haller’s garrulousness and J Richards’ haughtiness. These two just do not mix, and J Richards is not the sort of person to be moderating this website. 66
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:33 | # @uh Well another grown-up makes a sensible comment. I think the term ‘highly idiosyncratic mind’ is something most objective people could subscribe to in this matter. If one wants to be maximally charitable his style is to sweep up a range of heterogeneous processes into a single diagnostic, onto which far too much explanatory weight is placed. Is he a former Marxist? That would perhaps explain something of his cognitive habits. And I think you have a very valid point in that his ‘personality type’ (as seen on MR) is not the best to be seemingly in charge of an open forum for the discussion of serious and complex issues. 67
Posted by Marlowe's Ghost on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:47 | # Lister “he skewed Richards and his buddies on their foolish take on post-modernism and in a fit of pique Leon’s very much ‘on topic’ posts are gone. That is an total abuse of privilege by Richards.” GL you know Haller’s posts were sent to trash well before that post. You are being intentionally dishonest. Uh “I agree with JR that full articles should not be posted in comments. Haller did repeatedly ignore that request, and his style is usually to talk clear over any subject to push his own, to our eyes superficial, plan of action”. Multiple posts with the same repetitive content plus a refusal to defend that content eventually becomes disruption pure and simple. You may have your own site up soon, what ground rules do you intend? Most readers can see an answer is required. A clear intellectual challenge has not been met. Most readers can see to that Haller is avoiding giving an answer. There is a very clear solution. “What results is a superficially coherent system capable of impressing those of less nuanced thinking.” Richards make sense and also makes no(n)sense, but much more sense than strutting Haller. He has historical privileges that Haller does not and that comes with the territory. Uh, you took your ball and ran home when you should have demonstrated that nuanced thinking you seem to believe you have by talking it out. 68
Posted by uh on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:53 | #
. Another commonality that should be mentioned: they are all (including the nobody crone “MOB” and to some degree Guessedworker himself) suspicious of Kevin MacDonald, apparently because he is not hard enough on Jews. This should not be surprising as he is an academic, academics being known, despite the vociferous anti-white breed, for not taking strong positions in matters political. What arouses my psychologist’s sense is that they share this suspicion, in some to the point of loathing, with the trio of half-Jew Unamused, the half-Jew author of Tribe of Ice People, and Lawrence Auster. We see in this the extreme dichotomy (anti-Jew / pro-Jew) meeting in the middle at paranoia of a workaday critic of Jewish supremacy in modern society. This is the same dynamic behind, e.g., Alex Linder’s infamous loathing of Jared Taylor. With no ability to affect political change, temperament takes over and acts out a psychopolitical drama. All we are looking at here, again, are people at different places along the Agreeableness spectrum interacting with each other ideational (symbolic) proxies, but as Jews are the root of the trouble for overperceiving threat — so is the Richards Bot clique. Thank you for reading, white power, and stop eating bread & pasta. 69
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:53 | # @uh I didn’t see your secondary comment. I have no ability to edit posts/delete or otherwise manipulate the site. I’m a normal poster. Hence, if I have something on the front page GW has to (very kindly) put it up on my behalf. I was actually watching the Superbowl on the BBC. Dull game until the last few minutes I thought. I do own some Verso books but many others from different publishers too…as for Le Monde, well the Scots and French do have historic connections…and it beats Fox News or The Sun for content. Or even the Fortean Times! And yes I do actually like Morrissey. 70
Posted by uh on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:11 | # Marlowe’s Ghost,
That most regrettably is on indefinite hold, as danielj and I will be ... otherwise employed ... for some time, BUT we don’t plan to have comments, nor is it to be a blog. Point taken though.
He probably is avoiding it, and probably cannot meet it — again I believe he assimilated “Austrian economics” in his youth and is genuinely unable to see past it. He may have investments or whatever associated sorcery that keep him from turning against his beloved finance capitalism. I didn’t follow the particulars of the debate because, as I’ve said over and over, I’m an idiot, and economics is a jumble of boring absurdity to my eyes. I have more luck with issues of Adbuster. Anyway, if J Richards’ treatment of economics is anything like his treatment of the question of cognitive difference between the sexes, which is very real and quantifiable, then I wouldn’t have much faith in being convinced by it, nor his right to call Haller’s stance into question. Seems to Haller just made himself a target, while a better opponent would have been Silver. GenoType also seems to have engaged the Bot in such a way that it is acting more personable.
Eh, maybe. Redirecting Haller’s comments to a trash folder isn’t the most heinous move. I’m bothered more by the personality type whence such moves emanate. I think a little more than half of the present commentariat is too, and that’s likely reflected in the feelings of lurkers following the debacle.
lol sry — just trying to be helpful 71
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:14 | # Dr. Graham Lister @61
The rules that I established for Haller don’t address the issue of content except for the specific entry on Arthur Kitson. Accordingly, all comments posted by Haller in violation of the rules will be trashed, regardless of content, and I started trashing Haller’s comments before what you think is “valid criticism” posted by him. It surely didn’t escape your attention that the trashing is simply moving the comment out of the way, not deleting it. If it were really a matter of me being unable to reply, then perhaps I should’ve deleted the comment right away, but I didn’t. If you paraphrase Haller’s criticism and post it, you can test whether I’m capable of replying to it. And you better paraphrase it, not in terms of Haller said…. If you don’t paraphrase then I can’t respond because then it’d be feeding the Haller troll.
I have nothing to do with this. I despise Haller more than you and Haller’s explicitly told you that he’s never had problems with posting comments here from his IP.
Gee doctor, who’s the one refusing to address facts, and displaying “intellectual honesty” and “non-histrionics” in the form of lumping me with Icke, whom I’ve never cited to support any of my contentions?
I’ve not claimed expertise in biology. I cite biological literature to make my case instead of saying believe me because I have all these fancy qualifications. Here’s an example: http://wiki.majorityrights.com/race [do you think it’d be better for me say instead that I have a Ph.D. in biology and trust me, humans are differentiated into biological races?]. If you had an education in science doctor, you’d understand that there no arguments by authority in science. You seem to think that by claiming to have a Ph.D. in biology and not citing any biological literature to make your point, but referring to sociological/philosophical literature instead, you can make a case, but some people know better. I dare you to cite one example of me misrepresenting phenotypic plasticity, heritability, hierarchical selection theory or Charnov’s life-history invariants. In contrast, your misrepresentations of 3 + 1 articles from behavior genetics that I cited and uploaded to MR are an open record; start here for the citations and scroll down for the exchange between you and me: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/tony_lecomber_on_the_future_of_nationalism#c119979 I’d also like you to cite previous comments where your arguments are substantially based on the notions of heritability [and the other biological concepts in your comment] such that your opponents didn’t have a valid rebuttal.
I extensively addressed your nonsense on people being extreme liberals today compared to the past… anyone can observe by scrolling down and reading the exchange between me and you at the link above. You’ve also mentioned nonsense about the imposition of liberal theory on weak-minded Europeans, which isn’t anything that I’ve argued. My position is that hostile aliens who took control of the money supply have caused an immigration problem is some nations; they didn’t do this by convincing the natives that mass immigration of racial and cultural aliens is good; it was an imposition that the natives couldn’t anything about as they had lost control of their money, the lifeblood of their economy.
Lies and distortions. I cited evidence that Jews are more ethnocentric on average than whites, and then added that Talmudism, not ethnocentrism, is the key variable behind periodic spectacular Jewish success. Your second lie is about methodological issues. You exposed yourself when you mentioned methodological issues but asked questions and made points that indicated that you never read about the methodology of the studies! So how could you have critiqued the methodology? Also, I wouldn’t call you foolish or controlled opposition for questioning the evidence, but when you distort the argument presented, and it’s clear that the distortion is deliberate, and you lie about my stances, then it’s pretty obvious what you’re up to.
I’m glad you agree. Now get lost so that we can raise standards here.
National Socialist Germany pulled an amazing financial recovery within a few years while other Western nations were suffering during the Great Depression. Germany did it by taking control of its money. The bankers subjected Germany to an international economic boycott, and Germany was forced to resort to barter with the nations willing to trade with it, yet Germany prospered. Intrinsic deficiencies didn’t lead to the decline of National Socialist Germany. War waged by the international bankers ravaged it. And you can read all about the Holocaust hoax: http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/ To hell with your pathetic, cheap insults.
This is why you should leave. 72
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:20 | # Uh I didn’t accuse you of being a Jewish pedophile. I never used the word pedophile to describe your sexual interests. I did argue that the nature of your arguments suggests that you’re either a part-Jew, or a full Jew or a southern European who feels close to Jews. Feminine-beauty.info isn’t my website.
Many of us don’t feel this way. In my estimation, over half the people intimately involved with MR (more or less regular bloggers/commenters) are Jews or people working for Jews. I don’t consider those working for Jews to be on my side.
Renner is so alive to the Jewish problem that when I post an entry especially injurious to Jewish interests, he’s compelled to post garbage to do damage control for Jews. When I documented this, you completely ignored the evidence, just as you do now.
I don’t need to ask for his email as Haller’s told us of his email address a long time ago, leaving it whenever he leaves a comment. My primary concern also isn’t with the length of Haller’s posts. If Haller had valuable things to say, I’d welcome lengthy comments from him.
I’m not suspicious of MacDonald. I’ve mentioned his constraints as a reason for why he can’t take certain stances. He started out genuine and will remain genuine until blackmailed (if possible). Jews have targeted MacDonald for some time, and it’s clear that the administrative tasks of the occidental observer are under Jewish control. Jews would like to have phonies such as Matt Parrott and Michael O’Meara take over from where MacDonald leaves, but before he leaves, he’d be in the position of Ted Turner and TNN. 73
Posted by uh on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:30 | # grahmmy,
Me too. This is almost a proof of agreeableness. I was poking fun at your sociopolitical reading list, but I would read most of the same books if I had the money. Fact is there’s a lot of sound criticism in leftist literature. Adorno, for example, though a practitioner of the “culture of critique”, was a genuine critic of popular culture, deeming it degrading and worthless.
Well put. This is what I meant a while back when I called him “wrongly right”. His intentions may be good, but his method is monomaniacal, and to keep it running smoothly he is obliged to smooth out bumps here & there which might upset his “totalizing metanarrative”.
I don’t know. He seems to be one of those deadly earnest Christians who learn Hebrew and all about biblical lineages & shit, and that’s weird enough. If he’s a Marxist, I’m downgrading myself to a Proudhonian primitivist, as I consider myself a Marxist (in the fascistic sense of extreme economic & cultural discipline) and am nothing like that guy. My opinion: the feminine-beauty site betrays all we need to know about him. By the way, the exhaustive concern that site exhibits for the use made of white females by popular culture tallies neatly with his distortions of the matter of cognitive difference between the sexes. This in turn speaks to his personal status somehow, though I can’t hazard a guess of what it might be, or if it be concrete at all and not rather some early influence that has become entrenched. So despite purporting to illustrate masculinized and feminized women on his old blog, i.e. variations in dimorphism, here he cut it off at the neck, so to speak, or at the skull so it does not touch the brain inside of it — nevermind that the same hormones are at work throughout the body on both physical features and the brain — this in turn explained with an easy “Jews did it”. What this indicates to me is that he’s either so eager to find Jews behind everything he doesn’t like, or that for some unknowable reason he doesn’t want to believe in cognitive difference in the sexes, or both. In any case, he evinces no awareness at all that he may be arguing from significant bias, which if nothing else, I have done at every step. 74
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:49 | # @uh Yeah I had forgotten the cognitive sex-differences thing. I mean they are likely to be a series of invariant features that both sexes have, some overlapping features but at their extremes differentiation and some features which are genuinely different between the sexes. It’s not a simple either/or. I didn’t know about his other website - so he is now expert in sexual-selection and fluctuating asymmetry? Is there no end to our polymaths talents? As you say there has to be some reasonable explanation for his behaviour, habits and wonts. Re – Leon’s comments I was talking about his comments on my thread – they were all perfectly cogent and on-topic. When he does boiler-plate Austrian stuff it is dull and I agree that comments should not be 10000 word essays etc. As for my own efforts. I’m truly sorry if someone thinks what was written was ‘post-modernist’ – that’s a totally bizarre and ignorant classification. As for its difficulty – it was an attempt to explain what is interesting in ‘standard’ communitarianism and could it be developed into a respectable ethnocentric form. Now it was a fragment of a much longer piece (and it is under 1500 words) to explain something of a political tradition that has had many, many books written on it. I cannot do ‘The Sun’ version of political philosophy. What next the Ladybird guide to ontology? The preschool prolegomenon to Heideggerian thought? One of the reasons I don’t write about hierarchical selection theory in the context of Darwinian social-evolution etc., is precisely because it does becomes very technical, very quickly. As for the video comment. Good grief do you anyone cares about that video? OMG it will shake organised Jewry to its core because the world has seen a crazy Jew on a bus…seriously, underachievers do try harder. 75
Posted by Marlowe's Ghost on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:49 | # “I was poking fun at your sociopolitical reading list, but I would read most of the same books if I had the money.” Much material can be accessed on the internet. Put the title in “quotes” followed by PDF or epub 76
Posted by uh on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:54 | # JR,
You did at least suggest that I am a pedophile, after someone raised the matter of my trip to Italy with the teenager. My response to that, you will remember, was declaring that I’m done with the site, etc. Ok, I made a liar of myself, sue me — but you did make noises to that effect. I don’t care so much about being called a Jew, a part-Jew, or anything else; it happens to absolutely everyone, and even those not suspected of being a Jew will eventually be suspected of working for the FBI, MI6, Mossad, or all of them at once. I know people who think Guessedworker “may be” one of these. I say you all ought to step away from the computer for a few moments and ask yourselves what you’re really doing, what motivates you to call people “Jews” who spend as much time as you at anti-Jew blogs, and what effect it produces.
Well, I can’t speak to the veracity of that claim, and I have no idea how you’ve reached that conclusion. But I am willing to admit that I have always been highly skeptical of this belief that various organizations pay people to troll. I have no doubt that it happens, mind, but I don’t know who you mean are the Jews here. If you mean the same people as that foreign imp “Ivan” freely accuses, i.e. regular commenters, you need to reconsider. If you have access to other information, pertaining I suppose to site usage, that’s another matter.
Incorrect, sir. I will admit that it is a curious pattern. I will further lend you some support by evincing Renner’s refusal to “name the Jew” in his interview with Sunic, preferring, as one of my buddies pointed out, to refer to them as “the international rats” or some such Mickey Mouse bullshit. There’s no doubt in my mind that he is afraid for some reason, but knowing that he believes some crazy romantic nonsense about himself, he probably just thinks they’re watching him and doesn’t want to be tied to direct references ... as though no one can figure out his artless dodging. The problem is that I don’t think it’s “evidence” of anything more than Renner’s personality, namely, unrealistic self-concept, social ineptitude and allied technical ability, and mild paranoia. The view on the other side is that you’re a touch monomaniacal with respect to the extent of Jewish involvement in White Nationalism. My view is that Jews are still far more absorbed with the muzzie bogeyman than we small fish.
You say “valuable”, but in practice it’s more like “agreeable”. That’s all right though — I’ve admitted he strays freely back into his own one-man party platform, while calling everyone “idiots” for not reading more Rothbard. “Austrians” are well-known for this proselytizing single-mindedness (e.g. GBFM at Heartiste — the “lozozlzozoz” guy). However ... look at the bad blood you have stirred up in your own way. I know you have your Alexa stats but this isn’t what we see in the commentary. At the very least, if you expect Haller to answer whatever challenge was issued (I’ve forgotten lozoz), by the same token I think you ought to just admit that you have been a highly divisive presence here ... rather as I have been at times. I want to add briefly that I consider Haller’s comments valuable in a general way. He has an excellent hortatory manner that is good for meme-mining. But given his attachment to “Austrian economics”, I can well understand why you or anyone would be frustrated by him. Adbusters says that that “school” is actually a cult, and I think they’re right.
All right, thanks for clarifying your view of that matter. Forgive me if I see this, however, as tantamount to suspicion. If MacDonald or his associates were scabs or possible scabs, I doubt Anonymous would have attacked the A3P website. 77
Posted by uh on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:32 | #
I meant to address that, for that alone illustrates perfectly how far this clique reach in their idée fixe. The woman is probably not even a Jew. No doubt she believes herself to be. Probably goes to temple. But just look at her face — how many Jews has one seen who have this appearance? Moreover, if the equation of genes and behavior means anything, and 99% of Jews do not behave this way because they are so highly self-determined, then the woman cannot be a racial Jew as being a Jew by race would preclude such behavior. Then there’s matter of very low incidence of mental disturbance among Ashkenazim. That woman is clearly very disturbed. It’s instead the homeless convert who shows this kind of zeal. The homeless very often take up religion to comfort themselves in those cold lonely nights on the street. Surely everyone has been taken hostage by one of these street-corner zealots for fifteen minutes on their way somewhere. I met three black “true Israelites” in South Beach who were shouting to the very wealthy Argentine and Israeli passersby that “them FAKE Jews” in Israel and New Yawk would be nuked straight to hell by Russia. Utterly silly to take such things at face value. Especially when the face in question isn’t even Jewish. Physical types are consistent and mean something or they don’t. If they do, she isn’t a Jew. Simple as that. 78
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59 | # @uh Even if the person in the bus video was Jewish – so what? 99.9% of people would respond “yeah you sometimes get crazy people on buses and…?” But it does give an insight into the mindset of the ahem…rationally impoverished tendency when ‘dc’ aka Prof. Logic can construct a position around some nefarious plot to ‘distract’ people from such profoundly important matters (the crazy person on a bus video). It’s rather pathetic, delusional and paranoid - possibly even going into the realms of psychopathology. And your point about trustworthiness is very good. I doubt the RI tendency would contribute much to a high-trust, high social-capital society. Perhaps the bus video is so important because the RI tendency recognised themselves in it? Who knows, who cares? 79
Posted by anon on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:49 | # Not relevant to the catfights but quoting myself from above
Looking at this from a biological angle i can see where Nitchy was coming from - philosophy born out of the transition from endogamensch to exogamensch.
80
Posted by uh on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:12 | # Endogamensch / exogamensch — Christ you are brilliant! It beats my fiat carbs / fiatmenschen. 81
Posted by uh on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:17 | # “BLOOD-MORALITY” fucks yeah vote taliban 2012!!! lozzolzlz 82
Posted by uh on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:52 | #
Note that Nitchy, especially in his notes, held very favorable opinions of strongly ethnocentric peoples, famously European Ashkenazim, but also Arabs, Russians, Italians, and the ancient Aryans, consistent with his loathing of “English shopkeeper’s morality” and so on. He gave very little thought to America, the exogamenschliches Reich par excellence. 83
Posted by anon on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:42 | #
That fits. 84
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:30 | # GW mentioned to me in an email one Geoff Beck - I have no idea who he is - I don’t read very much of the ‘WN internet’ as my threshold for tolerating moral turpitude and general stupidity is not high. So I found this on MR http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_descent_of_geoff_beck/ It seems perhaps history is repeating itself - and oddly enough one Mr. Richards seems much less ‘rationally impoverished’ in his comments on that particular thread and rather anti-conspiratorial in tone. What gives? The trajectory is most curious. captcha = truth34 85
Posted by uh on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:26 | #
He was mostly on VNN radio. A very serious, level-headed man. http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/category/geoff-beck/ And his short-lived “The Truth Is No Defense”: http://vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/2005/VNNB/gbttind.htm Another crypto-Jew, no doubt!!!! Come clean Grahmmy, I know you’re a Jew, or a part-Jew, or an extended blablatype of the Jew!
Paranoia more often tightens than it slackens its grip upon a man’s mind, especially with age. Exhibit A: “MOB”. Exhibit B: “Ivan”. Exhibit C: Richards Bot. Exhibit D: Captainchaos. Exhibit E: ... Guessedworker? :( While we’re within sight of VNN, let me bring your attention to its current deadened form, presided over by the suspicious little programmer troll, “Socrates”. The main-page fell flat as soon as Linder switched formats from the in-your-face one of VNN 1.0 to the current blog, and left “Socrates” in charge to censor and impugn at will. In “Socrates” world, anyone and everyone who disagrees with him is — oh, you are too sharp for me, — a Jew, perhaps even the ghost of Horkheimer come to haunt him! Crazy, no doubt crypto-Jewish-obsessed-with-Nordic-women thought: Those with paranoid personality disorder should not be in charge of blogs premised upon free thought and speech!
86
Posted by Mr Voight on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:30 | # So I found this on MR http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_descent_of_geoff_beck/ Yes, very weird comments section. Also, Geoff Beck was a mildly racialist conservative who became Alex Linder after watching some IHR holocaust-debunking videos. He was hardcore, but not crazy and paranoid. 87
Posted by Mr Voight on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:36 | # Gosh, even Counter Semite from SF was in that thread. What happened to that hipster racist? He was funny. And Svigor? So many come and go. 88
Posted by Mr Voight on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:40 | #
Soren is out there using his real name and showing his face. He’s been targeted on antifa blogs. I don’t think there is much to ponder beyond that. I’m pretty cryptic when I’m using my real name in public. 89
Posted by uh on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:51 | #
There is — but just what I said: his fear of being tied to naming the Jew explicitly, which probably relates to his inflated self-concept. I implied nothing further. The J Richards mentality takes any kind of ambiguity and interprets it reflexively as Jewish sabotage. You know this. The paranoid personality’s logical bearing is a heavy reliance upon the cum hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. The Bot is actually correct that Soren is tailing his posts: not because he’s doing “damage control for Jews”, rather as a sort of spot-antidote to the overperceiving paranoid zealotry exhibited by the Bot. Ineffective, but well-meaning. Neither ought to have direct posting ability. It’s really absurd and just makes this another hokey WN ghetto, completely errant from Guessedworker’s statements of purpose. I mean I’d rather see three-dozen I. Bismuth pieces than a single one of the Bot’s gruff sermons.
Google “Svigor” and “Raider of Arks”. His blogger blog was deleted — which sucks as there was a ton of good material to use on people. Now he’s at wordpress. No doubt a crypto-Jew. Just like you, Mr. Voight. 90
Posted by marloe on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:11 | # This is obscene:
Richards just forfeited the whole pot. Implying Soren Renner is a double agent for the Jews is sick! Weird, beyond paranoid. Soren may look and sound a little funny, but he has a reasonable take on things, if you can get a clear sense of it. He’s basically a neoNazi, but not a vulgar one. The thing is, he’s out there putting his neck on the line for cowardly and ungrateful whitey, and the Botman is dissing him? What kind of people are we? No wonder no one wants to associate with us. The cause of white nationalism is a nobel one. It’s an obvious one. We should have millions of followers. Instead we chew up our own. I’m sort of new here, I’ve commented before, but usually I don’t. I read thru a lot, however. Here’s my take: Richards sometimes seems really smart, but he is also really bossy, worse than almost anything I’ve seen elsewhere. It’s like the dude has bad constipation, or something up his ass. Why does he get to set rules for everybody? He’s not in charge is he? I often can’t follow him. I’m sure Bot is smarter than me, as are a lot of people here: GW (I never understand his philosophy), Lister (he’s hilarious, however, never more so than dissing Bot), uh (I often can’t follow you, either), Genotype, Leon Haller, Silver, probably Soren (it’s hard to even say), Greg Johnson, etc. I find Leon, Silver, Hunter Wallace, Johnson, Matt Parrott, danielj easy to understand. They are clear. Others are unclear but in different ways. The Bot calls Lister, Renner, Johnson, Leon, Parrott (and maybe Silver and hunter and uh - I can’t remember) Jew tools. O’Meara, too! That is unbelievable. However brilliant Bot may be, and someone else will have to make that call, this is one mentally effed up dude! And what’s really weird is he has allies! But, it’s very clear those allies are not as smart as his enemies. Does anyone ever understand Captainchaos? 91
Posted by uh on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:25 | # marloe, First of all, you’re a Jew. Possibly a part-Jew, but in any case a Jew. To hell with you! Second, well said. Plain speech is always best. It is a really obscene solipsism that has been set over this website. Third ...
... as I said some time ago: “White Nationalism must eat itself.” Meaning both that it can’t help doing so and that, ideally, it would have to completely devour itself in some final reckoning to move past it. (Which cannot happen.) Believe it or not, sometimes I don’t, but intelligence is not all-important — intimacy and the trust it engenders are. Europeans trust outsiders. Outsiders trust each other. The medium is nearer blood relationships. The obverse of the European trust of outsiders is a tendency to distrust of insiders in constant symbolic brinkmanship and altruistic punishment for stragglers; it’s extreme is paranoia. Being white means constantly having to prove you are smarter, wealthier, or more able than other whites, all whites, every day of your life until you die. Outbreeding correlates perfectly with obsession with achievement. Seven million cargo cults. “Freedom or cohesion — your choice.” (In reality, there is no choice.) Let me tell you what kind of people we are. We are a collection of highly unrelated individuals drawn from an array of European subspecies, though largely from the most individualistic one of northwest Europe. Our ability to see through the lies of the age and seek each other out on the internet gives us the illusion of sodality, though in fact the medium of our perspicacity are personality traits which set us well apart from the easy congeniality of the masses: in other words if we were not outsiders we would not notice the other outsiders manipulating our kind. We are a random bunch of malcontents who don’t work well in a group who wish to convince others of collectivist ideology. lolzooz, no? In a way the Bot is the most perfect exponent of the WN mentality. Highly suspicious, paranoid, disagreeable, remote, having no known real-life associates or attachments: pure monomaniacal ideology with two points of reference for interpreting the outside world: Jews and Money. Being quick with references and so on is not the standard. A reliance upon each other as real people is the standard. Blood — relatedness, and failing that, in the flesh commitment — is the standard. The rest is bloodlessness. We all have our angles, our routines, set down permanently in childhood. I know men hate hearing that sort of thing but it’s so, we are no different from ducklings imprinting on the first bigger creature that seems friendly, or getting lost and falling into the pond and drowning when it isn’t found. This is all that we are. Guessedworker, for example, has an angle. It is approximately what “anon” said above of master Nitchy — a man adjusting himself to the great transition as the technological society of an exogamous race catches up to the men within it who still cherish memories of their folk. He is “rooted” in his bourgeois upbringing and his father’s profession. Yet something is lacking. I have an angle. I’m a spoiled brat who read a lot of psychology. I never strove for anything and consequently find everything hollow, and can’t help myself hollowing others out too. I call it nihilism but it is “intuitively cynical” laziness. I gravitate to ideas that de-romanticize the world completely, for in this way I can subvert and assume power over others. Nitchy wrote that once one has examined the psychological grounds for belief, disproving the arguments of Christians becomes superfluous. J Richards has an angle. He lacks the ability to be intimate and to trust, likely because he lacked affection in childhood or youth and has an unsatisfactory sex life. He is so detached from others that he freely accuses them of being Jews (and me, a pedophile) because “Jew” is the most effective thing he has ever found to give sense to his anxiety. He also exhibits a highly tense obsession with neotenous females and is eager to exculpate women of all responsibility, precisely as feminized society has done. He undoubtedly is without issue. Captainchaos has an angle and has a routine. He is subtler about it, but that subtlety is itself character armor — he too lacks intimacy and is highly suspicious of those who do not agree with him. He too needs to believe they are all members of a coherent malignant identity. He needs to believe I have a fetish for Nordic women, because at bottom he is still just reenacting the neo-Nazi psychodrama of Germans vs English. His routine is to mock people and avoid giving any hints of simple fellow-feeling, because he is mostly incapable. He is, no doubt, a highly unpleasant man to know in real life, has no children, no wife, and is deeply dissatisfied with his intellectual ability, hence his stilted prose. Once upon a time he acted like a tuff gai; now he acts like a stiff. As the years go by he seems to lose flexibility and vim, and just becomes more crotchety. His strutting is more of a pose than Leon’s, for what it hides is a man of far worse temperament and lesser ability. Helvena has an angle. Helvena, she’s a Canadian woman of uncertain age, but certainly unattached (contrast with the married, thus even-tempered, Flavia of Revolt Against) and barren. She is obsessed with Ezra Pound, who was obsessed with Jews and Money. You know, come to think, she may be in bed with J Richards, or ought to be given this shared obsession. In any case she has no visible personality, which means she has so little of it to begin with that it can be completely hidden behind the ruling obsessions of idolized menfolk. Shit, I am late for my dentist appointment. White power! Stop eating bread & pasta. 92
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:47 | # I’m glad I escaped uh’s insightful profiling! “but intelligence is not all-important — intimacy and the trust it engenders are” Totally agree. I would say that analytical intelligence is not enough - emotional maturity or emotional intelligence is very important in any well-rounded, approximately normal person. Really much of life is knowing the how, why and who of trusting others. Being an amateur ‘master of suspicion’ – always looking for the hidden agenda, the vested interests at work, the biases and omissions, the secret motivations etc., in what someone says all of the time is an unsustainable practice. It is an attitude that is OK in very small, semi-rational, doses but it’s no all-encompassing royal road to truth or wisdom – quite the opposite. The hermeneutics of suspicion taken to their absurd, in extremis, terminus reach the destination of solipsistic paranoia. A kind of deluded gnostic, in which the individual concerned thinks only they are able to discern the true picture of things – without any doubt or fallibility – and eventually find themselves in the quagmire of total irrationality and unreason (both analytically and emotionally). Note - I’m currently listening to Morrissey - ‘Satan Rejected My Soul’ from the appositely titled album ‘Maladjusted’. 93
Posted by dc on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:13 | # GW, There you go! There’s a full demonstration in this thread. Your notions of open debate leave us drowning in a pool of jew filth. None of us wanted to be an antisemite, the jew drove us to it. Each of us doubted because the thing seemed so preposterous; how much we would have wished to be shown wrong! But we looked, and behold, Reality is antisemitic! You have trouble believing jews organize to use and trash your site? We also found it unbelievable, until we looked. You think it unreasonable to label Lister, Haller and Uh as lying jew propagandists? But you understand that jews lie systematically to protect and promote their tribe. What do you think is going on here? There can be no honest open debate, no useful discussion until the voice of the jew and all his cat’s paws is silenced. No guilt! The very first of “Majority Rights” should be the right of the majority to debate between themselves, to determine for themselves truth and policy. 94
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:08 | # @dc I think you have proved the point about the ‘rationally improvised’ tendency. Now you have previously mentioned your extensive knowledge of mathematics and logic. Can I ask, in all seriousness – instead of all the ‘lying J-Lizards’ nonsense perhaps you could turn your analytical skills to pointing out how faulty and specious the comments/ideas of those you, so intensely and obviously, dislike on MR actually are – or indeed describe why their general way of reasoning etc., is faulty. That cannot be too hard a task if you are right or an unreasonable request. If possible in a cool, calm and collected manner - no histrionics etc. 95
Posted by marloe on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:21 | # uh, You are intense, with a rad vocabulary. I bet you’re self-taught, however? What does this mean?
The white man invented most technology. Unless you think the Chinese did, which some people argue (how come they can’t do anything now, except pirate whitey’s corporate secrets and patents and dvds?) Your takedown of Chaos is classic, though I also like his description of you as a swarthoid with a Nordic harem or something (it was pretty funny). Lister, I think you’re pretty brilliant, when I can figure you out (most of the top post was way over my head). Don’t let these disgruntled types get to you. This is very insightful, but it took me about 15 minutes to get it together from online definitions (what is hermeneutics? I still don;t quite see from the online sources - Bible explanations?):
That is Richards. Perfectly. Do you think Richards is stupid in some way, or mentally ill? What does it say that he’s accusing you of not knowing anything about biology (GW said you were a geneticist, right?)? Is Richards a scientist or mathematician? Is he right about his claims (I can’t even start to understand that stuff, so I have to trust others)? dc, You’re an effing moron. What is Jewish about what these people are saying? How are they protecting Jews? Basically, they don’t agree with or respect Richards, so they’re Jews? What kind of argument is that? 96
Posted by uh on Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:48 | # marloe,
Guilty. :(
Right. With innovations like the printing press and industrialization generally, whitey ultimately just alienated himself from his own roots, and the process goes on today faster and faster (what we do being exponential, not merely additive). Unfortunately those roots themselves grew from seeds sewn in distant prehistory with the advent of grain-based nutrition from the Levant (either with farmers or cultural diffusion). The ingress of the Indo-Europeans, and later Abrahamic religions, were disruptions of this long unfolding of West European civilization which were eventually assimilated and have now been totally overcome. You can read about this in the works of Friedrich Engels. Don’t worry, he wasn’t a Jew. But you will be for reading him. What I meant was simply that what we’re living through now is actually the full flowering of the exogamous world-system of the Northwest European race. Rather than imposed on us tout simplement by an alien race, it is the native mindset of northern whites themselves. Let me give you a small, but most telling example of this mindset. We in the West are absolutely obsessed with the word freedom, and the American example, along with much proselytism by elites and other nation-wreckers, has done much to make the rest of humanity obsessed with it also, which makes for some disturbing reportage from around the globe as peoples genetically unfit for what we mean by “freedom” struggle to emulate the West. Whence the word “freedom”? Take everything etymologically to cut through latter-day metaphysical bullshit. Consulting one of my favorite websites:
Simple enough — one was “free”, that is to say beloved, familiar, friendly, if one was a member of the clan not subject to bondage. Likewise, the highly productive PIE root *gen- (Latin gens, Skt. jana etc.) and its native English iteration, kind, now restricted to things as a noun, but hanging on in adjective as referring to “niceness” or “generosity” in people. One is kind or kindly, and once upon a time, that was to say: “You are of my kind”, i.e. honorable, generous, upright, blah blah blah. As far as usage almost indistinct from calling someone a friend, a free, “beloved” member of one’s clan / folk. Now here’s something curious. Refer to what I have put in bold. In modern Hindi and in Russian, the reflexes of this root, priyah and priyatna respectively, are both feminine, and clearly it is a lovey-dovey root to begin with and became more so in those languages with time. Free at some point was an ambiguous term of recognition but then split to become one of social status (“free from bondage”) and endearment (“beloved”, “dear”). Below that you will find buried in the etyma reference to Old English freo, “wife” and Middle Late German vrien “to take to wife”, and until recently freien in modern German could mean “to woo”. Read these three entries:
It should be apparent that in the last, the author dropped the thread and assigns a completely different origin to frau, which elsewhere he derived from Frigg / Freya < frijaz. So that’s wrong. What this points to is that these ancient Germans — unlike their Aryan forebears — held their women in high esteem, or at least those married off to full-fledged members of the teuta. There actually isn’t much to unpack here other than this: Feminism has been with Western man from the start. In Rome, women were strictly dependents; the meaning of familiares is essentially “household dependents”, reckoned legally as on a tax form. Tacitus notes the “freer” station of the women of the Germanni. So while this root in the West specialized as meaning “free of bondage”, and in the East among those Indo-European populations nearer the Urheimat, it specialized as a term of endearment, it has led a kind of dual life as signifying both “freedom” and “woman”. That these two ideas even exist together in one etymon indicates a long-abiding tribal egalitarianism that is reflected in the inbreeding coefficient for Northwest Europeans. I hope you see my point here. Egalitarianism is nothing new in the West. When the Aryans crossed the Dnieper and found the pre-Slavic inhabitants of Europe in their wattle-and-daub huts arranged in a town, — an early culture of the great Near Eastern Neolithic diffusion — you may be certain they were astounded and perhaps amused to find: houses (they didn’t have them when they discovered the Indus civ either!), cradles, toys, idols (including the plump “Venus” type), crops, language they did not understand, gods they did not recognize, and social forms that embarrassed or confused them. Such were the earliest “civilized” Europeans. Pacifists who could not withstand the “Aryan” advance. 97
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:52 | # This is the two-step barrier that JR set for Leon Haller to jump:
... so that he may continue to post at this blog! Of course, it is an unreasonable response to Leon’s unwillingness or, more probably, inability to address questions about Jewish financial plunder through control of the money supply. But JR has come to a place in himself where that unwillingness or inability, augmented by Leon’s posting history here, can be evidence only of a hostile agenda, and this hostility is that ancient hostility by which the whole world, eventually, must pay forfeit, and this agenda is the frustration and destruction of all striving to the contrary in this tiny, virtual redoubt of European ethnic interests. Such a singular conclusion held with such certainty makes an inflexible and unforgiving master, closing off all possibility of mature reflection and re-evaluation. So we are left with the classic stand-off. Leon cannot meet the proscribed conditions, and it would not be economical in terms of time and effort to attempt to do so even if he had the intellectual resources, which is by no means certain. JR, on the other hand, cannot reduce the price of something which, in fact, he does not own, which is the right to post to this website. Now, I am going to digress for a moment. Quite apart from the fertile soil of personality type and personal psychology upon which our friend Uh so obviously enjoys expanding (sorry I didn’t recognise myself in your analysis, Uh, but you might try the rotund little Vienneser’s second son) ... quite apart from that there is the peculiar nature of our subject matter and its extraordinary power to, as we say nowadays, discombobulate. Or at least to challenge and disconcert. The first three years of this site’s existence was taken up with questions about just this because, from my point of view at that time, the transformation process of which that shock was a part was the key point in any turn, or return, to a secure and vivifying life our race might make. That, in fact, remains my view today, except that now I am looking at an idea for a systemic change rather than the process of change itself. Changes there certainly were, informationally, ideologically and in terms of racial consciousness. But the process of change turned out to be quite uncertain and uncontrollable. All one could do was to assemble the ingredients (which suited my eclecticism anyway). Any hope of calculating the final effect, however, was confounded by the range of personality types and personal psychologies. I don’t count that passage in the life of the blog an entire failure but I did not find the unifying theory I was seeking, so to speak. The subtext of the present affair takes us straight back to those times. One party, fully aware of the ground he has taken in the personal struggle of awakening, demands comprehension and transformation from another who is still restrained by the deadly embrace of the “respectable” world. Yes, yes, I know we are told, respectively, that JR is a “paranoiac” and Leon is “a Jew”. But the template is the same, and regardless of any other conditioning factors, it does not allow change by force majeure. Change comes when it will, how it will. It may not come at all for Leon. Likewise, JR may not ever be able to discover his own inflexibility and unreasonableness, and may always insist upon the meaning of his evidence and the certainly of his conclusions. Therefore, it rests with me to end this charade by dictate rather than persuasion. Accordingly: I do not wish to force JR into a corner. I have known him quite long enough to count him as a well-meaning and sincere friend, and a fierce supporter of our cause. He performs a task here no one else can, and does so out of generosity. He knows and accepts the extent of my support for his Weltanschauung, and does not demand more. I would never betray JR, though I dearly wish there was some way to get through to him at times like this. However, the tradition at MR is one of openness and freedom of expression, or at least the striving for these things. We demand civility, intelligence, articulacy. We do not demand a particular set of opinions. That is not going to change. All who moderate and all who comment have to understand that. The accusation which so concerns JR that Leon has abused the comment facility is, in my view, not proven. But readers should know that his repetition of argumentation without bothering to respond to criticism has caused more than just JR to appeal for my intercession. There is a case to answer. So the solution is quite clear. Leon is welcome to continue posting at MR but the criticisms made against him must be thought through. Life demands mean that none of us can guarantee responding to every critique of our opinions. But I do expect Leon, if he returns to a thread where a percipient criticism has been levelled against him, to identify and answer such criticism. If he cannot, in fact, answer it I do not expect him to merrily revert to square one on the next thread. I do not expect him to dump large quantities of material, including whole articles, on the threads. JR will abide by this, and will not take the opportunity to use his position as a principle administrator of the site to target Leon’s commentary unless Leon breaks the above terms in a definitive way. The trash bin will be used for definitive examples of discourse poisoning, and only for that purpose. I expect this to work, and not to have to return to this subject again. 98
Posted by uh on Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:09 | # Simpler spun — “The things you own, end up owning you.” Englishmen here want their Pancake Day free of muzzies, but they don’t want to reread Road to Wigan Pier. Everything we enjoy and we suffer is a result of our own “civilization”. One can no more pluck this or that nation out of the general morass than one can recreate one’s historical grandfather by cloning.
That is — whitey’s own genius and institutions are coming around to bite him in the ass, and shall at last swallow him forever. To overthrow these institutions, and the civilization grown underneath and over them, would be to overthrow himself. This he cannot do.
I have the pleasure of letting you know it is all wrong. Thanks for the compliment btw. 99
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:48 | # Uh Is it mere coincidence that you come back in full force when the heat turns on Renner, and earlier when the heat was on Talmudism as opposed to ethnocentrism? Your comments are an illustration of a foul person making his own nasty assumptions about his opponent and then refuting them. You’re never going to address the evidence behind the evidence-based reasoning or conclusions of my arguments that offend you, and these are some very specific claims about Jewish crimes and lies, but must discredit by deconstructing (which is what your phony psychological nonsense is about). You continue with false claims and vile accusations. I didn’t deny cognitive sex differences. To the contrary, I cited hard evidence of the extent of the differences and similarities w.r.t. the minutiae you were addressing. The underage girl you took wasn’t young enough to suggest that you have pedophilic interests, and nothing I said about your sexual interests ever suggested that you’re a pedophile, yet you try to make it look like I’m the one who tries to discredit opponents by making foul assumptions about them. If I lacked substance, you wouldn’t have been shamed into abruptly exiting MR. This is the problem that Guessedworker doesn’t understand. Foul people like you can’t be accommodated in an open discussion because you’re not here to discuss but to disrupt and to piss on us in contempt for allowing you the privilege to comment. You attempt to portray me as paranoid and a crazy individual because I’ve turned on Renner. Renner brought it upon himself. If he’s going to post garbage to do damage control for Jews one too many times, he’s asking me to confront him. Your attempt to explain Renner is laughable when Renner, with excellent writing skills, avoids explaining his behavior, for obvious reasons. In Renner, we have the following: 1. Toying with swastikas/images from national socialist Germany without espousing any major tenet of National Socialism. Probable conclusion: lame attempt at credibility or fascination with such symbols. If you look at the totality of Renner’s behaviors, the most probable conclusion is that he’s serving Jewish interests. 100
Posted by Silver on Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:48 | #
You’re being insufferably pretentious again. Funny how the English in Elizabeth I’s day could round up and deport the blackamoors in spite of their genius and institutions. And funny how a few centuries later one Adolf Hitler would see that genius and those institutions happily bow down to the coalition he hastily cobbled together. Funny how there are countless other examples I could think of when it was all supposedly baked into the cake around 4000 BC or so. Of course, you could say that it’s only now, today that what was preordained is finally playing itself out, but then you might have said that in, oh I don’t know, 410 or 1066 or 1683 or 1815 or whatever. Knowing what I do of you, I’m sure you would been saying it back then—because far and away the main reason you’re saying it today is not because of any special historical insight you possess but because… I have to say it…you’re a traumatized, despair-ridden little punk bitch. (At the very least, the likelihood of the latter is, in my estimate, many times greater than the likelihood of the former.)
“Genetically unfit” for it. Riiiiight. What’s the “disturbing reportage”? How does it materially differ from reportage that might have been heard a hundred (or two or five hundred or a thousand) years ago, before the obsession with freedom took hold? If it doesn’t, then what does the obsession with freedom have to do with it? Historical change is messy business no matter the cause. marloe,
I approve of the targets of his gossip columns this round too, but please don’t encourage him. GW,
Oh, but Richards possesses the ability to demonstrate the existence of that plunder through control of the money supply in spades, right? Get a grip will you.
101
Posted by anon on Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:18 | #
Although they did have an unusually egalitarian attitude to women the NW Euros weren’t always exogamous - they married endogamously within their clans and tribes. The purpose of the Catholic Church’s cousin marriage ban was to break the tribes up after the Germanic invasions. For some reason - i think probably geography-related - the NW Euros hit the exogamy transition first. That doesn’t imply everyone suddenly changed. This process would effect the upper middle class first and gradually widen over time. The process might never reach everyone or even a majority. So i think what is called the liberal mindset is a biological phenomenon and that it exists in much higher frequencies among NW Euros but the mindset is just the decision-engine. The actual decisions made depend on the data imported into the engine e.g. rational exogamensch who believe race is a social construct won’t oppose immigration on racial grounds. However it’s not true that race is a social construct - that was a deliberate lie designed and promulgated by an alien enemy to manipulate us to our disadvantage.
102
Posted by uh on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:29 | #
~11000 BC. Bronze Age doesn’t even begin until ~3300. I had a simple point which, let me admit, was mangled in a rush of barely coherent verbiage. That point is an extremely simple one: Nationalism in 2012 is impossible. To make it possible, a nation would have to be completely unplugged from the world system and forced into a standard of living very much below what nations currently enjoy. At the heart of this is globalization — the break down of Gemeinschaft in the process of liberal-democratic enfranchisement, or Gesellschaft (Plessner). Seen another way, the success of the Western nations, particularly America, has acted as an attractant at this “core” upon all other nations, making them a world-“periphery” (Wallerstein).
You are quite right that I possess no special historical insight: what I “know” comes entirely from my own intuition and the writings of a few super-savants. You are a wiz at the nuts-and-bolts of economics, but my attention is drawn more toward macro-theories such as this. Alienation is the dominant trend in modern life. What nationalists must understand is that the process of alienation (be it symbolic or technological) was already present, inherent to, the cultures to which they long to return, and would be yet if, taken completely out of context that way, they could. All that we are today is a result of all we have ever been. A nation stands in relation to its destiny as a man does to his personality. Everything about it is a product of his history — even the wrongs and false turns which seem in retrospect avoidable.
Well, my opinion here is conventional, or at least well-known in political science — without consulting notes or anything I can name Marx (and allied thinkers), Fukuyama, de Benoist, and Wallerstein. They would all in some fashion argue what I maintain: that Western man is being engulfed by the biopolitical backwash of his own institutions / history. Or just too much complexity, if that’s too much for you. There must be a hundred books out every month about this problem. You like popular economics, go read one. They all say roughly the same thing: - There has been too much growth, too fast, including total human population (we will have to agree to disagree that this will level off — and what it will matter by the time it does) If you think this makes me ... lozllozozz ... a cussed little Cassandra who would have been invoking imminent doom in any of those years, well there may be a psychological truth to that, but you have not escaped the qualitative difference in science today and science then. That turns as much on there simply being more going on in our day and knowing things more exactly than before. In other words, your caricature fails logically — my opinion, haphazard and illiterate though it be, has been shaped by some very well-informed men who follow and try to make sense of real affairs. I don’t find that we are any different in that respect. You just read different books and have different values. Your values are those of a wog not yet sick of civilization. My values are those of Anglo and German detritus who have lived past their own civilization and yearn to be nearer to the earth .... now completely commodified.
You’re a money-hungry wog.
Ideas travel. Systems are replicated. You would not deny that most African populations are not “fit” for what we call democracy as the project has invariably succumbed to native constraints; this arises from reifying democracy as a “project”. Such populations are literally genetically unfit to adapt to a universalized Western model. It is political proselytism, simple as that.
103
Posted by uh on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:06 | #
Like right now I am writing in what you take to be English, but in my head it goes: “Jew Jew Jew good for Jews!!, Jew Jew Jew Jew NEVER AGAIN Jew Jew anti-Semitism anti-Semitism, Holocaust Jew Jew lozozozo Holocaust Jew anti-Semitism!!! NEVER AGAIN Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew.” So now you never have to ask me your oh-so-sly baited questions again! You’ve found us all out, we Jews, we agents provocateurs, we well-poisoners paid $10/hr to derail the Great Nationalist Computer that is derechosmayoridad(punto)com!
You love those dirty qualifiers — foul, vile, nasty. I feel like I’m being talked down to by a sheltered PETA mother.
Actually, it’s about the personality type of you and your adherents. You don’t think psychology is “phone” as you have attempted in the past to rely on it in argument — EVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF “PROFILING” ME, or so you thought. What you don’t like is when it’s turned on you and your clique of yes-men toadies. Your efforts to appear as a regulatory super-intelligence on this blog betray just one thing: a total failure with life, clinical paranoia, and malignant narcissism. You are so active on this blog, so righteously eager to push it in the direction of your neurosis, only because you are an unloved, unloving, isolated and anxious cipher who hasn’t gotten laid in a veeeeeerrryyy long time. Accordingly, people come in two stripes for you: THOSE WHO AGREE (“four legs good!”) and JUDEN (“two legs bad!”). Of course you are blind to all of this, which is a precondition of a case as acute as yours. If you had self-awareness of your neurosis you would not be so neurotic. In you there is no love, no modesty, no trust. Your fixation is so fierce, so all-encompassing ... that you shoot past the very purpose of nationalism: concern for kind. In you this becomes an exercise in brutal solipsistic rationality. With a half-man like you standing over us, I don’t see what incentive anyone has to exercise their intelligence on behalf of nationalist philosophy with you waiting here to strain everything back into Richards-approved limits (“Money supply”, “Juden”). I know you don’t see it, and I know your toadies don’t see it (Crappinchaos actually does, but he’s too vain and suspicious himself to enlist on anyone’s side wholeheartedly), but my man, Richards — you are a fucking freak and normal people do not like you at all. I mean you are not only divisive, you are repugnant. It isn’t what you say. It’s how you say it. It’s who you are. You are dead to the world, in fact — paranoid delusion will do that to you; pathological denial does the rest (“White women don’t fuck blacks unless they’re on drugs! To hell with you if you say otherwise!”) This by the way is why you are so unsuccessful with women. Foul enough for you, freak?
I know, I know. There can be no phenomena at all unless vetted by the Richarts Bot. Only what Richards Bot says is true is true, and the rest is a Jewish plot to mislead us. Jews “have an interest” in exaggerating sexual cognitive differences (it increases enmity between white men and women!!!) — though they also have an interest in downplaying them to judge from all the Jewesses authoring books on the subject. So many diverse phenomena to fit into your bigoted little mold, I know!
Ah, no hoss, we went together. Says it right in the article, no otherwise. But you freely omit facts that disrupt your solipsistic narrative. We all see you doing it. Only the weak-minded, those too narrowly focused on Jews, Jews, Jews, Jews, can’t see it.
I’ll put this to rest now while the comment is still up, as it’s only a matter of time before you quietly excise it, and other inconsistencies in your solipsistic crusade to remake MajorityRights into MajorityRichards. QUOTE BY J RICHARDS CLEARLY INSINUATING PEDOPHILIA:
1. We went together — no one paid for the other. Anything else you say is your own interpretation to (so you think) persecute and shame me, i.e. a lie. Nowhere in the extant articles is it claimed that I “took” the girl. 2. She was not “mentally disturbed”. You rely on this hefty qualifier for two reasons: a. You shield white females from all social responsibility because you are an underfucked spergie who idealizes white women because they have precious little or nothing to do with you; b. It pads your false caricature of me as a sort of Italian, er JEWISH, let no one forget THAT I AM A JEW!!!, vampire who FLIES AROUND THE GLOBE picking innocent underage girls from their bedrooms! Why do you this? Because you are a dishonest human being and a head-case, and your solipsistic worldview depends on a very narrowly defined set of constants: JUDEN, MONEY SUPPLY, — and that’s nearly all, so when a phenomenon that doesn’t fit comes before you, you must reinterpret it to suit your mania, and it’s nothing at all to http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/some_early_thoughts_about_camerons_veto#c120294
QED, freak.
More reinterpretation to suit the steam-rolling solipsistic Richards Bot narrative. As I recall, I declared myself done with the site BECAUSE OF YOU, to wit:
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/some_early_thoughts_about_camerons_veto#c120294 Preeeetty plain spoken there. But you must twist, as you twist everything, to suit your agenda — so suddenly I was “shamed into abruptly exiting”. This is what paranoid people do in the depths of their denial: they rewrite not only their own words but others’, effectively removing them as actors capable of any honest behavior. They must own the script, or the world threatens their paranoia delusion of ubiquitous threat. It isn’t without significance that J Richards and STALIN occur in Ivan’s list of heroes.
What Guessedworker doesn’t understand is that you’re a clinically SICK little freak who’s made this blog a pile of his own paranoid solipsistic shit. In this he exhibits the naive trust of many of his race, and gives me to consider whether he’s fit to lecture anyone at all on what is best for our peoples.
As a Jew, I can’t being disruptive .... it’s in my blood .... But I’ll be honest with you: you’re right. I am disruptive. I do abuse the privilege to comment. And after this salutary salvo, I promise you it will cease. I can’t be on the same blog as someone like you. Our natures are completely antithetical.
No — you are crazy and paranoid because you have turned on nearly everyone who isn’t sucking up to you. The only person who isn’t a Jew, and not one of your vicious little toadies, is Guessedworker, and it’s evident from your scrupulously maintained tone of haughty contempt for your subjects that you don’t really think much of him, either. He’s a moron for you setting you over us. I say that with as much warm regard as I can conceive for a man who is capable of such poor judgement. He has made one of the worst mistakes it’s possible to make in a position of authority — turning that authority over to a paranoiac.
All he did was post some worthless videos he imbued with immense significance, expecting others to see it as well. The problem is not that he may be a little anxious that MR not because VNN — if he were “doing damage control” for Jews, why didn’t he post over Dan Dare’s egregious Nazi rally photo? — but rather that he’s a tech-minded petty narcissist. Really, the more I delve into YOUR character, the more venial Renner’s foibles seem to me. I would MUCH rather see him directing the ship than the likes of you. Another thing: I was probably wrong that he censored me — having experienced more of your quiet mendacity (excising comments, twisting words, arranging stats & studies to suit your monomaniacal narrative), the coolness with which you LIE (e.g. feminine-beauty.info), with your delusional solicitude for modern white females, it is most probable that you censored my comment back then, and banned my IP. You will say you didn’t, and your coolness used to pacify me, but I now have little doubt that it was you, and given your recent scrape with the perfectly harmless Grahmmy-wammy, I have NO DOUBT at all that you perma-banned him. There remains the question of why you didn’t ban Leon Haller. Simple answer: You enjoyed making an example of him.
As I recall, more people agreed with my opinion — that Renner has nothing of substance to say, and couldn’t say it anyhow given his social ineptness — than said a single word about “excellent writings skills” or “Jewish interests”. That’s all YOU, freak. There’s nothing more to say about you. I could offer long excerpts from articles on this and that, pegging you to the wall of clinical psychopathology like a desiccated moth on tack-paper, but because the diagnosis is roughly PARANOID, DELUSIONAL, and IN DENIAL, you will of course either brush it off as “phony psychology” (at which you try your hand anyway when you imagine it serves you), OR rearrange things to neutralize any explanatory power they present. In the same way you worked up a clumsy list, above, purporting to prove why Soren Renner is “serving Jewish interests”. You’re about as deft with truth as I was with a woman’s brazier at fourteen, and those not blinded by your machine-like solipsism will not fail to note how bizarrely “just-so” and absurdly overly rational it is, as is your entire method. Somewhere along the way you let your internet addiction — all those FACTS, STATS, FOOTNOTES! it all means something! — get the better of you, and now you are lost in pure delusional fantasy. But the fantasy isn’t perfect yet, which Graham observed not long ago in referring to an old thread where you appear not so over-rational, suspicious and paranoid; you’ve emerged from the chrysalis into pure paranoia now, but as you snake along reinterpreting phenomena out of the way, you leave behind a trail of contradictory assertions which betray the unreality of your world-concept; so that one moment you humbly “suggest” that someone is a Jew, or “may be” working for Jews, and a day or so later, they ARE a Jew, ARE working for Jewish interests “and should be treated accordingly”, with the likes of Helvena, dc, Ivan and the illustrious inquisitor of English Moralism (WHITHER DAMNIT???) Crappinchaos, the ice-man, the sexless fucking toad croaking out in the frozen bogs of Michigan at others like HE’S BETTER THAN THEM, right there with you, ready to yip assent at you for rousting them Jews, boy, you really done it y’have! just look at all we Jews scurrying out of the light! This is the self-momentum of the paranoiac. He does not pause to let reality alter his views; he alters reality to suit his views and punishes others for not going along with it. And each of you little toady fucks who do go along with it are feeding this one big troll even as you squawk moralistically about all the “trolls and antis” you imagine you see everywhere. You too are paranoid. Consider this if you’ve any reason left: VNNF is full of J Richards — and J Richards thinks they’re all Jews! As for you, Richards Bot, compute this: “You are not the lone voice of reason. A sophisticated delusion is still a delusion. You’re living completely inside your own head, playing out ridiculously unlikely scenarios, pulling the strings of actors whose lines you wrote yourself.” — Mr Voight 104
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:38 | # Uh, I hope you don’t leave. I enjoy your posts, even if I wish sometimes you would lay things out a little more fully and systematically (you can’t expect all your readers to catch every allusion, nuance, neologism, etc). Some (usually the dumber commenters) have complained about my excessive comment length, but if I do so it is to lay out a position properly and understandably, esp for the benefit of newcomers (to MR or just the thread). Your posts are sometimes too scattershot to have the maximum effect they could have. But don’t let Richards push you away. The reason I like MR is 1) until Richards appeared, I wasn’t banned (as I’ve been at so many other sites); 2) there are some interesting and bright people here (like you - and so many others pre-summer 2011 -persons like Trainspotter, Notus Wind, scrooby, Grimoire, wandrin, Gudmund, Dasein, Sam Davidson, Armor, CS, Thorn, Dan Dare, and many others now mostly AWOL - only a handful of decent people still hang out here, I suspect because of Richards and his petty, pedantic tyranny); 3) I like the ability to post in real time (the day waiting for moderating at places like AR really ruins the possibility of interesting conversations); finally, I just happen to like the simple, but readable and effective graphic design. Anyway, it would be sad if, as you or someone else has said, Majority Rights becomes Majority Richards. 105
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:20 | # How Austrian school economics facilitates Jewish virulence: http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120208/the-stark-truth-interview-with-james-bowery-part-2 Post a comment:
Next entry: Sunic interviews Fraser
|
|
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 Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:25 | #
What’s missing, and is made screamingly obvious by its absence, is blood as the clear, authentic axial counter to liberalism’s confected self. In its stead we get gestures in its direction but nothing of its primal, vitalistic power and meaning.
It is difficult to believe that the above gentlemen, particularly Mr Sandel, don’t know they are using avoidance mechanisms when they reify tradition, history, city, etc. In other words, they are still liberals really, and the meanings they wish to confer upon us are still artificial - they just aren’t “chosen”. Better than nothing, no doubt. But we nationalists have this unaccountably stubborn conviction that our tradition, history, place - there is no shortage of ways to avoid the absolutism of blood - come out of the people we are, and constitute, therefore, no more than a resting point for an honest thinker, and never a final destination.
Let us also be clear that we are, as Europeans, living in our end-times - save, perhaps, for the few righteous children of Noah who may be granted the right to live a technocratic but never plutocratic existence, and see what’s at the end of the rainbow. Liberalism’s authorial rights are the mess of potage being used, knowingly or not, to shuffle us away into bloodlessness while we are swamped by colour.
Blood is our only line of defence, first from the colour, second from the complex forces of the global future. Or, as the desperate say, first strangle the dog.