|
|
|
The Necessity of Independence An Independence Day critique of Socrates and his mother of invention. On July 4, the US holiday celebrating the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence being formally adopted by the Continental Congress to create the United States, the philosophy of independence is often overlooked. On the subject of independence, I quote Socrates* in first-person narration (according to Plato as translated by Benjamin Jowett):
This dialog goes on to confuse “needs” with “wants”—starting with “food” which, although it is clearly a necessity, is not necessarily obtained in other than a “self-sufficient” manner. One may posit that, given a condition of high population density, there is no practical way of obtaining food other than through agricultural specialization. Let us proceed to adopt that given condition rather than arguing its merits. Even so, we have made that necessity conditional. Stepping back from our assumption: What if the “need” is viewed not as the “need to obtain food”, but the “need to reduce population density”? In probability and statistics, hence natural philosophy, there is the notion of conditional dependence or, conversely, conditional independence. Two attributes of the natural world may be viewed as being conditionally independent if there is some condition under which the knowledge of one conveys no knowledge about the other. The Greeks at least had the good sense to organize their civilization around relatively independent cities which, through their independence, were able to try out various social orders that, minimized confounding variables hence interpretation of the results of those experiments. Theirs may be viewed as a particular kind of city-centered sortocracy: sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them. The Greeks called this “scientific society”. These city-centered human ecologies were called “demes”—a term zoologists have borrowed to describe a territory within which a species tends to emerge because mating outside that territory tends to be rare. That’s all very well and good but is such independence necessary? Keeping in mind that new species evolve as a result of reproductive independence of demes, one can rephrase the question: That’s all very well and good but is Creation necessary?
*I don’t resort to quoting Greek philosophers merely out of pedantic narcissism, as is almost always the case when they are cited in present day discourse, but because of their cultural proximity to the Dorian invasion as the foundation of Greek civilization. Greek philosophy echoes dissonance with their barbarian pastoralist ancestors—ancestors who most likely did not shrink from natural duel as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing as did the Greek philosophers. This dissonance—this cognitive dissonance—gives rise to rationalization of “the way things are”, which is the true content and intent of most of the social musings of the philosophers. In this attempt to rationalize “the way things are” we catch a glimpse of “the way things were” as the dissonant subtext.
Comments:2
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 05 Jul 2013 03:00 | # Most famously Hector’s battle with Achilles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector#Duels_with_warriors Georg Oesterdiekhoff wrote that:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Kr3P4bolLOAC&q=homicide#v=snippet&q=homicide&f=false Oesterdiekhoff is contemptuous of the broad view of justifiable homicide held by, in his view. primitive low IQ savages. An interesting quote from Sobran at Age of Treason…
http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2013/07/joe-sobran-on-force.html And finally there is this…
Well worth the time to re-read. http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments//civilization_takedown_the_revolt_of_the_vikings 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:28 | # The old boy was right. The state is a need. The need (or the primary one, anyway) is the maintenance of stable conditions for genetic transmission, within the bounds of natural genetic variation. Does that answer your question, James? 4
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 06 Jul 2013 15:54 | # My first question:
Can be rephrased
My second question was:
I suppose I might not have relegated to a footnote my comment:
In other words, the “need” for state “in order to provide stable conditions for genetic transmission, within the bounds of natural genetic variation and further evolutionary creation” is a result of there already existing “states” (although a better word than “state” in this sense is “gang”) that are inimical to one’s own nation where “nation” is a people related by consanguinity and congeniality. Exterminate those states and the “need” for one’s own state disappears into a culture that reveres, in the masculine dimension, fair fights and exterminates those who engage in unfair fights (ganging up on individuals—sneak attacks—dishonest/dishonorable dealings—etc.) and, in the female dimension, a woman’s authentically* expressed choice of sire for her children. *as contrasted with extended phenotypically manipulated “choice”—which is really a state of slavery against which a perceptive masculine action is to kill the parasitic master in a fair fight. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 06 Jul 2013 21:23 | # The need for food (not, of course, the want of high calories foods) is secondary to the need for continuity. We do not exist to eat. We eat to exist. The notion that the need to eat to exist can be met for some by reducing the numbers descends, eventually, to a Hardinesque conclusion. As a proposition, it is indeed anti-Creation. In fact, anti-Creation is not a viable proposition but a contingent fact of the physical universe. It is Nature’s function, and therefore ours, to subsist in the teeth of Time/Entropy. We are never free of the shadow of Time/Entropy. We never really stop thinking about the fragility of life and the certainty of death. It is always there somewhere in the natural instinct of Mind, causing us to glance sideways as we eat, even in the most comfortable and divertingly fashionable restaurants, or to tense our bodies as a stranger approaches on the street. This concern (or care, to borrow from Heidegger) exemplifies the necessity of Creation (or Nature, or Life), does it not? I don’t see how it is humanly possible to construct a real argument for its non-necessity, for that would be an argument for Time/Entropy as in some way a good in itself. But what advances Life alone is the predicate for good. In the absence of Life there is only valueless mechanics. The will to Life is also the master of male status, which is the master of honour, btw. We do not exist to be honourable. I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about the bounds of honour without which it is no longer vivifying, and also about the question of honour, authenticity and artifice. I would go further, and say that in the absence of the fruits of these two discussions it is highly inadvisable to proceed to the conclusions which you do. Honour that has a cost which outweighs its benefit is negative to life; and honour that is not emergent - not a human property - but is confected is just a roll of the dice as to whether or not it vivifies. Honour is not an unalloyed good. 6
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 06 Jul 2013 22:02 | # If I were to characterize the ultimate “need” it is, as I have often said, “Joy of Creation” in both the active and passive senses of that phrase. All else is “want” in some sense. From there we may put “food”, “honour”, etc. in perspective. Life may not be necessary to joy of creation if we posit primal Being, but life may further joy of creation. Eastern philosophies (of the assimilated Aryan invaders such as Buddha and the Vedas) in saying “Life is suffering.” and to be terminated by nirvana (blowing out the candle of life) as the ultimate realization of joy of creation, are drawing a stark contrast with the essence of the, as yet, unassimilated west.
As creatures of Time, we need hearing for full Joy of Creation. As creatures of Space, we need sight for full Joy of Creation. As creatures of Mass, we need touch for full Joy of Creation. As creatures of Life, we need taste for full Joy of Creation. As creatures of Sex, we need smell for full Joy of Creation. As creatures of Morality, we need a sense of Honor for full Joy of Creation. 7
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 06 Jul 2013 22:35 | # I see Mr. Bowery’s pitiful obsessions continue. Where in nature does the notion of a ‘fair fight’ exist? Imagine the world, sans the primates know as Homo sapiens, and where shall we find ‘fair fights’ within the natural order? Or indeed the supposed ‘ubiquity’ of pair-wise duels? What’s more ‘fair’ about an individual having an advantage over another individual as opposed to a group having an advantage other another group? This set of ideological fixations/misuse of evolutionary terminology/cod theology is lame and weak beyond belief. In short Mr.Bowery your ‘ideas’ are PISS-POOR, FUCKING GRADE A BULLSHIT. As for the ancient Greeks - I’d take their culture over anything on offer by those blinded by the American Ideology. And they knew that telling lies, ‘cheating’ etc., could be virtues under the right conditions. Read the Odyssey. But wait silly me I should instead be reading the ‘timeless wisdom’ of 3rd hacks like Jefferson, yes? P.S. what’s with all the slightly creepy ‘idealisation’ of women? 8
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 06 Jul 2013 23:19 | # You are not civil so its hard to see how you can advocate for the merits of civilization, your very mode of argument being a counter example. 9
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 07 Jul 2013 01:11 | # (I just beat the Apple chess program!) Without God, there is no “Good”. There is no “meaning”, and there may not even be “control” (I’d be interested to hear whether MR’s atheists believe in freedom of the will; if so, its scope or extent, if not, then the point of our actions or activism). Nature is pitiless and blind. It contains nothing within itself that can be construed as meaningful. There is no ‘reason’ for things; no ‘higher’ or ‘lower’, except insofar as those terms are physically descriptive (10 is higher than 5; apes are higher than insects, in the sense of more genetically complex); no ‘good’ or ‘bad’. All these terms applied to an atheist’s reality are merely instances of anthropomorphism. Life is not ‘good’. It merely ‘is’. This is where atheism gets you. I respect those philosophers (eg, Daniel Dennett) who rigorously acknowledge this, and refuse to imply that human musings are anything more than the neurological states of particular members of one species of hominid. Of course, I personally find this vision unpersuasive, and certainly doubt that its wide propagation will aid in the cause of white preservation. Past centuries believed atheists ought to keep their dangerous views to themselves, and I agree, even if atheism should prove to be true. The end result of atheism is not the option to choose one’s own meanings and values, but simple nihilism. 10
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 07 Jul 2013 01:52 | # There is nothing that I have posited that is contrary to “God”. Indeed, I posit primal Being which, it would seem is necessary in order to avoid infinite regress. However, your hostility to nature doesn’t allow you to accept primal Being as that might indicate we are in primal Being and primal Being is in us—and that would make us gods. Hell you might even be called a son of God if that were the case. Worse yet, I, “athiest” that I am could also be called a son of God. If anyone around here is an “atheist” in the sense of denying God, it is you with your nihilistic view of nature. 11
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 07 Jul 2013 08:26 | #
‘Thinking’ about the fragility of life and the certainty of death is not instinctive. Fight or flight is instinctive and the tension wanes almost as quickly as hunger pangs once the stranger or danger passes. It might be a function of old age. We are closer to the end than the beginning. Antagonistic pleiotropy is a gene centric argument for the ‘good’ of time/entropy from an evolutionary perspective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonistic_pleiotropy_hypothesis
In altruism. At first it appeared to be a trait unique to the Germanics and thus suggested it was a unique cultural adaptation; an adaptive way to limit the broad and continuous killing of a tribal blood feud. However, considering it’s ubiquitous nature it appears to be more likely an outgrowth of altruism. 12
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 07 Jul 2013 20:07 | # Natural duel is typically a fair fight. That’s why “natural” is the appropriate qualifier. It is the rare, incipient or fully eusocial species in which multiple males gang up on a single male. The central question for human culture of humans (as opposed to human culture of plants and other animals during, say domestication) is what constitutes a fair fight. Clearly a fair fight must include the chance that nature provides the physically weak—which means the arena must be large enough to allow for flight, planning, fabrication of tools and weapons, from natural materials using basic equipment that could be fabricated by a well-trained man entering the age and declared state of accountability/sovereignty. Jews with moral integrity, of course, would claim a fair fight involves using anything provided by civilization as “natural materials”. Moreover, they would claim it is a fair fight to use groups competing against groups—that group selection is the crown of creation. Some here at MR would agree. 13
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 07 Jul 2013 22:23 | #
The story of David and Goliath or Nestor and the giant Ereuthalion from Homer’s 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Jul 2013 23:31 | # James, Joy is an emotion. Emotion functions as a means by which the organism may make adaptive choices in the world. Since Creation is the eternal primal act it is ontologically and evolutionarily prior to the emotional sentience which, at best from your point of view, follows it as a reward (emotion in healthy minds is alway posterior to a psychological or physical event - that’s how it works). It is simply fallacious to suppose that, for example, the reproductive act is undertaken for emotional purposes. And if we expand the interpretation of Creation to include the fruits of sexual union (as we should), well, no responsible parent would agree that children are in any way “for” parental joy. This Creation thing is more profound than that. Usually, folks with a poetic soul, which I lack, corral everything somewhat fuzzily under love. That’s better, and not so ego-centric, not so needy. But it too, suffers from the same error of timing. Creation is the unique imperative. It is unmixed, urgent, force; at once both vast and impersonal and present and binding at the human personal level. It alone is the giver of those meanings which mediate between the self and Nature. It alone has the power to enliven, and let mortal men touch the skirts of life everlasting. I don’t see what you mean when you write that “Life may not be necessary to joy of creation”. Are you suggesting that Creation can be independent of the created life. How? We are both the created and the creative, like wave-particle duality. As creatures of Time, incidentally, we need to lead whole lives. It’s one of the main reasons we are nationalists in an age of European racial dissolution. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Jul 2013 23:41 | # Desmond, Thanks for the lead on the vexed question of evolution of ageing, which I must say I hadn’t considered before. Having now done so, I don’t see how genes for ageing conflict with my view of Time/Entropy. Do you want to be senescent yourself? No you don’t. There is no will to senescence. (Perhaps you did not realise that we are talking about the will to life here.) 16
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 07 Jul 2013 23:59 | # Oh well Mr. Jones - MR’s ‘expert’ on all things biological - has spoken. Fair fights (pair-wise duels) occur throughout the natural order due to ‘altruism’. Problem solved then. Armchair adaptationism wins the day! No-one here seems to know quite what the pathetic fallacy is, yes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy It’s the height of arrogance mixed with a large dollop ignorance to think the universe itself ‘must’ conform to some human idea of ‘fairness’ or whatever. To paraphrase Wallace Stevens things - in the wider sense of things (the natural order per se ) - merely are. 17
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 00:04 | # Joy is a qualia. Qualia are inherent in primal Being and it is from primal Being that we inherent qualia, including Joy. The perspective taken by mechanistic evolution—the perspective you are taking with regard to reproduction vis Joy of Creation—is just as backwards as is the idea that qualia are emergent rather than essence. That’s what I mean when I say Joy of Creation precedes life. We, little miniature “universes” that we are, are thoughts not unlike the characters that are the thoughts of the author of a novel. The author enjoys writing the novel. The author enjoys identifying with the characters of the novel and, through them, experiencing the author’s creation from a perspective differing from that of the author as author. But there are other Creations with corresponding Joys. Earth could be wiped out in an instant by a cosmic event, and while Joy of Creation might be reduced, it would most certainly continue on the vast scale that preceded life on Earth. 18
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 00:09 | # The inability of humans to even remotely comprehend the magnitude of primal Being within our tiny aspects thereof is only a pathetic fallacy when we attempt to attribute to the qualia of primal Being our limitations. 19
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 00:27 | # A sexual being’s refusal to recognize his or her own will to die—a will programmed into their very DNA—is built on the denial of the purpose of their mortality: To make room for greater creation—creation in which they participated. Obviously, if one’s purpose in life—Joy of Creation—has been perverted by a sex-denying culture, one sees no meaning in death. Indeed, in a dysgenic culture such as the one in which we live our lives, the very idea of death is horrifying on a level that goes beyond the ordinary will to survive and mate (that is naturally present during reproductive years) precisely because it represents the destruction not just of ourselves, but of prior Creation. It is this horror that mass manipulators of religious sentiment turn into mass organisms that—like pre-sexual organisms—are immortal. In a very real sense, these religions eat Creation and shit it out. 20
Posted by MarkE on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 07:16 | # James Bowery, What’s your take on the “transhumanist” and “singularity” folks? 21
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 09:04 | #
I believe I already made that point @9. 22
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:18 | # Did people catch this? Old hat, but cannot be reiterated too often in this egalitarian age:
23
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:19 | # James, You have crossed into the realm of faith, where Nature is purposive and the role of men is to strive upward toward some novel, redefining meta-ideal. Historically, nationalism in this heady atmosphere manifests as fascism, in the broad sense. I would not be at all surprised if you find elements of Codreanu’s fascism of the Christo-Romanian spirit appealing, minus his collective focus of course. So far in this thread, you have (i) redefined human emotion as some neutral, subjective experience like the sensing of colour, without consideration of its evolutionary function or its corresponding systematisation in the brain, and raised up one human emotion as the qualia of cosmic satisfaction; (ii) in doing so, you have placed the individual self at the centre of everything, and given him or her the “purpose” of consuming said satisfaction; (iii) presented said satisfaction, being cosmic and primal, as necessarily deep, whereas it isn’t - it is on a par for depth with a Yes album from the early seventies. Ordinary, beautiful parenthood ... family ... is where the deepest satisfaction is to be got from human life, and it’s just about basic and accessible, unpoetic things, nothing more (nationalists should have a pretty good inkling of this); (iv) invented a category of being called Primal Being which, so far as I know, nobody has ever encountered; (v) invented a will to death, thereby conflating transmission of these mooted genes for senescence with the dynamic of human preference. I could go on, but you called the other day for foundation and suggested that there may be a mathematical basis for it. Here you seem to be just firing off ideas as they arise in the exchange. Seriously, have you ever thought of “the will to death” before today? Let us return to the task at hand: how does our race secure its existence when it is enculturated and encaptured in a system that pulverises and disintegrates our peoplehood, and reduces us to petty individual actors sans blood, sans land, sans love except self-love, sans the power to act? 24
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 22:46 | # GW: You lightly dismiss the question of qualia with a wave of a Yes album cover. Perhaps you could wave it back and forth fast enough to become a time-reversal quantum wave phenomenon and go from the early 70s to the early 60s and get a death-bed confession from Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961) that he was being a shallow hippy when he said the following:
The phrase “the will to die” is inherent in almost everything I’ve said about the inextricable link between love and death in sex. For instance from over a year ago:
Is it that hard to accept that sanity is aligning one’s conscious will with that of our own DNA? Is saying “Yes” to Creation such a crime? If you want to deal with proximate problems rather than ultimate then you are abandoning the ontology project.
25
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 09 Jul 2013 01:32 | #
How does senescence (from Latin: senescere, meaning “to grow old,”) change a will to life or survival? Of course there is a will to senescence because we wish to survive even as we grow old. 26
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 09 Jul 2013 01:52 | #
It’s not what was said, but reading comprehension is not one of Mr. Lister’s strong points. The point was that altruism exists in the natural order, not ‘fair-fights”.
Charles Darwin 27
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 09 Jul 2013 02:28 | # http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers#Philosophy_of_mind
But then just look at his picture: And compare to this picture:
Hippies. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Jul 2013 07:08 | # James, Let’s deal with the qualia - emotion issue first. Perception of the world without the animal organism is one of the strategies that Nature conceived (along with the giving of phenotype to Time/Entropy, the division of the sexes, etc) in her struggle to survive unto the morrow. Broadly, this perception can be passive or active. Passive perception is the reception and interpretation of evolutionarily neutral data received through the physical senses, such as colour, size, distance, texture, speed and trajectory, temperature, etc, and its organisation into a representation of reality. A single datum or impression is a quale. Above and separate from this wholly involuntary process are the great systems of Mind which attend to the making of evolutionarily adaptive choices, and which are the bearers of consciousness: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/what_it_is_to_be_human_part_2 The oldest, fastest-operating and most universal system is the motor system. It is separate from the autonomic system which, again, operates wholly involuntarily. It is the mind system controlling movement. In humans, about seventy-five per cent of us are heavily biased towards dependence on the motor system in the way we stand psychologically, so to speak. The next fastest and most common system, which may only be mammalian in its reach, is the emotional system. From that old MR piece:
The emotional system is psychologically dominant in about 15% of us. The third system is the intellectual system, which in its super-developed form is particular to humans. It is the seat of conscousness and is dominant in about 10% of humans, and 100% of MR readers. The important question of the Tales of Topographic Oceans is not related to qualia. I am saying that your religious allusions do not contain worthwhile content but, actually, have a rather loose and sensate character about them. Leon is a classic, doctrinal faithist for whom the unreason of an emotional attachment holds no question or doubt. Richard Williamson is very much like this. You are not. But neither are you an Aquinas. OK, I accept that you have considered death to be at one with the orgiastic consumption of life you appear to commend. I used the term above ‘‘the giving of phenotype to Time/Entropy”, and that’s as far as it goes for me. I have an existentialist’s conviction that life is in the single moment, and there is nothing outside, notwithstanding the fact of our ordinary waking consciousness which places us outside. I am an amateur psychologist of consciousness, and find my interest in meta-readings of the cosmos satisfied in full by the evolutionary narrative. 29
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Jul 2013 08:20 | # ...... “Above and separate from this wholly involuntary process are the great systems of Mind which attend to the making of evolutionarily adaptive choices, and which are the bearers of consciousness:”
30
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:34 | # I’m not sure what you mean, Daniel. Regulation and adaptation are terms usually employed at the gene level. Mind-wise, the autonomic system regulates the internal processes of the body. But the function of the three externally-focused systems, evolutionarily speaking, is the abstraction of information from the world so that adaptive choices can be made. I don’t see where regulation can enter into it. Can you extrapolate? 31
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:58 | # Yes, according to this hypothesis as well, the matter of regulation being more economic of flexibility and therefore an evolutionary advantage is hypothesized to be at the genetic level rather than somatic, but the regulators are assimilating Lamarckian change. “That it is, in general, more economical of flexibility to achieve a given characteristic by genotypic than by somatic change.” ...to test that hypothesis, you’d have to set up circumstances that destroy those who would hold up due to secondary adjustments rather than having survived to do genetic level change. “It is hypothesized here that simulated Lamarckian inheritance with have survival value when the population must adjust to a stress which remains constant over generations.” That is, it may pay the organism in survival terms to achieve… assimilation of acquired characteristics. They might profitably hand over to somatic homeostatic mechanisms the control of some characteristic which had previously been more rigidly controlled by the genotype.”
We usually think of the regulators as being in some broad evolutionary sense ‘higher’ than the ‘adjusters.’...if there is a broad evolutionary trend in favor of regulators, is this trend consistent with..the survival benefits that accrue when control is transferred to genoytypic mechanisms? Clearly, not only the regulators but also the adjusters must rely on homeostatic mechanisms. If life is to go on, a large number of phsyiological variables must be held within narrow limits. If the internal osmotic pressure, for example, is allowed to change, there must be mechanisms which defend these essential variables. It follows that the difference between adjusters and regulators is a matter of where, in the complex network of physiological causes and effects, homeostatic process operates. In terms of this analysis, the polarity between adjusters and regulators can be extrapolated another step to what we may call ‘extraregulators’ which achieve homeostatic control outside the body by changing and controlling the environment - man being the most conspicuous example of this class.” 32
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:11 | # “It was argued that in adjusting to high altitude there is a benefit to be obtained, in terms of the economics of flexibility, by shifting from, e.g. panting to the more profound and less reversible changes of acclimation; that habit is more economical than trial and error; and the genotypic control may be more economical than acclimation. These are called centripetal changes in the location of control. In the broad picture of evolution, however, it seems that the trend is in the opposite direction; that natrual selection, in the long run, favors regulators more than adjusters, and extraregulators more than regulators. This seems to indicate that there is a long time evolutionary advantage to be gained by centrifugal shifts in locus of control. To speculate about problems so vast is perhaps romantic, but it is worth noting that this contrast between the overall evolutionary trend and the trend in a population faces with constant stress is what we might expect here from the reverse corollary being considered. If constant stress favors centripetal shifts in locus of control, and variable stress favors centrifugal shift, then it should follow that in the vast spans of time and change which determine the broad evolutionary picture, centrifugal shift will be favored.” 33
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:32 | # Summary: “In this essay the author uses deductive approach. Starting from premises of conventional physiology and evolutionary theory and applying to these the arguments of cybernetics, he shows that there must be an economics of somatic flexibility and that this economics must, in the long run, be coercive upon evolutionary process. External adaptation by mutation or genotypic reshuffling, as ordinarily thought of, will inevitably use up available somatic flexibility. It follows - if evolution is to be continuous - that there must also be a class of genotypic changes which will confer a bonus of somatic flexibility. In general, the somatic achievement of change is uneconomical because the process depends upon homeostasis, i.e., upon whole circuits of interdependent variables. It follows that inheritance of acquired characteristics would be lethal to the evolutionary system because it would fix the values of these variables all around the circuits. The organism, or species would, however, benefit (in survival terms) by genotypic change which would simulate Lamarckian inheritance, i.e. would bring about the adaptive component of somatic homeostasis without involving the whole homeostatic circuit. Such a genotypic change (erroneously called ‘the Baldwin effect’) would confer a bonus of somatic flexibility and would therefore have marked survival value. Finally, it is suggested that a contrary argument can be applied in those cases where a population must acclimate to variable stress. Here, natural selection should favor an anti-Baldwin effect.”
34
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:43 | # “To test this proposition we need experiments in which the population of organisms is placed under double stress: a) that stress which will induce the characteristic in which we are interested, and b) a second stress which will selectively decimate the population, favoring, we hope, the survival of those individuals whose flexibility is more able to meet the second stress after adjusting to the first. According to the hypothesis, such a systems should favor those individuals which achieve their adjustment to the first stress by genotypic process.” 36
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Jul 2013 19:02 | # I didn’t mean for that to be a conversation stopper: it just seemed to me that adaptation might be rather passive word, especially when considering evolutionary advance. It seemed that the growing edge of adaptation might admit of regulation; interesting to think about particularly in the context of consciousness and newer brain functions. 37
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:06 | #
Thus sayeth the unbeliever. Gave me a good chuckle. I am at far odds with the Catholic hierarchy, esp on race. But Christianity possesses all the intellectual/moral resources necessary to reestablish itself as a bulwark of our race and civilization. I have faith in God, but I have still more faith that re-instantiating a racially reformed Christianity in the West is the key to long-term white perpetuity. The record of atheism everywhere throughout the Euro-homelands in that regard has been unpromising, to say the least.
38
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 10 Jul 2013 04:51 | # GW, it is simply no good to try to deny the primacy of qualia. It, like identity, precedes existence. The objective presence of qualia—existence (as opposed to the subjective presence of qualia—experience) is where we forget our identity with primal Being: I Am—that undifferentiated identity for which all is qualia and for which there is nothing. The instant of first creation is the primal experience of qualia as something apart—as existing (there) or as memory (then). This is the starting point formalized by theories such as “The Theory of Indistinguishables” by Frederick Parker-Rhodes or G. Spencer Brown’s “Laws of Form” in which he posits “the first distinction” as the primordial act of creation. These are binary concepts and lead to variegated compositional structures. A related field of mathematics pertains to Walsh functions and their complementary Hadamard Transforms. You posit that “joy” is a human emotion. That it is. If I have been reckless in my choice of words then I’ll attempt to correct that but I do posit that human emotions have a range of complexities including the pure sensations relating to the primordial act of creation contrasting “I am” (find a better word than “joy” if you will) with “I am not” (find a better word than sorrow if you will). You claim that the complex structures we identify with mammalian nervous systems are necessary for these qualia. I claim that not only are they not necessary, the complex structures are compositions of precisely such primary qualia. 39
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:08 | # Leon, The character of the subject experiencing and expressing faith is not uniform. I suspect one could readily identify seven or eight salient types. Off the top of my head: (i) Devotionists, among whom contemplatives and pilgrims are the most obvious examples. (ii) Superstitionists of the traditional peasant variety. (iii) Explicators, of whom priests, writers on religious matters, and teachers of religion are prime examples. (iv) Evangelisers motivated by the desire that everyone believes as they believe. (v) Doctrinalists, who apprehend religion as a structure of sacred ideas within which the contest of religious thinking takes place. ... and so on. You belong to the fifth category. 40
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:37 | # Posted by James Bowery on July 09, 2013, 11:51 PM | # GW, it is simply no good to try to deny the primacy of qualia. It, like identity, precedes existence.
There is a modicum of arbitrariness in both a social and a non-social starting point, but the social provides a far more human and useful outlook - especially in correction of what’s ailing Whites in terms of organizing identity and defense as a group. There are ways to defend (and prevent from exploitation) the qualia of European kinds who are relatively independent and creative individuals without an phobic response to our social nature and concerns.
41
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:55 | # The novelty of modern, post-Kantian, liberal moral theory becomes apparent if we compare it with the classical Greek conception of ethics. Greek ethics, especially as developed by Aristotle, was unlike modern moral philosophy in that it did not suppose that to be good entailed acting in opposition to our desires (a la Kant). But does have a profoundly different take on what our desires should be or actually are (what our needs actually are when properly understood) thus is not mere individual hedonism (what we might call “if it feels ‘good’ do it” liberalism - the much more vulgar version of liberalism in comparison to Kant’s considerable efforts). Aristotle held to a naturalistic ethics that related the idea of good to fulfilling human needs. The good for man is eudaimonia (and that is our greatest need). This is usually translated as happiness, well-being, or flourishing, and Aristotle relates it to our human nature or essence. In his model the virtues are those qualities which would enable individuals to flourish WITHIN a community. And because Aristotle recognised that humans are only able to flourish within communities — he defines us as “political animals” — he made a direct link between ethics and politics. The question of how we are to flourish led directly to questions of what form of social and political community would best allow us to flourish. Consequently, as against those who would suggest an unbridgeable gulf between ethics and politics, Aristotle declared the subject matter of his book on ethics to be politics: “The science that studies the supreme Good for man is politics”. While the specificities of Aristotle’s account of what it is to flourish were, in part, historically shaped by his class-bound conservatism but there is nothing intrinsically elitist or conservative (in the modern sense of the term conservative - i.e right-wing liberalism) about his system. It does, however, presuppose a model of human nature that is profoundly at odds with modern liberal conceptions of individual egoism. I’d take the Aristotelian tradition over the insights of Christianity or Lockean ‘rugged individualism’ every single day of every single week of every year. And is not liberalism but a political theology that is itself a sublimated version of Christianity? Nearly all the early but major intellectual figures within the liberal canon were of course pious Christians; Kant et al. And let’s not mention that in the world today as it really exists ‘on the ground’ the majority of Christians are not Europeans - why on earth, either theologically or pragmatically, would such people think the precise look of Wales or Finland etc., is a ‘core’ concern of their Churches or themselves as individual believers? Delusional nonsense from Haller as is typical when he discusses his Voodoo. “oh oh oh morality does NOT exist without Nobodaddy - believe me or else! WHY I’m ‘axiomatically correct’ etc. As if that ‘line’ would convince a moderately bright 14 year old that had heard of Darwin, let alone the majority of intellectual opinion within European societies. Europeans existed before such nonsense (with our pre-Christian ethical and moral systems) and we will survive both a post-American world, as we will survive a post-Christian world too. American Voodoo lovers don’t want to hear that their way of life (on both fronts) is NOT essential, nor is it the model that ‘everyone’ should and does aspire to, but it’s hard to argue with delusions and the deluded isn’t it? Nevermind folks Mr. Haller, via his intellectual brilliance, with have the intelligentsia of Europe entirely on board with the ‘rationality of Christ’ and all that apparently flows from it. The night-watchman/Hayekian state plus a large slice of vulgar racism on top. To which the only response is: Jesus wept. Modern intellectual life - including science and philosophy - doesn’t ‘disprove’ God as much have no need for such a concept. And as much as I’m a critic of liberalism (as both theory and practice) I would not wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater and have the chief Juju man (the Pope or whatever other church leaders) define what is ‘off or on’ the intellectual table - thanks all the same. Of course Voodoo fanatics will, to their dying breath, assert the ‘essential’ status of their cult but history has moved on. I have discovered that in the end ‘debating’ with 99% or so of theists is a pointless task. For whatever emotional or psychological reasons part of their intellect is effectively dead. The part that should say “WHAT IF I’M WRONG” and takes such a question seriously. It’s the extremely intellectually cheap ‘axiomatic’ certainty that I think I most loathe about the vast majority of the Voodoo lovers. I also loathe the same trait in liberals - that are as a group even more guilty of the same intellectual sin. 42
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:08 | # The conflation of “community” as that which is necessary for biological survival with “community” as that which is necessary for human flourishing prejudices the science of “politics” as the study of the latter. It is an indisputable biological fact that man can “survive” in the absence of “community” unless we widen the definition of “community” to include the ecology which, itself, depends on the requisite physical environment. Of course, man being mortal, “survival” of the individual is guaranteed to be terminal. If we are to talk about “flourishing” we cannot escape from the definition of “culture” as artificial selection of biological characteristics. I find it really kind of interesting that the moment I brought this question up in its operational form—“What is a fair fight?”, the discourse seemed to go off the tracks into the weeds of early 1970s progressive rock. If we are to take seriously the task before us, which is how to “Flourish within Creation” the question of “What is a fair fight?” will remain to haunt our philosophical musings. For Man there is no escaping responsibility for evolutionary pressures brought to bear on Man. 43
Posted by italiantrader on Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:35 | # When you guys have a moment to discuss things a tad less esoteric… I lived and studied in America and maybe I will move there for a while because of marriage, but realistically only in Europe whites have a chance. In terms of political discourse and freedom it is night and day… ————- A smattering of far-sighted readers across the blogoglobe have impertinently suggested the possibility that as America the Disparate breaks apart socially, economically and perhaps even geographically, (a near-certain conclusion given present realities), a “Back to Europe” movement will arise in corners of the stressed population as a means of escaping the spiraling dystopia. The thought of returning to an ancestral homeland is enticing. It’s been the enlivening cri de coeur of at least one major world religion. If you, as I do, subscribe to the notion that humans evolve in step with their environment, and that this co-evolution of culture, ecology and biology plucks deep, primal rhythms in the heart when the three are aligned in accord with their historical partnership, then it’s not a strange proposition that returning to Europe, the authentic homeland of diaspora whites, might speak to many Americans in the same yearning, nostalgic way that returning to visit the neighborhood and the home in which you spent your formative years produces powerful undertows of wistful longing. This is the stuff of wild fantasy, but if the bottom falls out from under America it’s not at all inconceivable that millions of internally dispossessed Americans will cast an eye to a long-lost brother across the sea, in hopes of beginning anew what was so recklessly and stupidly squandered here. No one should expect a “B2E” movement to happen overnight; but we live in an accelerated age, and big change, say along a timeline of decades rather than centuries, is capable of sneaking up on you. Obviously, difficulties in a Back to Europe de-colonization scenario present. Outlined below are a few of the biggest hurdles. - The narcissism of small differences factor. Would the Europeans want us? Europe is already densely populated, much more so than most of the US, and the addition of 50 million Americans won’t alleviate that. Many continental Europeans don’t even much care for Americans, and view them as a distinct white ethnicity, loud, boisterous, ill-kempt, fat (guilty as charged) and uncouth, like the Dutch might view the Greeks. It would take a lot of convincing to get Europeans to agree to allow mass white American immigration, but if their native birth rates remain as low as they are now (Germany is at something like 1.2 TFR) then they may not have a choice but to welcome their wandering cousins back to the fold. - The Mad Max factor. Would Americans be willing to leave their military and weapons industry unattended? Can you imagine the US nuclear arsenal in the hands of the left side of the bell curve? *shudder* And the good bet is that the left-behinds will be disproportionately left-curvers, as only the smart will have the foresight to know ahead of time to jump a sinking ship. (This last point is debatable.) - The mutt factor. The founding stock of America is a mix of predominantly German, English, Dutch and Scandinavian ancestry. Irish, Italian and Polish added their bloodlines to the founding stock in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Since then, it’s been all downhill, but the essential biological nature of white America is largely unchanged: Most white Americans are some mix of the above European ethnicities. So where does a Euro-mutt American resettle in Europe? Germany? England? Italy? It’s not an easy question, as the theory of mind that evolution informs suggests that a Euro-mutt will feel ancient pulls toward each of his ancestral homelands. You might, for instance, feel equally benevolent toward the stoicism of Swedes and the lustiness of Italians, or equally comfortable in the mountainous Alps as in the steppes of Ukraine. - The leftoid factor. Contrary to assumption, I think most B2Eers will be of the liberal persuasion. As Haidt has documented, conservatives possess a stronger moral emphasis on loyalty. It’s conservatives who will stick it out in America till the bitter end, loyal to the last. Liberals will cut and run as soon as their pasty, plush asses are threatened by real discomfort. Plus, Europe has always held more appeal to liberals, who nurse the idea that the continent is filled with sophisticates. To the liberal, escape to Europe is like a hipster backpacker’s dream writ large. Of course, liberals will rationalize their escape as being something like “getting away from those degenerate rednecks ruining America”, but by that time most of us will know the real reason, and it won’t be a secret carefully warehoused by a dying MSM anymore. - The betrayal factor. To return to Europe is to dance on the graves of the Founding Fathers. It’s to say, “Sorry, old chaps, you bequeathed your posterity a great enterprise, and we made a hash of it. All that revolution for nothing.” Many Americans will have a hard time overcoming this emotional obstacle. Not a few Euros will probably rub it in our faces. - The culture clash factor. 350+ years is enough time for a distinct American culture to flourish. It’s perhaps enough time for a distinct American genome to flourish as well. Plopping Americans into Europe could create a strain that, coupled with the dysgenic Muslim elements of European society, can’t be managed. But this is pure speculation. It’s just as likely that Americans, once safely in the womb of Mother Europe, will revert to their ancestral pre-American norms and imbibe the best of Europe’s culture while jettisoning the worst of America’s. - The climate factor. Can America’s white Southroners, acclimated to their subtropical heat and humidity, take to the dryness and cold of continental Europe or the chill winds of the Scottish Highlands? If their genes haven’t changed too much, they can. White Northerners should have no trouble settling anywhere in Europe. All told, the Back to Europe scenario is less likely than a Retreat to Canada or Trek to Australia scenario. Canada is closer and more simpatico (speak the same language) to American sensibilities, while Australians share Americans’ zest for life and genial brusqueness. If climate warming proceeds as predicted, Canada will become exceedingly friendly as a relocation spot (Australia less so). Regrettably, South Africa is a lost cause, and Russians have too much spooky Siberian blood in them to find enough common ground with Americans as next door neighbors. For the single American man, the choice of relocation destination in Europe will depend on the beauty of the native women. At the risk of opening the floor to furious but unenlightening debate, all of the East European countries would rank high, along with Italy and France, followed by Sweden and Finland. But don’t stress about it. You’re going to Europe; woman-wise you really can’t go wrong since most of the world’s beauties hail from the land of the ice and snow where Cro-Magnons made inspired interspecies love with large-eyed Neanderthals. 44
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:54 | # italiantrader, It’s good to keep in mind the migration option for Americans, though Canada and Australia are both well on the road to becoming lost causes themselves. Continental Europe is the one living space on which we can never give up, no matter how grim things become. This is our continent, or sacred hearth, and we must take it back ... all of it. On the matter of which white Americans would be most likely to remain behind longest, or for keeps, the article doesn’t achieve much by looking through a political prism. It might be more interesting to see how Christian fundamentalism feeds into this, and also intelligence (it is usual in instances of mass flight for the smart fraction to check in at Departures early to avoid the queues). Anyone care to put a timescale on the flight phenomenon, allowing that it is a likely future event? 45
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 07:34 | # Posted by italiantrader on July 10, 2013, 03:35 PM | # I get it, I just do not get though what is the point of those intricate verbal acrobacies) However, it is probably going to take some maths to formulate and manage genetic sortocracy and nationing. ————- July 2, 2013 by CH http://heartiste.wordpress.com/ That is the kind of thing that will have to be discussed seriously, for its implications. Americans are not necessarily seen as the saviors as they may have been or perceived as during the cold war or world wars – yes, the memory and gratitude is short; nevertheless, there should be sympathy for the European perspective of distaste for American interloping. He must be talking about our New Religion, Exclusively for Whites – but he’s mistaken in that requirement, we make no requirement that you return to the homelands, not even for a visit. Yes, I agree; that is part of what is sought in coordination with the Euro-DNA Nation, part of why defense of the ancient co-evolutionary lands is treated as one part in a major three part equation. , then it’s not a strange proposition that returning to Europe, the authentic homeland of diaspora whites, might speak to many Americans in the same yearning, nostalgic way that returning to visit the neighborhood and the home in which you spent your formative years produces powerful undertows of wistful longing. I imagine many would have this yearning, a yearning that I have not only had but experienced. This is the stuff of wild fantasy, but if the bottom falls out from under America it’s not at all inconceivable that millions of internally dispossessed Americans will cast an eye to a long-lost brother across the sea, in hopes of beginning anew what was so recklessly and stupidly squandered here. It was stupidly and recklessly squandered. That is part of the legitimate distaste that Europeans might have for Americans. However, Europeans have done their share of stupid and reckless squandering in the last 100 years and more as well. But there will, likely and hopefully, develop out of the necessity for mutual defense, a compact between persons of European descent – all of that will involve coordination; some of it will involve reuniting people with their ancient people and homelands (we should be striving to avoid the reckless thing; and rather scientifically determine what would be an optimal amount of repatriation, and a reasonable modicum of European admixture with one another.
Narcissism was a huge pejorative factor for me (and the narcissim of Europeans toward me as an American, I guess): Europeans can seem very much like Americans on the surface and an American can become too comfortable as he is welcomed hospitably into a trap, as the Europeans are going to punish an American for all the bad “truths” that they know about White Americans - from the portrayal of Whites in Jewish/Hollywood movies. Trying to explain to Europeans that it isn’t true and that there are real hardships in America can be like having to build a 20 mile road to a meeting that you are to have in two hours. - Would the Europeans want us? As a rule, I would think not – and rightfully so. It is not just that Americans can sloppily run rough-shod over ancient concerns; it is rather that they are often unnecessary – they are not needed unless to provide money; which can be obnoxious for both the American and the European – many cultures of which view defrauding people of money as much less of a taboo than in America. I mean cultures quite literally, because, as an American, when you have a dealing with one dishonest person, you are expecting the next to be as outraged as you are; but you might find person after person not able to even understand what you are pained over. What are you complaining about? They think your money came easy, that you don’t deserve it; the cultural narratives that they share tell them so, and they have limitless supply of justifications to deprive you. They may put you on a pedestal in order to knock you down. You might not think you are greater than them, but many of them want to compete with you, whether you want to or not. This is true of the post communist countries in particular – they will often treat your wish to be conciliatory, fair and generous as being weak, naive and a sucker. Communism created some baroque mental-sociopathological types - the late Jonathan Bowden discusses this quite eloquently - that an American can be quite off an American’s radar screen; perhaps because you are being treated as an enemy, even if you have the best of intentions. One of the keys to avoiding this trap is to stay very straight and clean. Do not try to be a little naughty with the boys. If you can, find one approprite woman to marry and stay with her. If, when trying to get oriented, you get on the wrong side of a woman who may fancy you, she may have no qualms about putting organized crime after you. It is perhaps used as an “ecological function” to put organized criminals onto those involved in gray or black activities - that would include “racism”, because European girls “know all about it” from movies, higher education, etc. So, keep a straight laced and clean image – the smaller the town, the more important that is to do. Sounds true enough Many continental Europeans don’t even much care for Americans, and view them as a distinct white ethnicity, loud, boisterous, ill-kempt, fat (guilty as charged) and uncouth, like the Dutch might view the Greeks. True, but do non-continental Europeans much care for Americans either? 46
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 07:48 | # It would take a lot of convincing to get Europeans to agree to allow mass white American immigration, I don’t believe it is mere convincing in terms of rhetoric that is necessary, it will involve analysis and proper management of Sortocracy and Euro DNA Nation so that that human ecological management is fair and correct. If the candidates are German enough genetically and their character is untroubling to ongoing human ecological management, then the native Germans just might welcome some diaspora back. - The Mad Max factor. Would Americans be willing to leave their military and weapons industry unattended? Can you imagine the US nuclear arsenal in the hands of the left side of the bell curve? *shudder* And the good bet is that the left-behinds will be disproportionately left-curvers, as only the smart will have the foresight to know ahead of time to jump a sinking ship. (This last point is debatable.) I think there is a lot of things that Americans would not and should not leave behind; add property and great lands. - The mutt factor. This can be a problem. Where does a half Italian half Pole fit in? For some people and places this is less difficult than others, but you may find yourself asked to make a decision that your biology can scarcely allow for. The founding stock of America is a mix of predominantly German, English, Dutch and Scandinavian ancestry. It may be that the founding stock was composed that way, but since then the biggest European groups in America are German, Irish then English – in that order, and by far more the Italian and Polish. Irish, Italian and Polish added their bloodlines to the founding stock in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Since then, it’s been all downhill, but the essential biological nature of white America is largely unchanged: Most white Americans are some mix of the above European ethnicities. So where does a Euro-mutt American resettle in Europe? Germany? England? Italy?It’s not an easy question, as the theory of mind that evolution informs suggests that a Euro-mutt will feel ancient pulls toward each of his ancestral homelands. You might, for instance, feel equally benevolent toward the stoicism of Swedes and the lustiness of Italians, or equally comfortable in the mountainous Alps as in the steppes of Ukraine
Why can’t White Nationalists get this right? The Left, the White left and Liberalism are totally different things. Some of the best criticisms of liberalism come from “the left.” - As Haidt has documented, conservatives possess a stronger moral emphasis on loyalty. It’s conservatives who will stick it out in America till the bitter end, loyal to the last. Liberals will cut and run as soon as their pasty, plush asses are threatened by real discomfort. Probably yes: conservatives are fools and liberals are shifty, evil scumbags. It’s a problem in more ways than that. Europeans, will be suspicious of you – “how could you leave all that wonderful liberalism? I (she) can do whatever I want there. There are Blacks everywhere, how wonderful!”….slavery is in your past, but you almost have a just society now….you can just go wherever you want and get away from something you don’t like because its so big.”
Can be a cultural difference yes, but it is not totally incomparable. When it is conceived as such (incomparable), it is more or less disingenuous – again, sometimes for fairly good reasons, if the Europeans know of no other way to keep an inappropriate interloper out. In America, you’ve got a percentage of world-beaters and some rif-raff, the legacy of poor and desperate farmers who went to America for a new start. Not being a snob, I think that’s good that these people seemed to have a chance in America. An American can underestimate the strength and authenticity to life of a European man – these are often the alphas who survived the horrific wars of the past century. They have a different way of coordination with their less successful, but the difference between Europe and American alphas and betas is probably more a problem of different coordination than genetics (which we strive to match anyway) – nevertheless, coordination is problematic enough. - Plopping Americans into Europe could create a strain that, coupled with the dysgenic Muslim elements of European society, can’t be managed. But this is pure speculation. It’s just as likely that
- The climate factor. Can America’s white Southroners, acclimated to their subtropical heat and humidity, take to the dryness and cold of continental Europe or the chill winds of the Scottish Highlands? If their genes haven’t changed too much, they can. White Northerners should have no trouble settling anywhere in Europe. That is silly. All told, the Back to Europe scenario is less likely than a Retreat to Canada or Trek to Australia scenario. Canada is closer and more simpatico (speak the same language) to American sensibilities, while Australians share Americans’ zest for life and genial brusqueness. If climate warming proceeds as predicted, Canada will become exceedingly friendly as a relocation spot (Australia less so). Regrettably, South Africa is a lost cause, and Russians have too much spooky Siberian blood in them to find enough common ground with Americans as next door neighbors. That part was better considered For the single American man, the choice of relocation destination in Europe will depend on the beauty of the native women. At the risk of opening the floor to furious but unenlightening debate, all of the East European countries would rank high, Since the European Union, the kind of pretty Eastern European woman who would be more open and looking for an American are more likely to be found in Western Europe. You might find Eastern Europe more White but your presence is not particularly necessary and you might not be what the local woman are looking for, particularly.
True enough. And I know that Graham is eager to welcome many heavy-set, but ruggedly individualistic Christian faithful back to Scotland….come to think of it, I don’t even like the joke. I am more sympathetic to Graham on this score than he might think. 47
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:33 | #
Darwin suggests it may be the reverse.
He appears to suggest that sensation (qualia) precedes instinct yet still providing a reproductive differential. Although he also suggests that sensation may not be required to produce (induce) an instinctive response…
however, he is not entirely sure the pointer’s pointing is not entirely unpleasant. 48
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:09 | # He appears to suggest that sensation (qualia) precedes instinct yet still providing a reproductive differential. Although he also suggests that sensation may not be required to produce (induce) an instinctive response…
Not that it should ignore the facts, mind you. It is a very interesting point. ..... 49
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:52 | #
GW, my two cents worth: The ‘flight phenomenon’ is not going to happen—at least not willingly. American whites will stay put as long as the bread and circuses are present to distract them from the racial catastrophe that’s closing in all around them. The only way I can foresee a mass migration of white Americans into Europe is if the US government itself forces whites out of the country wholesale. Other than that, it’s status quo, I’m afraid. Given the aforementioned, the question becomes: What are the odds of an event happening where the US government forces whites to deport en masse back to Europe? My guess is zero. 50
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:00 | # Oh, and one more thing: Even if Americano whites, en masse, started migrating to the mother continent, how welcome would they be? Would good folks such as Graham Lister organise ticker tape parades as a welcoming gesture? Gee. for some odd reason I get the distinct feeling—to say the least—he and his ilk wouldn’t, LOL! 51
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:22 | # Ok, first, can we delete that awful Katzenbach photo? He’s not what I want to see every time I visit MR. Plus, it makes it harder to get to the actual posts, as the photo causes MR to load more slowly than normal. I think Dr. Lister, and some others, might find the following of interest: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sex-after-christianity/ It’s not about race, but it does make the point, at least implicitly, that de-Christianization favors the Left.
I like your schema, and agree with this:
A comment that started promisingly, with some sensible remarks on Aristotle, whose ethics and politics (and much of whose metaphysics) were hardly at odds with the Church (or [the Catholic] Burke), but which of course runs off the rails once the preferred destination hoves into view.
Conservatism is not libertarianism, and even libertarianism need not be rooted in the type of philosophical anthropology you ascribe to it. There is nothing mutually exclusive about accepting Aristotle’s anthropology, as at least Catholic Christians do, and wishing for strict limits on State (especially secular state) power. The modern liberal conception of the human person is completely rejected by orthodox forms of Christianity (see eg the link I provided in this comment), and orthodoxy is compatible with limited government and individual rights to property, due process, even conscience and worship.
But the Catholic tradition is built on Aristotle! You’re not familiar with Aquinas, are you? (Not sure of your familiarity with Locke, either).
Oh, where to begin? I haven’t the time. Short answer: no. Liberalism is an ideology which sought to undermine Church authority from its earliest appearances (eg, Montaigne, Hobbes). It is antinomian; it rejects external authority, whether Scriptural or customary.
More ignorance. Most liberals were not Trinitarian Christians. They ranged from sceptics (Montaigne) to atheists (Hobbes) to Deists (Jefferson) to the highly heterodox (Kant). Locke of course wrote The Reasonableness of Christianity, but the precise nature of his faith isunclear, and has been questioned.
You have never understood “where I’m coming from”. Have I ever denied the universality of Christianity? No. When have I ever stated that nonwhite Christians should or would care about European demographics? I have always made the point that Christianity does not invalidate Europeans’ own will-to-endure racially; that the faith is not inherently antagonistic to European self-preservation (which all forms of leftism certainly have been, unless one is of the school which views the Nazis as having been on the Left).
Not my position at all. I have stated that morality exists independent of God (murder is wrong in itself, not merely because God condemns it), but that without God, it has no effect. Morality is only meaningful in the context of belief in God, even if ethical precepts are an aspect of reality. This is precisely because the essence of morality is self-sacrifice, which is pointless from the perspective of the individual in a Darwinian world (perhaps this is too subtle for you?).
I hope you will survive a post-American planet, but the evidence of recent decades hardly makes assertions of Western survival After Christianity very convincing. In a meaningless cosmos, which is exactly what it is sans God (the various efforts of GW, Bowery, and Sienkewicz to demonstrate the contrary via their respective ontologies and new religions, etc, notwithstanding), the more likely path for Western Man is an intensified hedonic liberal individualism, culminating over time in racial amalgamation (why not?) and peaceful extinction.
I have never held to The American Way of Life (TAWL) fur alle oder uber alles, only that our mode of being is indeed appropriate to us - Americans. Preserving TAWL is a main reason for my anti-immigrationism.
Exactly, your sarcasm notwithstanding. Christianity + Liberty + Race Realism = Survival of the West.
What a ridiculously simplistic and prejudiced vision of the Church! Lister’s still defending Galileo!
Sounds like inadvertent self-description.
Some aspects of existence are axiomatically certain, though empirical discoveries are not amongst them. 52
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:36 | # I’ll say more later re this semi-White Zionist article (yes, the meme is working its way around ...) on returning to Europe. It’s the deracinated douchebags who will leave first - mostly left-liberals, some free market neolibs, too. Conservative whites won’t go, not to Europe, anyway. The modern Euro sensibility is just too alien, except maybe in England, but they will have been Islamified into shitholeness long before white Americans run out of internal places to flee to. England is small, America vast (even with the Third World legions pouring in). For us rightwingers, the likelier options to fleeing to Europe are intra-US racial ingathering, with an eventual push for secession (eg, Northwest Front), or, less likely, White Zion as I have envisioned it. The likeliest WZ is Australia. Yes, it’s being overrun, but except for some nasty Muslims, the types of immigrants it receives are less objectionable than America’s nonwhites. For sheer horror, nothing compares to Western European Muslims (incl Middle East Muslims) and African-Americans (in part due to white admixture plus liberalism: black Americans are smarter than global Africandom, and they’ve been MSM-indoctrinated with antiwhite race hate). 53
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:03 | # Another interesting thing about Desmond’s comment on qualia as pre-existent of social valuation (in reproductive differential) is that it makes more vivid the possibility of reconciliation between ontological and social concerns of Whites - that these are not mutually exclusive projects.
54
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:31 | # What a ridiculously simplistic and prejudiced vision of the Church! Lister’s still defending Galileo! And Haller is still defending the lame term, “White Zion.”
55
Posted by Robert Reis on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:40 | # It’s not a secret that America is morphing into a 2nd and soon 3rd world dump thanks to the traitorous machinations of our ruling class whose lust for cheap labor and neoPuritan Yankee eagerness to stick it to the wrong kinds of white people has eradicated any semblance of border control against the tide of orcs and dissolved the last stirring of unifying national bonhomie. Hence, some American white men are pondering the wisdom of going back to Europe, cradle of their genesis. C.H. 56
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:57 | # Leon,
Not in Europe. How can the people of France, Holland, Sweden, Flanders, etc, who are moving away from the traditional religious expressions for faith, accept to pay jizzya in dhimmitude? How can the sheer fact of the African life, with all its too, too apparent difficulties, ever be bearable for non-Africans? Human nature is filled with constants. That which we acquire from time and place is bereft of any. Your expectation is that only the plasticity of the acquired will shape our future. It won’t and it can’t. You also seem to believe that hedonism is increasing among Europeans. This is the same as saying, “Do you think that austerity will ever go away?” or “Do you think the economic future of the West is one of decline and impoverishment?” The age of hedonism is over, and is spilling into an age of impoverishment in all its forms. There is, then, a large and predictable question to be asked about the nature of morality and the good in an age that is both impoverishing and has outgrown the religious expressions of faith. It is our task as thinking Europeans to try to answer it. 57
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:04 | # Christianity + Liberty + Race Realism = Survival of the West That about sums it up. What’s destroying Western culture is Liberalism. From defining deviancy down to feminism and its attendant birth control and abortion on demand to radical individualism (extreme selfishness—quest for no limitations on hedonistic behavior) to radical egalitarianism (the insistence on equal outcomes vs equal opportunity) ....and the list goes on. The abandonment of God concomitant with the embrace of secular liberalism has led us to the sorry state we find our collective selves in. Just as an anecdote, the happiest families I know are Christian families where they have 4 to 10 kids. The husband is the bread winner and the wife is a stay at home mom. None of these families are rich WRT material possessions, but they are rich in happiness and spirit. The bottom line is they embrace the culture of life—which the Church teaches—vs the culture of death propagated (no pun intended) by those that Guessedworker regards as “thinking Europeans.” The real question is: If the “secular “thinking Europeans” brought us to the state we are in in just 65 years, how long can we survive as a race with secular “thinking Europeans” at the helm? 58
Posted by Bill on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:42 | # @57 Remember this? Goodnight Grandpa. Goodnight John Boy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCuygHwhs5E? Did it really ever exist? 59
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:04 | #
Who cares? What did exist was a culture which stressed/encouraged a strong nuclear family whose moral foundations were built on the teachings of the Church. That was the norm. Of course not everyone met those societal standards, but at least it was something most everyone respected and strived for. No more. The secular liberals a.k.a “thinking Europeans” took over the culture and it resulted in what we have now. Want more of what the secular liberals have to offer? 60
Posted by uh on Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:37 | # We do not exist to eat. We eat to exist. WOH. I mean, WOH. The age of hedonism is over, You been to a nightclub lately? Oh I see. You mean we’re bankrupt, so the alcohol will stop flowing, etc., etc. Um, WRONG. 61
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 04:02 | # uh, The flow of alcohol may indeed even increase. But that’s not the point. It is not the volume of alcohol which signifies the finality of our dissolution but the why of it. A dissolute state caused by culture shock, dispossession, poverty and enslavement is quite distinct from a dissolute state caused by easy money, sexual licence, the rejection of all norms and the turn to the novel. By its sense of loss the first retains connection to the European being and to conscience. It aches for a return to all that vivifies. But the second knows no such saving grace. It looks only to the front and knows only the appetite for more of what ails it. Nationalist thinking chimes easily with the first, but to the real hedonist all demands for correction are anathema. He is interested in no constraint. 62
Posted by Bill on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:11 | # @59 Who cares? Is a very discarding reaction and understandably so, for it is water under the bridge and never coming back. This simple sentence would take a whole volume series to explain away. I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. Although the video depicted was a massively popular 1970’s American TV series (exported to Britain) portraying the 1930’s era, I think this real world culture continued well into the 1950’s, I know because I experienced it myself. It is interesting to see today the numerous series put out by the BBC emulating these ‘good’ times with the unashamed intention of appealing to a nostalgia of a gentler saner world, only to lace each episode with the barb of the BBC’s hated ruling hegemony of Christianity, notably depicting the treatment of women in all it’s guises. Chained to the kitchen sink housewife, the unmarried girl made outcast on producing an illegitimate child, the said child taken from her at birth and spirited away. The espousing of countless ills that poverty spawned (but they were happy?)and are still chasing the magic elixir to this very day. Yes these things did happen but the zeitgeist of the day was accepted as we knew no different. The BBC hates everything 1950’s, but would give anything to capture the spirit of the times. Is it any wonder, we as a nation, suffer from endemic cognisant dissonance. 63
Posted by Bill on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:21 | # Addendum @ 62 Should have included. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feqfsbnlKuQ It’s guises. Oops! 64
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:43 | #
This is an odd comment. I can’t tell if you’re having a laugh at my expense. If so, I’m missing the humor. People on the Continent are already paying effective tribute to their Muslim colonizers - free food, housing, subsidy payments of all kinds. A few nationalists grumble, but as I’ve been saying for decades (years at MR), most whites are genetically inferior douchebags, who descend into literally mentally deranged hysterics at any proposed type of cultural self-defense that requires them to acknowledge the basic biological inferiority of most nonwhites, as well as their political and social incompatibility with whites. Why won’t they tolerate specifically Islamic tribute, when they already functionally provide it? Indeed, it won’t be cowardly white atheists like Dawkins (whose preferred target for antitheistic ranting is always the endlessly good-natured and tolerant Christian) who will oppose dhimmitude, but the last remaining traditionalist Christians. And how can African life ever be bearable for Europeans? If the alternative is ‘waycism’, oh, you can bet the nice white douchebags will continue to stiff-upper lip themselves into extinction. Human nature is indeed mostly constant. But a desire for racial group preservation does not appear to be one of those constants, at least in “white nature”. Those human “constants” consist in such things as propensity to love, to seek sexual partners, to be ambitious (or to seek out status or respect), to garner security, greed, anger at betrayal, etc. In other words, the constants of human nature grow out of the individual will and its desires and needs. But if those desires and needs can be met without securing the racial future, or indeed, at its expense, then for most, they will be. In my very first comments at MR, I pointed out that securing our race will involve personal sacrifice, and that Christians are better prepared psychologically to do so than selfish atheists. Atheism is simply not a heroic ideology or belief system. Hence my argument that WPs must recapture, or at least theologically/morally neutralize, the Christian churches. At minimum, we must have our own church, not a manufactured new religion per DanielS, which would never be more than a tiny and weird cult, but rather our own traditionalist sect within Christianity; say, by capturing something like the already fairly conservative Missouri Lutheran Synod, and transforming it theologically into a bastion of WP, WP to be understood as an aspect of Christian piety (“honoring one’s fathers” or “cherishing the Lord’s creation”). Frankly, and without wishing to sound like a completely pompous twit, I don’t think you or most others here have ever quite grasped the subtlety of my position. Christianity is not now an ally of WP, but theologically, it could be, and a powerful one at that - and intentionally in the future, not only functionally, as it was historically. Christianity has immense intellectual resources, and the weight (and organizational/liturgical infrastructure) of ancient tradition. It provides answers to the deepest issues of life as literally no other creed does. It has a proven record of promoting the flourishing of civilization, and our civilization. Much of our historic high culture, as well as social and political history, is intimately bound up with it. The notion that we can revivify Europe without cleansing the Church of its modernist, race-enervating heresies, strikes me as ridiculous. But the idea that we should construct anew out of whole cloth instead of recapturing and remolding what was once ours is even more so. WRT hedonism, I haven’t said it’s “increasing”, as I don’t know how it could increase further. My point is that the trend of white deracination (ie, separation from historic cultural/racial identities) is only intensifying. Look at any popular movie made in the UK. There is almost nothing specifically British about it, other than over use of the word “brilliant”, and maybe jokes about tea-time. I never saw any Harry Potter movies, but I bet the only thing English about them was the children’s accents. Otherwise, they probably could have been Americans. OTOH, look at older movies, like The Bridge on the River Kwai, or Lawrence of Arabia. The characters in those films who were British were self-conscious of their “Englishness”, and reference to their being English is made repeatedly (“this is who we are”, “here is how an Englishman behaves”, “we shall so conduct ourselves as to bring honor to regiment and England”, “you English”, “the King” etc). Not so long ago, being “English” was something recognizable, thick, deep, and unrelinquishable. And Englishman and a Gaul, let alone an African, were understood to be distinct and different, each with his own mode of being in the world. Today, at least among whites everywhere, we have all been “Americanized”, turned into rootless individuals, ashamed of our national and civilizational patrimonies. This is the legacy of secular liberalism, not Christian orthodoxy, which historically was perfectly compatible with national cultures and traditions, even the “Church Universal”, whose universality was spiritually aspirational, never empirically descriptive (until its modern pollution by liberalism). My point is that hedonic liberal individualism ‘speaks’ to something very deep in the Western character (perhaps among all humans - the unleashing of formerly disciplined appetites). Ethical individualism and universalism align with our innate sense of morality. Hedonic individualism is further strengthened by the Jewish presence and assault, as well as the physical possibilities for treasonous greed on the part of cosmopolitanized elites, that is, for privatizing and consuming national/social capital (extending all the way to our lands and, via blood pollution, very genomes). To counter these trends, at least before the sheer horrors of “mud-dom” finally force themselves upon large majorities of whites (as may have happened to, eg, the actor Robert Downey Jr, who made a cryptic remark some years ago that “no one who goes through his [comparatively mild] prison experience can come out and still be really liberal”), at which point we may no longer possess the physical power to preserve ourselves, requires some deep, emotionally and spiritually resonant counterweight, a true “revolt against the contemporary world”. Can this be effected outside of a renewed, broader spirituality, such as Christianity once provided, and could again? I doubt it. Many historical thinkers and writers believed that atheism would and must lead to nihilism. I agree. A special few might sign on to a great project of self-sacrifical national renewal, where the benefits to all are diffuse, while the harms to themselves are specific and heavy. But without religious belief, and its possibility of providing meaning grounded in a comprehensive world view, such a program will never appeal to more than a minority. And in the meantime, plain ordinary whites will continue to seek out happiness in quotidian forms as best they can, many of such forms furthering our racial decline. 65
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:52 | # ../.. At minimum, we must have our own church, not a manufactured new religion per DanielS, which would never be more than a tiny and weird cult, but rather our own traditionalist sect within Christianity; The New Religion Exclusively for People of European Extraction is far, far less characterizable as manufactured than is Christianity - it is far less an affectation to transcendent inspirational points for European peoples. In fact, it seeks to identify the ontological and social grounds that serve Whites religiously. It is a correctible survey of some interested Whites as to what they deem necessary of religion - that is not manufacture. The New Religion is not really manufactured at all - The New Religion Is. It is already practiced albeit without being heretofore articulated. It is the task of The New Religion to bring into consciousness these practices and uncover these natural, transcending religious inspirations that serve White individual and group interests at once: that can hardly be said of Christianity without the ongoing necessity of baroque convolutions in interpretation and/or ignoring vast parts of its texts.
Well, good luck with that; if you want to persuade Christian churches and stalwart believers how it is that they should defend European peoples according to Christianity, be my guest. The problem that I have is that you refuse not only to acknowledge the inherent problems of Christianity, problems that are “manufactured” right along with its manufacture, but you insist on trying to impose it on those who do not and will not believe it. It seems to me that the place for you to address your case is to a Christian audience or one seeking reinforcement of their Christian faith. I am not addressing that audience. Rather the to whom it may concern of my address are those Whites who do not believe in Christianity and who do not want it. But the idea that we should construct anew out of whole cloth instead of recapturing and remolding what was once ours is even more so. The point is that The New Religion would not be cut out of whole cloth but rather identifying the radical aspects of religion which correspond with and unite White individual and group interests; while it would unashamedly remove all aspects which run counter to White interests as it is not merely bound to a tradition, Christianity, which has been imposed (largely by fear, threat and deadly consequence) for less than 5% of our existence as a people. Christianity is a religion that serves alien interests deliberately and White interests only by happenstance of geographical fact, along with natural and customary carry-over of self interest from pre-christian times, in spite of Christianity.
Christianity has indeed, been instrumental, pivotal in fact, in this liberal transformation. It is a liberal religion; a universal religion, a passively accepting religion, an unnatural religion, a religion alien to European interests; it is largely responsible for our destruction. Regarding Americanization, to this day, I know very proud and ethnocentric English, Welsh, Scots and Irish. They may talk liberal talk to put across a kind of transcendent virility, but they stubbornly boast of their native identity at the same time As has been suggested on many occasions, our traditions go back well before Christianity and there s so much better resource and inspiration to be found in non-Christian thought.
But is it an individual choice for White men to choose to participate in and reconstruct (for example) black culture and women at the expense of White women and culture? I think not. That is a group coercion, not an individual proclivity: some White men may be trying to show how powerful they are by “objectively” transcending their personal interests, but they are not normally asserting their individual interests with liberalism…indeed, they may feel obligated to liberalism at the instigation of their manhood.
But without religious belief, and its possibility of providing meaning grounded in a comprehensive world view, such a program will never appeal to more than a minority. And in the meantime, plain ordinary whites will continue to seek out happiness in quotidian forms as best they can, many of such forms furthering our racial decline. The last sentence in particular, is quite eloquent; however, we are not atheists, we believe in a higher cause than our mere pleasure. 66
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:40 | # Leon, Faith is an evolutionary strategy. It is not from a deity. Dieties are proxies, tools. They are not real. The Jewish diety is not real. It is a tool of Jewish ethnic interests. The Jewish deity is not appropriate to the European mind and the European life since, regardless of how successfully we have adopted and adapted it, we are universalised by its associated dicta as mere, undifferentiated gentiles. It does not pay us back with confirmation of our own existence but, on the contrary, dehumanises us with the claim of “sin” and the utter nonsense of life after death (which Jews don’t believe in anyway). Christianity supplanted Europe’s authentic religious expression at a cost of estrangement from ourselves. For sure, the move away from it is a move into the land of the lost, but it very likely a necessary move ... the asking of a question of ourselves about existence and our existence, and the beginning of a classic search for meaning and truth. 67
Posted by Morgoth on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:15 | # On the subject of religion, I recently came across this tiny group of Englishmen who seek to revive ‘‘Odinism’’ or rather Paganism. The young fellow talks a lot of sense and expresses the view that we have become ‘‘tools of our tools’’ and that the ‘‘Multicultural morass strips away our own folk from their own birth right and heritage’‘ What got me thinking is, did these people come to these positions from an already nationalist perspective or did their interest in Paganism lead them to a rejection of modernity, and they became nationalists by default? ‘‘Odinism - An Eternal Faith’‘ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFMhOGiGHE For those speaking of making religions, we already have one. Further more if Paganism or ‘‘Odinism’’ is the pure European religion what does it say about the essence of European man? 68
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:56 | # @62
I know I have plenty of company in this, but it pains me to know that in one generation, we’ve went from regarding Leave it to Beaver as the ideal family, to being told we must accept that Heather has Two Mommies. That’s a direct result of the new and degenerate religion practiced by the cultural Marxists—a.k.a. the “progressives.. It’s gotten so bad that if someone speaks fondly of the “good old days” of Ozzie and Harriet, you’ll be met with screeching leftists lecturing that those days never existed! Don’t even mention Father Knows Best—HEH!—the wild-eyed feminists will try to scratch your eyes out, literally. Of course their was a great deal of immorality and marriage infidelity going on pre 1960s, but the BIG difference between then and now, is back then moral absolutes—as taught by the traditional Church—were accepted by the vast majority without question. IOWs people knew the difference between right and wrong; the lines drawn between the two were unambiguous. Today moral relativism (a secular philosophy) rules the day. Moral absolutes is synonymous with bigotry and intolerance according to the “progressives.” 69
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 18:13 | # Correction. Should read: .....to being told we must accept that Heather has Two Mommies is within the normal range of family structures.. 70
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:44 | # If the age of hedonism is over in Europe, what are we to make of this? ——- Bestiality brothels are ‘spreading through Germany’ warns campaigner as abusers turn to sex with animals as ‘lifestyle choice’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352779/Bestiality-brothels-spreading-Germany-campaigner-claims-abusers-sex-animals-lifestyle-choice.html#ixzz2YrjWJIAy
71
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:46 | # If the age of hedonism is over in Europe, what are we to make of this? —- Bestiality brothels are ‘spreading through Germany’ warns campaigner as abusers turn to sex with animals as ‘lifestyle choice’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352779/Bestiality-brothels-spreading-Germany-campaigner-claims-abusers-sex-animals-lifestyle-choice.html#ixzz2YrjWJIAy 72
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:50 | # If the age of hedonism is over in Europe, what are we to make of this? —- Bestiality brothels are ‘spreading through Germany’ warns campaigner as abusers turn to sex with animals as ‘lifestyle choice’ * Animal welfare officer Madeleine Martin problem of ‘erotic zoos’ is growing * She tells of farmer whose once friendly sheep began refusing human contact * So when he put CCTV in his barn he watched men file in and abuse his herd
73
Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 01:21 | #
Even though we agree more often than not I don’t agree with the sentiment here. The fact that people are drinking and fucking into a stupor these days isn’t necessarily an expression of hedonism. People don’t particularly seem to enjoy modern life. They are workaholics and then spend their off hours eradicating all sensation - and that’s if they have jobs, others just do it all the time. I would think that if it were truly hedonism that we were seeing, that people would not want to dull their senses to such an extent as that rather defeats the purpose of sensual pleasure, no? I think it’s more of a sick desperation and spiritual emptiness that leads to the kind of thing we see today. Our people once had a kind of direction but now it’s gone. What’s left is the sort of behavior we see today ... God knows there’s nothing better for them to do anyhow. 74
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 01:36 | # If the age of hedonism is over in Europe, what are we to make of this? —- Bestiality brothels are ‘spreading through Germany’ warns campaigner as abusers turn to sex with animals as ‘lifestyle choice’ *Animal welfare officer Madeleine Martin problem of ‘erotic zoos’ is growing *So when he put CCTV in his barn he watched men file in and abuse his herd
75
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 01:59 | # Re the end of the age of hedonism in Europe? Not so fast.
Imported degeneracy of domestic? 77
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 06:02 | #
Well, re ultimate matters, we shall have to agree to disagree. I think the case for God, in particular the Trinity, is quite strong; certainly not something to be dismissed easily. Of course, I can’t prove the existence of God any more than you can prove His non-existence. But political positions do, for the reflective, flow from metaphysical ones, so there is a case for arguing that Christianity harms the race, though that case is hardly overwhelming. Indeed, I’d say it’s underwhelming, and I’d say this even in the absence of divine belief. This assumes one is able and willing to differentiate between Christianity properly understood (orthodoxy), and the theologically unnecessary, if not actually heretical (I haven’t made up my mind on this point yet), “politically corrected” version that is all too dominant today. I think there is also a strong case that Christianity helps the race, even if unintentionally. I’ve said this many times here. Christianity renders life meaningful for many, and life’s meaningfulness translates into a willingness to form families (which the faith encourages); to raise those families in ways which conduce to instilling patriotism and socio-realism; and to make sacrifices for causes. By any ‘metric’, Christians as a whole are simply better people than non-Christians. A WN that is not rooted in morality, that is merely a glorified will-to-power ideology, inevitably will degenerate into mere gangsterism - as is always the case with white supremacist prison organizations, groups which get formed for the legitimate purpose of protecting their members from vicious racial abuse, but which, whatever their nationalist integuments, invariably end up not organizationally surviving their artificial prison environments, except as criminal gangs. I would argue there is no meaning or truth outside of God. No God, no meaning; no God, no ethics. Again, if you disagree, then that is as far as we can go on this particular point. There is, for your ontological ‘kind’, only brute reality, and in that reality, all that matters is the individual’s happiness - and many white individuals are perfectly content to see the race disappear, provided they are not unduly discomfited by its passing. You’re deluding yourself if you think whites Atheism is nihilistic, not liberationist, as so many naive early ‘freethinkers’ seemed to have supposed. This does not mean atheism is actually descriptively incorrect. But that fact may not be very important if the goal is racial perpetuity. The Jews’ belief in their own ‘chosenness’ is ontologically ludicrous (including from an orthodox Christian perspective; note here I’m revealing my Catholic bias), but it has well served their genetic interests. Christianity long served our interests, and it could do so again (provided its contemporary PC universalism gets eradicated). Lastly, although Catholicism has since Vatican 2 abjured its traditional antisemitism (along with much else that was salutary), it is ridiculous to accuse that branch of the Christian community of ever having historically been a tool of Jewish EGI. Educated Jews themselves, even the honest ones, would snicker at such nonsense. American Christian Zionists (a bizarre and embarrassing heresy) are another matter, obviously. 78
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 06:13 | # I forgot to finish a sentence in paragraph 3 immediately above: “You’re deluding yourself if you think whites in large numbers are going to sacrifice themselves to such an abstract cause as white survival. Whites today won’t even majority vote for WP heroes (like the Le Pens, Pat Buchanan, David Duke, Nick Griffin, Tom Tancredo, etc - note most of these sometime politicians were/are not even real WNs) when such choices present themselves. The only circumstance that might one day propel WPs into power is not atheist philosophical musings, but raw, physical fear (whether of nonwhite violence or nonwhite-caused food shortages). But by the time such fear is finally kindled, it may well be too little, too late to be effective.” 79
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 08:53 | # Will God be found in qualia?
80
Posted by DanieS on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 09:44 | # For sure, the move away from it is a move into the land of the lost, but it very likely a necessary move ... the asking of a question of ourselves about existence and our existence, and the beginning of a classic search for meaning and truth.
However, an alienating aspect would come from those enculturated in liberalism and its father: Christianity. That is, we’d be alienated from long standing social consensus, rules and ways of talking and those intent on maintaining them. The move away from Christianity and toward authentic religious expression for Europeans should meet with social alienation more than natural - in that regard, it should be like returning home and to our true devotion. 81
Posted by Bill on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 09:51 | # Let’s start from the beginning. Rule number one. There are no rules. 82
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:30 | # Well, I should say that I thought the first part of GW’s statement in number 66 was terrific: Posted by Guessedworker on July 12, 2013, 11:40 AM | # Leon, Faith is an evolutionary strategy. It is not from a deity. Dieties are proxies, tools. They are not real. The Jewish diety is not real. It is a tool of Jewish ethnic interests. The Jewish deity is not appropriate to the European mind and the European life since, regardless of how successfully we have adopted and adapted it, we are universalised by its associated dicta as mere, undifferentiated gentiles. It does not pay us back with confirmation of our own existence but, on the contrary, dehumanises us with the claim of “sin” and the utter nonsense of life after death (which Jews don’t believe in anyway). Christianity supplanted Europe’s authentic religious expression at a cost of estrangement from ourselves.
For sure, the move away from it is a move into the land of the lost, but it very likely a necessary move ... the asking of a question of ourselves about existence and our existence, and the beginning of a classic search for meaning and truth. 83
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 12:25 | # @77 I think I get where you’re coming from, but in reality there are plenty of rules. It’s just that the rules WNs play by cause them to lose. Not so with the “anti-racists” rules. For example: The rules for radicals/anti-racists 1.“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” I emphasis #6 because “anti-racists” enjoy bashing Euro-Christians so much that it’s become their main source of pleasure—even their raison d’être. The Left’s modern day hatred for Euro-Christians is so extreme, it could be thought of as analogous to the Romans’ bloodlust displayed in the Coliseum. Yes, that’s how sick and perverted a vast swath of those in the Occident have become. Speaking of Rome and its decline, anyone who’s more than a casual observer of the declining state of Westren culture, you can’t help but seeing we are on the cusp of history repeating itself ... or as Mark Twain put it: rhyming with itself. 84
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 12:42 | # @73 & 74 Leon. Solid! Have you ever considered contributing to the conversation over at Laura Wood’s blog? I’m not saying you should stop commenting a MR—that would be a terrible loss for this site—but I think with you being a Roman Catholic and your Ivy League educated credentials, your perspective might be a good fit there. Anyway, give it a try is you so desire. If your WN perspective is rejected, no harm no foul. Afterall, WN in its current state has nothing to lose; it can only gain from here. 85
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 12:49 | # The only Brits that oppose Weston are Muslims and leftist cockroaches.
86
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 13:06 | # Just on the drink/drugs ‘culture’ I think its right to suggest much of that activity is of a ‘numbing’ sort for many, many people, rather than joyful or genuinely grounded in happiness or a sense of positive enjoyment. It’s a kind of joyless ‘bad-faith’ hedonism. The doctor turned writer Theodore Dalrymple remarks on this subject that when he asked many of his patients about their drug taking and/or drinking and what was good about those activities - one of the most common answers was “it’s great I get ‘off my tits’ on it” or “it’s was a great night” To which Dalrymple would ask “what’s great about it?” to which the answer would be some version of “it was good because I can’t really remember anything about it”. As Dalrymple asks what does it say about a society that many people’s primary pleasure is to temporarily leave it by obliterating their consciousness for a night or two every week? The gap between growth in material prosperity and psychological well-being, known as ‘Easterlin’s Paradox’ after a 1974 article on this topic by economist Richard Easterlin, is becoming more and more obvious. Men do not live by bread alone (to borrow a phrase). Deep unhappiness has become one of the critical negative externalities of contemporary free-market liberal capitalism and the broader liberal ideological regime within which it is situated. It’s no shock that those societies that most fully embrace ‘individualism’ particularly the model of ‘individuality’ under neo-liberal ideology (the latest development of liberal ontology) have the greatest social pathologies. Yes the USA and the UK have far great levels of various social pathologies than a Denmark (for example). Michael Sandal has written on important aspects this subject (‘What Money Can’t Buy - The Moral Limits of Markets’) as have others of a communitarian inclination. I don’t have time to write a full essay now but I’ll put up a couple of my notes on the topic. Without quite realizing it, Sandel argues, we (in this context the USA) have drifted from having a market economy to being a market society. I’d say the same for the UK also. The ambiguity that lurks within this emerging apparatus of government and policy makers that are concerning themselves with issues around well-being and happiness is that between the hedonic and the eudaimonic registers of happiness. The failure of neo-classical economics, and of neo-liberal regulation generally, stems from its excessive commitment to individuated hedonism, the utility form of pleasure. The neo-classical ‘axiomatic’ assumption - enshrined in neo-liberal regulatory agencies - that individual economic agents are incapable of making a ‘bad’ choice, has hit multiple crises, most graphically in the case of financial markets, where the quest for psychological kicks is held culpable for bringing down entire banks. But it is also increasingly apparent that insatiable consumption can undermine the potential for mental well-being, and be entirely compatible with depression. Mark Fisher (author of ‘Capitalist Realism - Is There No Alternative?’)* captures this neo-liberal paradox of happiness in his portrait of students he once taught at a further education college: “Many of the teenage students I encountered seemed to be in a state of what I would call depressive hedonia. Depression is usually characterized as a state of anhedonia, but the condition I’m referring to is constituted not by an inability to get pleasure so much as by an inability to do anything else except pursue pleasure. There is a sense that ‘something is missing’ - but no appreciation that this mysterious, missing enjoyment can only be accessed beyond the pleasure principle.” The Weberian insight that liberal free-market capitalism (and its attendant world-view/culture - or underlying ‘ontology’) cannot sustain itself only by offering more money, more ‘individual choice’ and more ‘pleasure’, is at the heart of this emerging crisis of liberal modernity. The ‘spirit’ of liberalism in its economic form (free-market capitalism and its ideological framework) is its promise of not only utility or hedonia, but also of meaning or eudaimonia; not simply psychological-economic gratification, but a form of ethical fulfilment and the demonstration of innate self-worth. If a regime of liberal-capitalism neglects the latter, it encounters (and generates) a deep political and moral crisis (or ultimately an ontologically grounded crisis). Such a crisis will be an ongoing affair - it will unfold rather slowly and unevenly but ultimately will be grounded by two limits upon the system: (1) 2-3% compound economic growth simply cannot go on forever. The environmental and ecological limits will eventually constrain the system, at some point and in some form (but we may all be effectively ‘dead’ as distinct communities or living under a totally globalised ‘cosmopolitan’ regime by the time that happens); (2) the ontology of liberalism is, at best, only a partially correct ‘reading’ of human reality - it’s far too thin to sustain itself and needs to be put back into its place as secondary values/commitments - not primary (or foundational) ones. Of course for many this replacement of ‘ontological liberalism’ is quite unimaginable. But then most peasants living under feudalism could not imagine a different socio-economic regime or a differently conceived political and cultural environment now could they? And for the minority that think liberalism is badly failing - thus we need a change in direction - the vast majority of those people can only, in the worst reactionary manner (both politically stupid and philosophically incoherent) look to the past as the ‘promised land’ to be revivified in its totality. As if the world of say the 14th century feudal Europe can be recaptured. Such reactionary looking backwards tends to have a religious theme (naturally) but as I’ve said before (but everyone ignores this) the radical historicity of Dasein blocks such an conceptually lazy possibility (and politically trivial analysis) from ever becoming a reality. A 70 year old man cannot really become his 17 year old self again via an act of will. Nor can a people or community decide they are going to live within the conceptual universe of 14th century European feudalism by a collectively agreed act of fiat. History and historical experience, for both the individual and the collective community, simply doesn’t work that way. We must move beyond liberal-modernity (a post-liberal, post-modern regime) not retreat into false security of a past that cannot actually be re-entered into. The other ‘option’ that has currency is a revolutionary form of ‘costume politics’. Again dumb beyond belief. However, that doesn’t mean the past is junk to be forgotten in the liberally derived mindset of what might be dubbed ‘narcissistic presentism’. Simon Critchley, for example, has written about the ‘double nature’ of radical historicity. History (or rather a period within it) can always be held up, in reactionary mode, as the golden age than sadly is lost but will forever find us wanting and lacking, or alternatively as a genuinely radical and ‘subversive’ critique to the present age and all of its ‘axiomatic’ certainties/ideological blind-spots. *Mark Fisher’s work is on the whole neo-liberal ideology of TINA (“there is NO alternative”). Fisher argues that the term “capitalist realism” best describes the current global political situation. His argument is a response to, and critique of, neo-liberalism and new forms of government which apply the logic of capitalism and the market to all aspects of governance. As a philosophical concept capitalist realism is indebted to an Althusserian conception of ideology. Fisher proposes that within a capitalist framework there is no space to conceive of alternative forms of social structures. He proposes that the 2008 financial crisis compounded this position; rather than seeking alternates to the existing model we look for modifications within the system. The crash confirmed within the populace the necessity of capitalism rather than shake it loose from its foundations. “Capitalist realism as I understand it cannot be confined to art or to the quasi-propagandistic way in which advertising functions. It is more like a pervasive atmosphere, conditioning not only the production of culture but also the regulation of work and education, and acting as a kind of invisible barrier constraining thought and action.” Now Fisher is, I think, some type of economic determinist - my take is that he’s onto something very important but that our present economic ideology is but a reflection of liberal ontology in its ‘economic form’. Economic ideology sits within a wider and much deeper framework of liberal ontology that now shapes every aspect of how, in general, people view themselves and the world (from the intellectual elite to the man in the pub). So rather than ‘capitalist realism’ it should be called ‘liberal realism’. The doctrine of TINA is a liberal one - a neo-liberal one. There is NO alternative to the free-market and Goldman Sachs, there is NO alternative to multiculturalism etc. There is NO alternative to our narrative of how the world is and will be. When political and cultural elites start on the TINA bandwagon, at some level, some of them must sense the system as presently constituted is in trouble - after all if there really was no alternative why constantly bang on about there being no alternative? Returning to Critchley he makes precisely this point. That history provides for alternative pathways not taken - that things were different and might well be so again. That many alternative versions of modernity might be have come into being but now only exist in potentia. Whether and what type of post-liberal order might be instantiated is of course the political question of the age. But radical historicity, in the Critchley sense, is profoundly at odds with liberalism and its self-satisfied end of history/it’s the best of all possible worlds complacency/TINA bullshit. Critchley by the way is not a Marxist (cultural or otherwise), but is rather hard to pin down ideologically - however he loathes liberalism which is good enough for me to read him. Just returning to eudaimonia - of course for very good evolutionary reasons such genuine happiness cannot be found in splendid isolation by the Lockean ‘individual’. It is an irreducibly social good. The state of being ‘beloved’ - in the company of those that you both love and love you in return - or in the broader context of politics are Schmittian ‘friends’ bound by collective and reciprocal duties of mutual respect, recognition and loyalty - stems from our origins as very ‘communitarian’ bands of hunter-gatherers with a very keen sense of in-groups and out-groups. The ‘lonely robot’ of the neo-liberal imagination (Adam Curtis’ telling phrase) is a deeply maladaptive perspective on the nature of human beings and our needs. Aristotle knew that happiness for both the individual and the polis was to be found in the correct balance between ‘the parts’ and ‘the whole’. Aristotelian phila is a broad-based ‘disspassionate love’ - a virtuous love, in the concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community. And to be maintained requires virtue, equality, and familiarity. That is, it is bounded by a collective sense or ‘we’ not ‘I’ (in part to provide both formal and psychologically compelling mechanisms against ‘free-riding’). The collective concept of ‘wholes’ or ‘we’ has no serious place within the liberal conception of the world. It’s an ontologically reductionist creed - only isolated, atomistic individuals are really ‘real’. Finally, also in Aristotelian mode, many human capacities and capabilities are initially only held in potentia and it is an open question as to their correct formulation and development. Many of the most important and deep sources of genuine happiness are irreducibly social in nature and cannot develop properly outside of that social context contra Locke and other liberal theorists. (Locke btw is discredited both philosophically and much more importantly scientifically - his model of how the natural and human worlds world is as creditable as a ‘young Earth’ creationists account of biodiversity i.e. self-evidently ludicrous - see what I did there the self-evident joke Imagine never having a true friendship with someone else. That would an impoverished life even if the friendless individual was a multi-billionaire! But what if by that stage the friendless person couldn’t even ‘see’ that not having any real friends was a problem? He might even come up with clever pseudo-explanations or rationalisations as to why ‘true friendships’ did not really exist or were illusionary etc. The friendless plutocrat would be suffering from a type of emotional and conceptual blindness. This is very much part of MacIntyre’s critique of liberal modernity - it has produced all sorts of conceptual, political, moral etc., ‘blindness’ in modern sensibilities which alienates ourselves from important, but neglected, aspects of the human that require nurturing to sustain our genuine and full flourishing as both individuals and communities. And of course, bad ideas and more importantly bad ontologies (and the incomplete or false picture of the world generated by them) are a source (perhaps the source) of this forgetting or alienation. Is it no wonder that the more ‘individualistic’ and ‘materialistic’ a social-order becomes the more miserable and pathological it also becomes. Just look at the USA. The American Ideology is producing a deeply alienating and alienated society which to most thinking European looks crazy/pathological in so many profound ways. OK I’ll return to that at some other time but the USA is a deeply weird place for a European (with the eyes to see) to experience. It’s that Simon Critchley quote about the ‘unreality’ of the place. http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/las_vegas_is_a_shining_beacon_of_nihilism Critchley writes “America is a philosophical event that can never happen” - but that will not stop them from attempting by ‘force of will’ to prop up the political and social experiment in a foundationally individualistic liberal utopia. Delusions, or various forms of conceptual blindness (if one is being kind) are hard for people to shake off or overcome.
87
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 13:15 | # Part 2 (my initial comment was over the word limit). . . Critchley writes “America is a philosophical event that can never happen” - but that will not stop them from attempting by ‘force of will’ to prop up the political-experiment in a foundationally individualistic liberal utopia. Delusions, or various forms of conceptual blindness (if one is being kind) are hard for people to shake off or overcome. A bit like Mr. Haller - he literally cannot imagine any form of life ‘working’ outside of the free-market plus some neo-authoritarian Voodoo types ruling society with a theological iron fist. I think that might say as much for him as it does the realities of the situation. Or Mr. Bowery and his ‘eusocial’ concerns. Or Mr. Renner and peak oil. Or Mr. Richards and an ‘all-powerful’ conspiracy that ‘controls’ history in every important detail. That’s a bit unfair on Mr. Haller - he’s nothing likely as whacky/crackpot as some of those others appear to be. Liberal ‘individuated’ hedonism is simply too thin to sustain human beings and human communities. Indeed human beings need to healthy communities to flourish and vice versa. That’s the true dialectical ontology at the heart of the ‘political animal’. Liberal ‘individual freedom’ and its endpoint of joyless hedonism is a bit like taking a small child into a sweet shop (candy store for Americans) and saying to them “you’re free - you can eat anything you want and as much as you like”. At first the child will be delighted and find the experience, initially at least, liberating, exciting and joyful. But day after day? No it will become pathological. Obesity and diabetes will follow. The self-critical and reflective child will eventually ask: “mummy why can’t I have some normal food I’m really not enjoying this anymore?” But few children would be that insightful. Equally the vast majority of ‘individual’ liberal hedonists will insist that they are ‘enjoying themselves’ no matter how barren, empty or sullen that ‘enjoyment’ has become. Or simply they cannot imagine that life’s diet consists of anything more ‘nutritious’ than sweets. In another context it’s like a kid that never experienced Shakespeare and thinks it would be boring and not for them. And then they see it performed brilliantly on stage and they love it. It opens up new horizons for then that previously were totally unimaginable. Just because so many people think that buying an iPhone, taking ‘ecstasy’ every weekend, eating junk food endlessly etc., is the best life has to offer doesn’t make it so, nor does it mean those people actually have any genuine insight into their own true needs. Call me elitist but people do vary in their ability to acquire phronesis. Some people are better at living wisely. That’s in part why people need community - to have good exemplars and not as ‘individuals’ to reinvent the metaphorical wheel for themselves - as frankly most people will do a very poor job of it. Rugged individualism tends to result in very ragged individuals. Yes the coke-snorting derivative trader on Wall Street (Gordon Gecko types) might tell everyone he’s as happy as it’s possible to be. He might even believe it. It could be true or he could have a very poorly developed sense of what happiness is and a well-lived life are actually about. OK all that food talk has my stomach rumbling and its lunch time here so ‘rant over’ as they say. 88
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 13:44 | # @Thorn Well I guess Washington DC and New York are the twin capitals of the empire that’s about to collapse, yes? Liberalism - in the guise of the USA - has defeated all of its major ideological opponents. It has full spectrum dominance. The Islamic radicals are a paper tiger with no access to real and significant geo-political power, the Chinese are happy to be capitalists (Deng Xiaoping once stated that to become rich was one of life’s greatest joys) etc. To blame the present trajectory on a few Trotskyites pumping out ‘cultural Marxism’ 24/7 is to miss the wider picture. This is a crisis of liberal modernity not socialist modernity. Socialism is not a synonym for liberalism. For a start Marxism takes as it starting point that groups are in conflict (workers versus the owners of capital) - thus from the get-go it on quite different ontological terrain from all forms of liberal thought. Be that as it may, if the empire is falling that’s a good thing as ‘globalisation’ and more importantly the ideology of globalisation etc., is an American project - it’s driven and ruthless promoted by all the various factions of the US ruling elite (political, military, economic/financial). Thus a post-Atalantic, post-American multi-polar world presents real meta-political opportunities for Europe and presently ‘unacceptable ideologies’ (anything outwith narrow liberal banalities) as well as the dangers inherent any such epochal change. However, continuing along with the present state of affairs - the USA and the ‘American Ideology’ as hegemonic is a disaster of world-historical significance. Read Heidegger or Schmitt as for why that’s the case. 89
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 15:57 | # Posted by Thorn on July 13, 2013, 07:42 AM | # @73 & 74 Leon. Solid! Have you ever considered contributing to the conversation over at Laura Wood’s blog?
No it wouldn’t. It would relieve us of a useful foil, at best; and if you’d both go there, it would quite possibly relieve us of false opposition, deliberate or unwitting. but I think with you being a Roman Catholic and your Ivy League educated credentials, your perspective might be a good fit there. Yes! Leon and Thorn, you would be a wonderful fit there! Anyway, give it a try is you so desire. Please. If your WN perspective is rejected, no harm no foul. Yes, give it a try. sob Thorn and Haller are as good as false opposition if they are not literally.
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/ Posted by Thorn on July 13, 2013, 07:49 AM | # The only Brits that oppose Weston are Muslims and leftist cockroaches. Paul Weston in Salisbury http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=78av3gjYZIc
These three videos were like a fountain representing the inherent instability and unreliability of the right (it provides no social basis, but rather disingenuously or naively points to pie in the sky) - the fountain reached a spectacular crescendo with the first video, fell down just a pinch in the second, “I’m a racist” one, but still maintained the near plateau, falling down just a little by dropping the ‘liberal’ prefix (probably at the request of Jewish or other big money) and then plummeted back into the common right-wing bog with this last one - advising all the wrong turns: Christianity; the golden rule; the Jewish commandments; lets fight Israel’s wars against Islam for them; returning in full to the dodge that “the left” is our enemy: the left is not our enemy, liberalism and those forces behind it are our enemy. When Muslims and other non-Whites receive welfare at the expense of Whites and native Europeans, that is not social, that is liberal. A White social, White left concern, turns to accountability to and from its people only and circulates goods only to the extent that is just among the circumscribed White people - it does not distribute goods beyond. Where it might, that is liberalism; that and the powers behind it, is the enemy. The only exceptions being instances when we have it to spare, where it might prevent ecological spill over/negative impact on Whites. The left, a union of people, a union of White people, does not invite in non-White scabs to do cheap labor, reduce and disrupt the common affinitive grounds of the people, their health, wealth, living standards, ecology and evolution. 90
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 17:05 | # More actually, it was only this one part that I question: For sure, the move away from it is a move into the land of the lost, I can’t see anything particularly wrong with this last sentence. but it very likely a necessary move ... the asking of a question of ourselves about existence and our existence, and the beginning of a classic search for meaning and truth. It will be an estrangement from devoted Christians and people governed largely by habit, but in the broader sociality of Europeans, Aristotle and the like provide very comforting figures and familiar grounds. 91
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:43 | # Graham, Marxism appears (to me, at least) to be not all that separate from liberalism. Does it not also claim to pursue as its final goal the same unfettered will? It has the more direct root back into Judaism, of course. Its avowal of conflict as the giver of community is a wholly Jewish thought (about the gentile) - the avowal of species-being likewise. As with Christianity and Judaism, the fundamental problem with both liberalism and Marxism, if we are to speak of them separately, is that they are simply not paths to the disclosure and experience of the self of European people. Every political thought I have unfailingly returns to this process of disclosure and experience, for this is what satisfies and provides a sound and true footing along the way out into the world. There is no other. We have seen social pathologies not so different in type to those of the present day. Most memorably, industrialisation and urbanisation produced Gin Lane. One might throw in La Belle Epoque, or Weimar Berlin after the German defeat in WW1. Did not Emile Durkheim discover that suicides increase in periods of upheaval and instability? Yes, the liberal paradigm is the principle cause. But it is not the sole cause. Race-replacement immigration is attributable to neoliberalism, but it is allied to neo-Marxist culture war. The collapse of religious faith is not a product of liberalism, is it? Likewise all the alienating tendencies of the modern life. Daniel @76, On the paragraph that didn’t make sense, I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that there is a general understanding among those who think about such matters that the turn to self-discovery begins with a question, even a national question, but that does not happen while the former “answer” occupies a place in the life of the people. There is a space between the relinquishment of the old answer and the formulation of a question that might lead to a new era. This is a moment of danger, for the process of arriving at a question can be hijacked by those with the loudest voices, as it was in Russia in 1917 when the Bolsheviks were the first to pronounce the word “peace”, and again in Germany in the period to 1933 when the National Socialists offered bread and work and a national future. Nevertheless we cannot stand where we are, for we are standing in the place of death. 92
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 02:45 | # @GW Well let’s not get too far into an examination of the socialist tradition, both Marxist and non-Marxist, within European thought. But I would make a couple of points. I do actually know what Marx and some of the more intellectually rigorous/interesting people in that tradition have actually written and what their views are – rather than some half-baked caricature from know-nothings and blowhards droning on about the ‘cultural Marxism’ when they mean left-leaning liberalism. One of the things to recall is that Marxism is a much abused term. People at various times have attempted to wed classical Marxism – or more properly historical materialism - to all sorts of other things such Freudian psychoanalysis in a ghastly and incoherent manner. The Frankfurt lot were very much into such incoherent bricolage. And of course the Frankfurters were exceptionally poor scholars and wilfully dishonest ideologues. Another example is Derrida’s ‘Marxist turn’ (Spectres de Marx: l’état de la dette, le travail du deuil et la nouvelle Internationale) in which the old charlatan attempted to claim Marx as a post-modernist. It’s nonsense to anyone familiar with the material/tradition. People that are serious thinkers in the Marxist tradition – G.A. Cohen, Perry Anderson et al., can’t stand the worst excesses of sloppy post-modernism ‘theory’ – i.e. almost all of it. I do think some of the sharpest criticism of liberalism come from the intellectually heavyweight end of the Marxian tradition. Someone like Perry Anderson – an incredibly sharp observer of politics - cannot stand liberalism. He loathes, both politically and intellectually, people such as Rawls and Habermas for what he would see as their superficiality, incoherence, and pusillanimous output. Of course analytically sharp critiques do not ipso facto produce prospective solutions. I think this is the problem of the Marxist tradition. It does track onto a real part of social reality – class conflict – but assumes this is by far the most important form of conflict between groups and its, so-far, offered ‘solutions’ to the issue are far from being attractive. Stalinism isn’t a political model for anyone except psychopaths. My own view is I’m happy to read intelligent non-liberal thought from whomever with regard to their place on the non-liberal ideological spectrum. As for the relationship between liberalism and Marxism - well I think if you had suggested to Hayek that his views represented only an trivial difference with the socialist tradition he so obviously loathed, you would have received a very short and rude reply from him. Social pathologies – yes every age has some degree of such but the differences are important too. Denmark is on almost every possible metric is a far healthier national community than the US or UK. I also don’t think history repeats itself but it does ‘echo’. Sure Hogarth’s London was bad and full of drunks but we are far further down the road of liberal modernity since then. I can’t prove this, but I feel the pathologies of what we might call ‘hyper-liberalism’ are deeper, more perverse and more widespread than they ever have been within the ‘modern’ era. Insidious forms of moral and intellectual corruption occur at every level of society. Want to ‘improve’ education – why make the exams easier and fiddle the stats – everyone is ‘in’ on it – parents, teachers, government, examination boards, schools, universities yet no-one can dare call it out for what it is – a profound corruption of the whole idea of education. Why? Too many vested interests at work. Such forms of omertà surround almost every aspect of British life. Theodore Dalrymple once suggested that England has become a far more deeply corrupted society than Italy (it’s an essay called “The Uses of Corruption” if I recall correctly) and in some ways I think he’s correct. In a way I think authors such as J.G. Ballard and Michel Houellebecq have picked up on the atmospherics of societies that are in very real trouble and on just how badly the moral frameworks of their respective societies are rapidly hollowing out. Moving towards passive and active nihilism, in extremis, in which every perverse want or desire becomes a ‘need’ or ‘right’ for the ‘individual’ to freely choose if they so wish. But I don’t think a dose of the ‘old time religion’ really offers a way out of the impasse. As the ‘dangerous subversives’ (copyright one Glenn Beck) of the ‘Invisible Committee’ suggest in their pamphlet ‘The Coming Insurrection’: “Christianity had to sacrifice itself as a religion in order to survive as an emotional structure - as a diffuse injunction to humanity to be compassionate and powerless, the West has sacrificed itself as a particular civilization to impose itself as a universal culture. The operation comes down to this: a dying entity sacrifices itself as content in order to survive as form.” Who could think that Christianity is not now a very empty shell indeed? It’s long way from Aquinas to Jerry Falwell isn’t it? I really think it’s beyond the ability of Bob Jones University (sic) to revive our previous certitude in the teachings of Voodoo. 93
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 03:45 | # MarkE asks: “What’s your take on the “transhumanist” and “singularity” folks?” It is desperation born of the sexual nihilism that is group selection. It attempts to factor individual integrity through genetic engineering and achieve pseudo-immortality as compensation for sexual disintegration of the will to die because the meaning of sexual being has been lost. There are aspects of genetic engineering and even cloning that, far from destroying sexual being, may, in fact, be a necessary remedy for the profound dysgenesis to which Man has been subjected by group selection pressures. For instance, it is obvious from even casual observation that this generation is uglier, stupider and less honorable as a direct result of the horror with which the idea is greeted by the moral zeitgeist that there might be such a thing as a “fair” fight—other than politics and gibbering words in an attempt to manipulate others. Hell, I can’t even get those who claim to want to preserve Euroman to even think about what eugenics might mean in operational terms! Its all left up to fuzzy feelings and fuzzy thinking about some vague social order where “top men” will make “wise” decisions. As a consequence, it may be necessary to clone the dead of generations past as a desperation measure that is something other than the transhuman desperation born of sexual nihilism. It may be necessary to do genetic engineering to undo damage that is now obliterating Man as a moral animal. Life extension and rejuvenation may have its place as an interim measure to slow the genocide that is now being realized until that damage can be seen for what it is and remedial actions taken. 94
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:12 | # Graham, Thanks for the input. I am no scholar of Western Marxism or the New Left. As someone coerced by liberal modernity into racialism, there are two questions which I ask when I encounter writings emerging from there or from the general direction of Marxist intellectualism. 1. Is the intellectual root of their argument tangibly Jewish. Does it, for instance, retail Jewish concepts about the gentile? 2. What does the writer really want? What are his own interests? I do not grant that despite its “historical perversions” or its “many inherent problems” there is good or even truth in a philosophy that sees the point of philosophy itself as a mission of change, and gazes not upon the life and being of a people but some deracinated space of hegemonic struggle. To my simple mind, there is no such struggle but a process of arrest in the perpetual development of the social as the (not an) expression, perhaps even the conscious expression in some respects, of said being and life. Nationalism, broadly speaking, is concerned with effecting that expression. Whether there is any element in modern Marxist intellectualism that is productive of that (that is to say, beyond analysis of liberalism, which is not an active agent) I doubt. As I say, it has the wrong interpretation - a Jewish interpretation - of who we are. It must lead to further arrest. So did Hayek have the wrong model of Man, by the way - a unity Marx did understand correctly when he stated “We are all Hobbes’s children.” 95
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:48 | # With all evolution being a fantastic array of fighting and defense strategies, it seems a dubious prospect to isolate the qualities that might make for a fair fight. It is risky in an evolutionary sense, hazarding a loss of important flexibility and rendering a myriad of sublime qualities susceptible to crass judgment. It seems a rather jockish criteria. Isn’t there a way that you might identify, isolate and promote the breeding of the individualist types you like without hazarding them and those who may have more circumspect and hidden values than can be displayed quite so readily in a fight episode? Isn’t there a way for these people whom you don’t like at first blush to be accountable to the more individualistically sovereign, beautiful and virile kind, that does not interfere with their breeding? while allowing these people who you don’t like to die off where they should by a deeper means of natural selection? A classic example of crass judgment would be the Roman centurion who did Archimedes in. Socrates was said to be an unappealing image to the public: oh that’s right, that’s where we started. 96
Posted by Bill on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 08:43 | # GL @ 88 (I tiny snippet from)
Liberalism is a denial of reality. (There are no rules) They espouse quite openly there are no absolutes, it’s a matter of subjectivity, one’s perception of life from one’s viewing platform. From this ideology all else stems, the very idea that ideas and natural events do not have consequences is risible. For a long time I couldn’t get my head around where this sudden explosion of corruption, sophistry and spin had originated, like the big bang, its effects permeated every public institution, it was all at once everywhere. Suddenly the scale fell, once one has accepted this central tenet of liberalism then all else follows, anything goes. In no time at all the whole edifice of civilised behavior and code of conduct begins to crumble, and that is where we’re at. The lowering of the bar in education is not corruption, it is simply another example of liberalism’s denial of reality. Non-discrimination. We cannot have our kiddy-winkies upset by calling it for what it is, the denial of truth. (98% of parents haven’t a clue why education is in such a mess). Add to that liberalism’s whole agenda of back to a zero growth future then who the heck wants an educated society anyway? Liberalism is riddled with such unprincipled exceptions, like the concentric rings from the pebble in the water they have far reaching consequences. But as there are no consequences (truths) then liberalism simply ignores them. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005864.html Humanity is suffering from a temporary glitch, some quirk of fate has given us modernity where man has declared nature redundant. For how much longer is anybody’s guess, myself, I would opine for not much longer. 97
Posted by Bill on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 10:46 | # Subjectivity at the game. Many years ago, (still cloth capped) and with the match over, my two colleagues and I were trudging shoulder to shoulder away from the ground with the thousands of others heading for home. Our awaiting transport parked some distance away. It was already dark, the street lamps accentuating the suddenly descended fog. Hemmed in by the flowing mass our thoughts became silent and withdrawn. Behind us a cheery three were discussing the match. “Gemmill (real name - Scottish International) was electric” ventured one of their number followed by a noticeable pause. ” Pity they forgot to plug him in” came a voice out of the darkness. We trudged on, me smiling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1axsnMRbbo Note. This was not the same match. 98
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:51 | # Graham Lister @84 First off, the USA is not about to collapse, it’s in decline. I think the beginning of the decline began in earnest the day Brown V Board became law—but that’s just my opinion. Secondly Liberalism “American style” has not defeated all major ideological opponents[ it does not have full spectrum of dominance. Not even close. It only has dominance in the minds of those whom benefit from it. Thirdly, Islamic jihadists are not a paper tiger; on the contrary, they are well within the top three existential threats the West faces. The majority of Muslims, especially those in the Middle-East, side to one degree or another with the Islamic radicals. Moreover, those Middle-east countries sit on all that oil wealth the West so depends on. Given that, it is just plain silly to contend the “Islamic radicals” have “no real and geo-political power …reality suggests otherwise. You also mention the Chinese. The Chinese with their astronomical growth— both economically and militarily—will soon challenge the military hegemony in the Pacific Rim, and my bets are they will prevail. Fourthly, you contend the it is absurd to blame the present trajectory on a few Trotskyites pumping out cultural Marxism 24/7 is to miss the point. Really? I think you have missed what actually happen here in the good ole’ USSA (yes I used two S‘s). What happened is during the 1930s, those Trotskyites you spoke of fled Europe to find refuge in America. Of course they wanted to overthrow capitalism and replace it with their brand of communism. But a prerequisite to that they knew they had to change the culture. I order to change the culture, the cultural Marxists knew the had to take over education, mass media, and the entertainment industry, Once that was accomplished they implemented their plan which is commonly referred to as “The long march through the institutions.” Who can argue against the fact that the cultural Marxists have been wildly successful well beyond their own expectations. For example: I watched a video of Herbert Marcuse being interviewed in the 1970s in which he recounted how absolutely stunned he was that his ideas hatched in the 1930s took off like a rocket in the !960s. At any rate, I only wish the USA was as powerful as you seem to think it is. Yes, it tries to impose its will on other countries but it invariably results in failure, e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq. American tried to install liberty and democracy in those two nations but those military/nation building endeavors are turning out to be miserably failures. What’s so ironic about that is while America is trying to spread liberty and freedom in other countries, it is flushing liberty and freedom down the toilet back home. I’ll address the overarching influence the international bankers/central bankers exert, and how it relates to immigration, anti-nationalism and the implementation of globalism.
99
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:10 | # Sorry for all the typos. And I should have made it clear that the long march through the institutions was/is the process that led to the takeover of education, mass media, entertainment industry, etc. After proofreading, i see my wording/sentences@ 94 were disjointed. BTW, there is no confusion between left-leaning liberals and cultural Marxists on my part. 100
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:36 | # Correction: I’ll address the overarching influence the international bankers/central bankers exert, and how it relates to immigration, anti-nationalism and the implementation of globalism at another time. Hey, I was up very late last night celebrating Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict. Mind fog! But I must admit, I’m enjoying the thought of all those squinched faced blacks and the sobbing white-libs stewing in their hate, anger and defeat. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! But then again, this aien’t over by a long shot. The full force of the Federal government may very well bring civil rights charges against Zimmerman ... just like they brought civil rights charges against the LA cops in the Rodney King case. 101
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:40 | # DanielS, what I have been, for years, asking of my critics is entirely fair and not at all jockish: Until you come up with an operational definition of your idea of eugenics so that you too can be subjected to rational criticizm, don’t pretend you have a damning critique of mine. The response has been years of sound and fury signifying nothing. Actually, given the sustained lack of response, I am tempted to say that those claiming to want to preserve Euroman’s living genetics are simply not serious about the project. Preservation of Euroman’s living genetics has to be founded and without an operational definition of Euroman’s culture, the selective pressures are being left up to magical thinking which will be manipulated by Euroman’s enemies. 102
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 14:45 | # Just ran across this:
103
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 16:38 | # You’ve asked me for a precise answer but it is necessary to precede that with a rough sketch of My idea of a eugenics program: My schooling came through a perspective in aversion to the word eugenics. Ecological thinking tends to view people more wholistically - as systemically interrelated in deep evolution, interdependent more or less. I still do tend to look at things that way. In fact, my experience does tell me that there can be value deeply buried in the genetics of even people who are sub-par in some ways, that popular sentiment can be blind to those qualities; more, that there can be seriously negative tendencies, which should not be quantified, of some people who might be popularly perceived as superior. Nevertheless, in spite of a strong aversion to the typical, brutal, right-wing proposals of sterilization, narrow criteria of people having social value on the basis of i.q. tests, a generic look and so on, I do not entirely mind the proposal to name my ideal form, since for me it is but another word for a selective process that happens anyway, albeit with more specifically systematic aims in eugenics – that’s the difference as I see it. That is to say, eugenics might be used in a benign way to stave-off the crass oversights of its forms as they occur, particularly in the context of liberal modernity that we are criticizing. Even in these contexts of people and educators most antagonistic, objectivist, liberal, Marxist, and just wielding any of the now well-known Jewish social theories as applied to Whites, I did not shrink from suggesting that a benign form of eugenics probably should be. First of all there would be genetic testing to certify European genetics and of what particular kind. No entry in the nation without that. Candidates also agree to terms that the various kinds of European should be allowed to preserve their distinction and territories. Different White communities might have different standards that should strive for symbiotic co-existence with one another. That is, the initial operation is to stake out our genetic diversity as a genus with subspecies to protect. The essential criteria for inclusive fitness would be fight or flight on behalf of Whites (people of indigenous European extraction). Without those basic inclinations, other abilities can potentially be merely used as more potent counters to our interests. The mere signing up as a wish to be a part of this nation is a motion as such to fight or flight. If one elects to be in the White nation they might be required to agree to terms of service in fight or flight; perhaps varying in national and regional requirements. An operational definition of what constitutes sufficient fulfillment of that requirement is admittedly something that needs to be fleshed-out; it is probably more difficult to enunciate because there are so many ways it might be fulfilled rather than those ways being hard to explicate – you can criticize me for being vague there; but it strikes me as a task that won’t unfold in one sitting – perhaps I’m not seeing a magic key to its articulation. However, criteria for fight or flight can be set-out and nation members can be required to provide accounts as to how they’ve fulfilled these requirements. Upon agreement to this contract, the nation would strive to allocate resources and living space enough so that concern over basic subsistence is alleviated (basically, I am going by Jim’s distributist model here). Achieving greater wealth and material well being, the capacity to afford more than one or two children, will be possible on top of that. Regarding additional wealth, we will seek criteria such that it tends to go to those who are doing the greatest good for the greatest number of Whites, but also doing good in furthering those particular kinds who tend to advance White survival and interests. Along with defense service, there would be workfare requirements for the said subsistence (perhaps not more than three days a week, 9.5 months a year – time and duty requirements can be formulated) but not welfare for those who do not just merely elicit money by practical or popular attraction. Some work would need to be more steady; but we might have options for different kinds; of course, many kinds of training would be available to foster skills beyond stoop labor; though our population would be doing its own stoop labor, wherever necessary; exercise is better having a practical end. People will have the option of selecting a partner in the usual way, through their daily goings on or they may opt for a service that identifies potentially appropriate partners to meet and potentially take into a serious relationship. This can involve DNA and many other criteria. There would be enclaves and meeting spaces, where monogamy is recognized as sacrosanct. That is to say, this would be a benign form of eugenics in that we would not be so keen on eliminating the inferior as we would be focused on aiding people in finding appropriate partners, a fair match. At the same time, we would be unburdening the more capable folks for more leisure to create, invent and have children. I am not in favor of doing everything possible to save lives; you cannot value life so much as to make it un-worthwhile. For example, I can relate to a woman having an abortion if she knows the child is going to have Down’s syndrome (though a hard core human ecologist may see the ecological place in Down’s syndrome as an occasion to learn about human circuits of emotions and empathy, I think it is a bit too hard if it can be avoided); nevertheless, as a rule, we are not looking to eliminate people deliberately. Their service in fight or flight will test the skills we value as most relevant and will provide a certain skill test that generally does the necessary killing off (or removes those who are not willing to fight for us), a killing off that will not be arbitrary, but heroically useful in service of our protection. You may say that “flight” is a coward’s way out, but at this point, until we are organized, fighting is largely futile; hence, flight is valid in a circumstance where you know that you cannot win; it will be seen as largely valid until us/them lines are more clearly drawn and our nation more fully populated; at that point, requirements of fight may be more clearly stated. There can be different ways of evaluating and testing appropriateness in what nationals are looking for in a partner to have children with. I believe even pair wise duels that assimilate lethal combat and only lead to penalties for the loser and reward for the winner can be enacted. Nevertheless, the death penalty should exist for some crimes; while banishment to non-White realms a minimum punishment for certain violations. I would certainly look to remove rapists and those disposed to theft or to initiate aggressive violence. 104
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 02:32 | #
I’m no scientist, and I come at the white preservationist cause from a civilizational, political and economic interests perspective, though one grounded in awareness of the fundamental immorality of the new “diversitarian” dispensation. That is, I oppose race mixing and geographical integration because I do not believe that Western Civ, the essence of which, as a true conservative (contra Dr. Lister’s ludicrous portrayal of me as some sort of classical liberal, just because I happen to find much of value in that tradition - is Lister a Marxist because he finds value in Marxist musings?), I wish to preserve, can survive without the existence of actual (pure-blooded) whites, as well as preponderantly demographically white communities. I am also concerned about the permanent possibility, and pretty obvious certainty, of antiwhite persecution, political as well as private / street-level, in newly white-minoritized countries (as has already happened to our brethren in Southern Africa), as well as interracial wealth redistribution on a scale dwarfing what has been going on since the 60s. It is deadly to our civilization’s conservation, as well as to our American quality of life, to continue artificially reducing America’s white majority. For me, these facts, grounded in history and politics, are all that are really required to support a nationalist politics. Thus, even scientific demonstrations of nonwhite inferiority, let alone ‘outre’ (sorry, don’t know how to do online accents) ontological musings, are quite irrelevant, and possibly politically harmful. Point out in plain English to Joe Whiteman that his life is virtually guaranteed to get harder and crappier if whites don’t start looking out for their collective interests, and you may well get him on your side. Tell him that he needs to embrace atheism (or some weird nationalist ‘religion’), or that his very conceptions of self and society and pleasures etc, are ‘inadequate’ and must be overcome via lots of boring philosophical navel-gazing (with a mandatory excursion to Denmark thrown in for good measure), and he’s likely to tell you to F—- off - and I for one am not prepared to say he isn’t the wiser man. OK, that was a prefatory digression. I merely wished to ask why Euroman’s genes cannot be preserved simply by outlawing miscegenation (or at least inaugurating a widespread social campaign condemning it). I am asking this as a scientific matter (whether politically either path will succeed, at least in the US, is doubtful). White/Jewish couplings can be outlawed as well, of course. If Aryans only reproduce with Aryans, as long as we are encouraged to do so in sufficient numbers, what’s the problem? As to the definition of eugenics, why not simply use IQ + lack of family criminal history, perhaps also outlawing certain pairings known to produce genetic defectives (eg, hemophiliacs)? On IQ, society simply pays (or requires) persons testing below some agreed upon threshold not to reproduce, and/or subsidizes (or requires) persons testing above some threshold to (over)reproduce. Eventually, we might be able to make quantum leaps in improvement of the human ‘stock’ directly through as yet undeveloped embryonic engineering (gene manipulation) techniques. But for the moment, as I understand the state of the science (perhaps Lister would like to chime in here), using known heritable proxies, like IQ, seems to be the best we can do (which doesn’t mean we [the post-diversitarian Racial State] should throw up our hands and do nothing). [Someday, I am going to make a detailed study of these matters, with the intention of writing a moral apologia on the subject of Christian Eugenics (although I stress anti-dysgenics as opposed to eugenics, as I intuit that it is easier to genetically improve society by preventing the worst human types from reproducing, than by encouraging the best to breed - but I admit I may be wrong on this point).] 105
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 05:28 | # Simply slowing, if not terminating, the ongoing genocide is so urgent at this point that I understand the reluctance to venture further. However, as is evidenced by the White House petition to Obama to stop the genocide of whites, very few people are able to face that reality let alone admit they see it in a public manner. They viscerally fear of being singled out, not just for social censure, but for removal of basic necessities in a worsening job market and increasingly hostile welfare bureaucracy. This can result in being exposed to the flesh and blood acts of violence that are ignored as “dog bites man” reports by the “news” media and which is “just fine” because, after all, working class whites are “stupid” and “racist” and enjoy “white privilege” so they “deserve” being beaten bloody, raped and killed by “minorities”—in the prison system if nowhere else—just as they “deserve” that treatment in South Africa and Zimbabwe. So, deny, deny, deny—especially to one’s self. Here is where I have to reiterate my assertion about Euroman’s genetic superiority born of a prehistoric culture—an artificial selective pressure regime upheld by transmissible norms and morals from generation to generation that predate Christianity by millenia and, truth be told, probably originated the notion of an individual standing alone against gangster theocrats only to be crucified for “heresy”. There is something worth preserving here and it is not simply the genetic legacy of Euroman—it is the culture of Euroman—the artificial selective pressure that created the genetic legacy now being so viciously and relentlessly attacked. 106
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:54 | # Horus saves. Seriously, stories about the value of individuals which are hidden to the masses, individuals who are then persecuted in the ignorance of the masses can be culled to serve in new forms of religion as well.
Time may not be the best way to judge productivity. I only meant to suggest that there should be a quanta of productivity required; and by proposing 3 days a week and 9 months a year, I meant to suggest that it should not permanently chain a person to particular drudgery, but leave time for them to develop beyond, into other contributions and satisfactions. There must be other and better ways of accounting for individuals having contributed sufficiently than merely punching the clock. I started sounding communist in a bad way, even to me.
107
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:00 | # However, I do believe that fight or flight on behalf of Whites is the most essential characteristic that we should want to select-for, eugenically. That other characteristics are as good as making for a more effective traitor without that. 108
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:23 | # Well how the message is delivered to Joe Public is a vital question. And no I wouldn’t start with the flaws and limitations of methodological individualism, the nature of ontological stratification (contra the ‘nothing but’ reductionism - as Roger Scruton dubs ultra-reductionism - which is the academic/intellectual default and of which liberal ‘flat’ ontologies are but one manifestation), or indeed discussion of Merleau-Ponty’s approach to phenomenology. The intertextuality of ‘Eastenders’ isn’t what the locals in the ‘Dog and Duck’ chat about now is it? ‘Cartesian Dualism for the Fuller Figure’ isn’t a conversational topic or seminar title for the fat girls at their local ‘Weight-watcher’s’ group is it?. Everyone knows this Leon. However, for any ideology to start to have traction it must have its high form, its middle-brow version and its as ‘for folks as thick as pig shit’ versions, yes? Obviously there’s an asymmetry. Get the high version ‘wrong’ and it’s unlikely the ‘lower-levels’ will produce the necessary analytical corrections for the higher version. It takes all types to win a war. A great salesman isn’t normally the go-to guy in order to design the product he’s selling - especially if, under the surface, its actually a relatively complex product. As a Catholic Leon I thought you would appreciate that there’s a simplified version on offer for the majority of the laity and then a few people that actually do discuss Karl Rahner or whatever. There’s space for both. 109
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:13 | # The evil we are up against:
Not “white”.
Read more: White Supremacy Acquits George Zimmerman | The Nation 110
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:36 | # @105 Ya know, that evil wouldn’t have any teeth whatsoever if it weren’t for the fact that white people can so easily be led around by the nose. 111
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:37 | # DanielS writes: “However, I do believe that fight or flight on behalf of Whites is the most essential characteristic that we should want to select-for, eugenically.” So you apparently think there is nothing uniquely superior about Euroman. Or do you think that this fight or flight instinct on behalf of the racial group is something uniquely enhanced and valuable in Euroman’s genetic makeup as a consequence of it being, as contrasted with other racial groups, the prehistoric normative and moral heritage, hence eugenic culture that produced Euroman and that this instinct is what makes Euroman stand out as genetically superior?
112
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:35 | # DanielS writes: “However, I do believe that fight or flight on behalf of Whites is the most essential characteristic that we should want to select-for, eugenically.” Yes, we should concentrate on selecting for that: it is, in essence, what we need to survive.
Yes, I do think there are things that are superior about Euroman, but that is not my primary motive for defending them or for wanting them to defend themselves. Their qualities and ways of life merit defending. Or do you think that this fight or flight instinct on behalf of the racial group is something uniquely enhanced and valuable in Euroman’s genetic makeup
It is the threadbare beginning of loyalty, honor and merit; beginning an instinctual level. as a consequence of it being, as contrasted with other racial groups, the prehistoric normative and moral heritage, hence eugenic culture that produced Euroman and that this instinct is what makes Euroman stand out as genetically superior? Actually, this lack of fight or flight probably makes us susceptible to dysgenesis. The reason why we need to enhance this (and/or grant more license to it as you seem to be getting at with the notion of allowing for individuals to fight interlopers) is so that Europeans can survive, and will have the ongoing instinct for survival enhanced. After that, I have confidence in Europeans to manifest all kinds of wonderful characteristics.
“Simply slowing, if not terminating, the ongoing genocide is so urgent at this point that I understand the reluctance to venture further.” I believe organizing ourselves, identifying ourselves versus antagonistic forces, promulgating the value of our identity, the practical reward for participation and sacralizing our people as a cause takes precedent. If we can do those things, we can begin to rally. The losses are horrible - torture by the minute. Yes, in the short term enculturation to fight or flight defense in some form is necessary given the of urgency to our men and woman and their lack of capacity for such instinctive response; but in the longer term, which a eugenics program would require, it would be best if acting on behalf of Whites were something that our men and women would do as naturally as individuals. 113
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:45 | # ... Yes, in the short term enculturation to fight or flight defense in some form is necessary given the situation’s urgency to our men and woman, and their lack of capacity for such instinctive response. * I mean, how could this happen?
And how is it that White men could allow for it, not respond immediately to stop it? It is so strange, so completely alien a people that would accept this. ...... 114
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:57 | # Correcting some typos with this: Yes, in the short term enculturation to fight or flight defense in some form is necessary given the urgency to our men and woman and their lack of capacity for such instinctive response; but in the longer term, which a eugenics program would require, it would be best if acting on behalf of Whites were something that our men and women would do naturally, as individuals. 115
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:25 | # House of Lords advances gay “marriage” in England and Wales; Queen’s approval requested by week’s end. 116
Posted by Silver on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:50 | # So is this it then? Have worthless but incessant babblers like DanielS and Thorn completely killed this blog or is there a chance it may yet limp to its tenth anniversary, at which point you’d think mere compassion alone would justify putting it out of its misery? Good work, guys. 117
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:10 | # Silver, be honest: are you gay? I ask you that because I get the distinct feeling my comment @ 111 offended you. 118
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:21 | # Oh, and BTW, Silver, at least DanielS puts his all into the cause of saving the White race. You, on the other hand, amount to a insidious troll. Don’t think for one second your little game goes unnoticed. 119
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:02 | # Six types of atheist - which are you? “The largest group (37%) was what I would call ‘cultural non-believers’, and what they call ‘academic’ or ‘intellectual atheists’: people who are well-educated, interested in religion, informed about it, but not themselves believers. I call them ‘cultural’ because they are at home in a secular culture which takes as axiomatic that exclusive religious truth claims must be false.” “They [intellectual atheists’ are more than twice as common as the ‘anti-theists’ . . . The other two noteworthy groups are those to whom religion is completely and entirely irrelevant, ‘non-theists’, and what the researchers call ‘ritual atheists’, who overlap quite a lot with ‘seeker-agnostics’, both of whom might be targeted under the marketing category known as ‘spiritual but not religious’.” Read the whole article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2013/jul/15/six-types-of-atheist 120
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:08 | # Atheists are stifled by intellectual log jams. It amazes me that they can’t accept the fact they can’t possibly know—or discover via science—from whence our existence comes from. There is only one rational explanation how we came about, and that explanation is there must be something much greater than man that created both him and the infinite universe he currently dwells in. Deal with it! 121
Posted by Silver on Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:32 | # Lister, I would classify you as an anti-theist. The category “Ritual Atheist” best fits me:
I’ve also used “Christian Atheist” to describe it. I don’t believe in any of the Christian claims, but the surprising thing is I found that, nevertheless, I could achieve much of the same utility that I used to find in religion back when I did take seriously Christian theology - ie, as a child and teen, though even then I was skeptical about some of the sillier parts of the bible, like the creation story. In fact, the bible is one of the worst things about Christianity. What a bore that book is. Give me the Greek myths any day. But the figure of Jesus Christ is a very attractive religious archetype. And “salvation” and a spot in “heaven” through belief in his resurrection are religious myths very much worth throwing one’s “faith” into. It doesn’t matter whether any of it’s true or not. One’s experience of this world is fundamentally altered - enhanced, elevated - when one is touched by the “spirit” in this way. If it’s possible for me to get all this from religion despite considering the religion’s truth claims as factual nonsense then it it demonstrates that religion has much less to do with the specific dogmatic truth claims a religion makes than the average anti-theist supposes. And if this is true then who is some upstart like Graham Lister to claim that American Christians’ religious experience is a “mile wide but an inch deep”? How “deep” does it have to be get Graham Lister’s approval? Better yet, why would anyone care about Graham Lister’s approval in the first place?
122
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:01 | # I’m an agnostic. I think some people confuse anti-theism with anti-clericalism. Yes I’m certainly the latter but not, I think, the former (especially with the more intelligent members of the religious spectrum - 99% of which American Christians - at least with respect to their theological/philosophical views - are not). Religion is a bit like a public swimming pool - anyone can join the party and most of the unpleasant noise comes from ‘children’ misbehaving in the shallow end. And apparently some 10% or so of American Christians think that Joan of Arc was a biblical character. We are dealing with massive amounts of unreality and astonishing ignorance with regard to American Voodoo lovers. 123
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:46 | # No, the issue really is as our ancestors thought it was. Either some type of God exists, or not. Either Christ was Who He said He was, or He was a first century Jewish lunatic. Christianity rises or falls with the Resurrection. Either that event actually, materially happened, or the faith is worthless - mere Ethical Precepts That If Widely Followed Would Make Life Happier For Everybody (which is not how the world works). On the other hand, no God, no ethics. In the absence of belief in God, total nihilism reigns (or ought to: such ethical behavior as might still be observed is merely ‘residual’ in the Paretian cultural sense). Show me a (truly) ethical atheist, and I’ll show you a philosophical fool. Of course, there are many (infinite?) theistic possibilities. But there is no rational reason to accept any of them. They are or would be simple human projections. This does not mean that any single one of them is per se invalid, only that the burden of proof rests with the ‘believer’ (a burden I believe insurmountable). Christianity is qualitatively different from the mythic cults, historically and intellectually (Shinto, Hinduism, Islam; I’m not sure how to classify Buddhism; it is so alien to my mental life that I find trying to understand it irritating and boring). There is an unbroken chain of testimony going back to Christ Himself. Moreover, Christian theology is undeniably superior to all other theologies (this I’ve heard from several interreligious scholars, all of whom are/were elite intellectuals, at different points in my life). It is a great edifice of thought. That latter fact might be expected, given that the first Christians were Jews, and later ones were whites (ie, intelligent peoples produce intelligent religions). But it is the interplay between the historicity and the rationality of the faith that make it so persuasive.
That is a wonderful and perceptive image. Very true. But just as we are constantly instructed not to judge the “beautiful religion of peace” that is Islam by only or primarily considering suicide terrorists, let us not chastise the True Faith by fixating on its least attractive adherents, or assume that anything peddled by some Christian “leader” is necessarily “the Gospel truth”. 124
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:34 | # Incidentally the Joan of Arc figure comes from “Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know - And Doesn’t” and is also cited in this book: “Shopping for God: How Christianity Went from In Your Heart to In Your Face”. Both of which I’m skimming through for a long planned essay on Christianity in America as a cultural and political phenomenon. I’m also planning to read “Shopping Malls and other Sacred Places” along with “Jesus in America: Personal Savior, Cultural Hero, National Obsession”. All available on Amazon for anyone curious themselves about the subject. So when I assert it’s a ‘mile-wide but an inch deep’ I do think I have some strong empirical evidence and a robust conceptual framework on my side. For example - a massively high number of ‘Bible-believing’ American Christians cannot successfully name the stated authors of the four gospels when asked. Now that’s not a signal of a deep commitment to their faith is it? I can name the stated authors of the Biblical gospels and I’m not in the club. Just on the shallow end of the pool idea - there is somewhat of a difference between people that might have a work by Paul Tillich, Karl Rahner, Søren Kierkegaard, Paul Ricoeur etc., on their bookcase and those that have Rick Warren’s latest tome or Jack Van Impe’s latest, Pat Robertson’s wit and wisdom [sic], Tim Lahaye’s novels or God help us Krista Tippett’s banalities. Or even worse than the books - the DVD collections of the previous mentioned religious ‘leaders’. Seriously how anyone can defend such ergerious characters and the piffle they sell to gullible rubes is beyond me. For anyone with two brain cells to rub together and the common sense they were born with aren’t such hucksters and Chaucerian frauds an offence to reason itself - to everyone’s ability to reason? Why the need to defend the indefensible? 125
Posted by Silver on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:37 | #
Any answer I give is going to be some form of the words often misattributed to Seneca the Younger, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” We know today the power of cultural norms to shape political possibilities. Since each of us has some power - not complete power, no, but neither are we powerless - to influence the cultural norms of those around us, it makes ‘rulers’ of all of us. What happens when common people abandon religion? Do they swap their “Left Behind” novels for Wallace Stevens collections? No. They instead fall into a sarcastic, cynical, depressive funk that finds relief only in collapsing standards all across society - and they’ve got the tatts and the piercings, the bizarre hairstyles, and the raggedy, hand-me-down attire to prove it. Racial values are consonant with greatness, not sniveling cynicism. For the common man, a taste of the divine is the perhaps the only way his mind can be opened towards a sense of inner greatness and a desire to see that greatness translated into real-world manifestations. What does it matter then whether he name the authors of the gospels? (I must admit, the inability to do so is rather surprising, sheesh.) If a man tastes the divine and experiences a vision of moral clarity his religious sense is better described as the reverse of what you say; it is an inch wide, but many miles deep. Or as the song puts it, “I don’t know much, but I know I love you. And that may be all I need to know.” Not knowing much is hardly a virtue, but the common man will never know much whether he believes in God or not. Better then to believe. As for “Shopping Malls and other Sacred Places,” I can see even a formidable intellect like yours hasn’t been spared from the sarcastic turn. Shopping malls may not be sacred places, but I’ll say this for them, they are certainly magical. I say so partly from the wonderment I experienced exploring them as a child, and from the knowledge of the self-organizing social order that led to their creation I’ve gained as an adult. That beats cynicism any day of the week.
126
Posted by MarkE on Sat, 20 Jul 2013 00:38 | #
What do “factor individual integrity” and “pseudo-immortality” mean? Do you that the “mind uploads” that the Singularity and transhumanist folks desire won’t actually work to achieve immortality? 127
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 06:15 | # By “factor integrity” I mean if something is an integrated whole, it is frequently exceedingly difficult to factor it into component parts without causing disintegration of the whole. For instance, when evolutionary pressure is applied to groups of genes, via the meiotic lottery, we get individual integrity. When evolutionary pressure is applied to groups of genes by subjecting a bunch of individuals to a shared fate, repeatedly—what is called “group selection”—we get group integrity. The point is that the evolved relationships are frequently far more subtle and complex than we are capable of analyzing. This isn’t to say these relationships are unfactorable in principle—it is just that for we mere humans to place too much stock in our ability to do so is hubris. Sure—there are situations where it is obvious that some single gene causes a disease and it might be reasonable to silence that gene in some way. But even there, it is hard to say that the disease causing gene had no function prior to the disease. It may be difficult to verify the disease itself has no ecological function beyond the community of genes making up the diseased individual. The best eugenics is that which conserves the manifest direction of creation by subjecting the entire individual, as an integrated whole, to that direction. As for pseudo-immortality perhaps I should have said “quasi-immortality” since I’m not prepared to say the transhumanist version of “immortality” won’t “work” in some sense. The point is that the only living forms that are “immortal” are asexual in the conservative sense of “sexual”. 128
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:30 | # Mr. Bowery does it again with AMATEUR biology hour. Now multi-level selection, hierarchical selection, the ‘new’ group selection, or inclusive-fitness theory, kin selection etc - whatever name you wish to use for the same process, whatever terminology is employed by any given person, when evolutionary biologists use the term ‘group selection’ it is NOT and I repeat emphatically NOT the difference between if individual alleles or groups of alleles at different loci are being selected for or against. FOR MR. BOWERY TO SUGGEST THAT GROUP SELECTION IS FOR ‘GROUPS OF GENES’ AND INDIVIDUAL SELECTION IS FOR ‘INDIVIDUAL GENES’ IS TO BE PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT OR WILLFULLY MISLEADING. Group selection or individual selection can AND do apply to both individual alleles and groups of alleles dependent on the nature of the genetic variation (simply put one gene with a big phenotypic effect regarding fitness or lots of genes all with a small effect - that can add up to large phenotypic differences) upon the phenotype in question, know as additive genetic variation). So an individual allele can be under individual selection or group selection as can a set of genes if we are discussing quantitative genetic variation. The fact that evolutionary change always involves changes in the frequency of alleles and ultimately the changes in individual alleles is not the question raised by group selection as used within the conceptual approach most clearly set out by George Price and his covariance theorem. Rather it is thus - in the simplest case model does an individual allele for ‘individualistic’/‘competitive’/‘selfish’/‘defector’ behaviours gain more fitness compared with an individual allele for ‘groupish’/‘co-operative’/‘altruistic’ behaviours. I have published an evolutionary model of how a co-operative trait can spread in a population in both the discontinuous case of phenotypic/behavioural variation i.e. allele z always produces behaviour/phenotype x not y, and in the more complex scenario of allele z sometimes results in x but sometimes does result in y type behavior/traits also. I think I have some conceptual grasp on the subject. Anyway no-one need believe my word on that. (No I’m not going to post my CV here etc., to ‘prove’ anything thank you very much.) The key issue is that almost all adaptive evolutionary change (natural selection) it is ultimately a case of selection for or against individual alleles and their statistical effects on fitness. But fitness can be produced by being an ‘individual competitor’ or a ‘groupish co-operator’. The precise ecological and biological details matter enormously as to when and how different adaptive ‘strategies’ work in evolutionary terms. For example, something called ‘the scale of competition’ is quite important in the evolution of such traits. GW has a paper I emailed to him on how the scale of competition might have effected human behavioural/social evolution (hopefully he found it interesting). Furthermore, and to repeat once more using different terms, individual versus group selection is about how at the organismic level it is between the cases of (in fitness terms) being an ‘individual competitor’ type versus a ‘group co-operator’. Now group selection/inclusive-fitness theory are a working out of a fundamental life-history trade-off. Given resources are limited organisms must optimise fitness under constraints. No organism can live forever, reproduce indefinitely etc. So there are inescapable trade-offs involved in all life forms. One of the key ones is the quality versus quantity one (regarding offspring and reproduction). Individual versus group selection is in a roundabout way a playing out of this trade-off. Is it better to be an individual competitor gaining more direct/individual fitness to oneself, even at the expense of killing/outcompeting others that share my ‘individualistic’ allele (thus reducing the total number of ‘individualists’ overall and therefore losing inclusive-fitness but each survivor being better - the high quality but low quantity end of the phenotypic/reproductive spectrum), or is it fitter to be a cooperator? Behaving in some way that enables more of your kin to survive, even at a direct fitness cost to the individual, but in doing so gaining far more genetic representatives in the next generation (thus enjoying more inclusive-fitness at the less quality more quantity end of the phenotypic/reproductive spectrum). Again it’s a Sunday morning and I’m attempting to put the issues in the most simple terms possible. Perhaps too simple in that important but subtle issues are glossed over obviously. However, I find it painful to see evolutionary terms used by Mr. Bowery in such an egregious/heterodox way as to be utterly misleading. It’s a double offense when that heterodoxy (i.e. wrong usage) is then put to pivotal use in his even more crackpot political ideas. But for the gullible (or those lack any background in the subject areas) the cod biology gives the cod philosophical anthropology/politics a veneer of intellectual rigour/credibility to what would be (if stated plainly) quite absurd views. Really I do wonder why this chancer (Bowery - fan of and seeming quasi-plagiarist of the whacko ‘insights’ of the ‘Sovereign Press’ see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sovereign_Press for more details) is given the time of day by anyone interested in European politics and the future of Europe is beyond me. God alone know why GW gives him house room. Normally when I recommend a book it by Oxford University Press or Verso or another normal respectable publisher. Rather than micro-publishing outfits run by marginal (in every sense) cranks - which are really the modern equivalent of vanity publishing for loons. Not everything on the margins of liberal society/thought is worthy of respect. Much of it is crap. Really crap. Just like Mr. Bowery’s conceptual misunderstandings with regard to basic biology. P.S. @‘Mad Mike’ What a fine meta-political insight. Yes murder a few higher-ups in the Labour party and all will be well. After all the Tories and the Lib Dems are on your side. Bo Jo, Cameroon, Thatcher et al. are/were all ‘secretly’ Enoch Powell redux yes? So secretly however they look and act in completely the opposite way to any Powellite view - but never let the facts get in the way of a great mind like ‘Mad Mike’. Yes it’s ALL the fault of evil trade-unions and the Labour party! The story is really that simple. What a fucking muppet. 129
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 11:58 | # Dr. Lister: Did you catch this portion of my comment #104?
Any thoughts? 130
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 15:48 | # Lister’s hostility gets in the way of his reading comprehension. When I talk about the meiotic lottery being key to individual selection, I cannot be talking about anything but a group of genes that comprise an individual being subjected to a shared fate—thereby constituting individual selection. This was not unclear in my original comment. PS: The key phrase “meiotic lottery” as applied to “individual selection” is so basic to evolutionary theory that it is hard to imagine that anyone with a serious education in evolutionary theory could, even in the grip of fevered hatred, make the reading comprehension mistake Lister did. What are his qualifications? Or is he actually cognitively disabled in some way so serious that he is literally unable to apply his area of expertise when upset? 131
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:21 | # “Marc Genest talked about the American Revolution as an insurgency campaign which was won by use of strategic communication and information operations He also spoke about the counter-insurgency measures utilized by the British, and highlighted where they made mistakes.” Sam Adams, Sons of Liberty and The American Revolutionaries looked upon as contemporary insurgents attempting to overthrow a government: 132
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:14 | # Genest: “The essence of the communications battle: 1. Understand the various audiences that you are playing to: The White audience is the key audience. bi-focate the audience: the elites who produce and lead public opinion / and the masses 2. Also establish the proper ideological argument to appeal to the enemies home front, elites and masses - to effect their rational calculus, that the cost of fighting are not worth it. 3. International community - third parties, to attract assets and allies. Send the message that perhaps the enemy needs to spend more time defending its home front than Whites Send a message to other Whites that are colonized/subject by internationalist/integrative interests that yes, they too can rise up. To have an impact on audiences so they can understand what we are trying to do and when in order to channel them, you have to have a message that resonates with the audience. The best way to do that is to understand that you have to latch onto a legitimate grievance. This is not something you have to make up. You have to be able to identify why people are angry. Why they would possibly revolt and then you have to build your message around that legitimate grievance. If you do not have a legitimate grievance your message is unlikely to resonate with the population. Develop an effective message in the simplest terms imaginable. Finally, your actions have to be coordinated with your words. Your message has to be reinforced with action otherwise the message does not seem to resonate with the audience that you intend to influence. Next, if you do not have to have an effective, legitimate messenger, then your message will not resonate. Then you need a skilled management and inspirational leader who can help organize and lead the movement. You need a channel of communication. In the Revolution they developed messages and got them out. You need an organization. Sam Adams organized people effectively. We, Whites, are playing a home game as indigenous forces - that gives us an advantage. John Adams understood that he won the war before it began because they estranged the minds of the people against the enemy. The people are the ground game, so you need to get the message to them. We need to focus on the propaganda campaign: “no taxation without representation” resonated both with Americans and British Wigs (who admired the Magna Carta).” I believe this is why Bowery tries to emphasize freedom and liberty for Whites in the American context, to put the enemies of Whites at war with their own principles.
His thesis at Harvard: “When is it justified for people to rise up?” He also lies: blames British for raping women, for stealing..etc. So Adams mixes erudite facts and arguments but also lies to stir emotions and undermine the stability to increase the costs of alien rule. Sinn Fein to present legitimate face and IRA to do dirty work is precisely the way the Sons of Liberty operated. Adams goes to the pubs for angry men and goes about creating instability. Then he puts the community organizers, the Sinn Fein to provide the legitimate, intellectual arguments. The narrative is always framed such that WN’s are the good guys fighting for what WN’s absolutely necessarily must. These were 18th century bloggers.
If I want to start a rebellion who should I want to anger the most: elites who control communications channels. Stamp Act was a tax on the information elite. The one in charge of enforcing this is, Oliver is mocked and defamed, decapitated and burned in effigy. drummed up negative attention on him. Ultimately, they stone and ransack his (Oliver’s) house. We didn’t vote for these taxes and we’re going to make it very hard for you to collect.
133
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:15 | # If Graham Lister would like to be taken seriously as an advocate of biologically based group solidarity, I would challenge him to suggest social rules toward that end at least as effective as I have when I have brought up the Hutterite lottery, repeatedly, over the years as an example of applying the wisdom of individual selection’s creation of the meiotic lottery. Perhaps he could begin by reading “Meeting at Grand Central: Understanding the Social and Evolutionary Roots of Cooperation” by Lee Cronk and Beeth L. Leech, which contains this passage starting on page 40:
Would Graham Lister now be so kind as to demonstrate his superiority to the Hutterites, risible Americans that they are? PS: Cronk and Leech rather fail to appropriately emphasize the key point about the genius of using lottery as an imposition of shared fate: Although there is a pre-determined division into two groups that are manifestly made up of individuals that do not share the fate of individuals in the other group, the point of the lottery is to allow these two, potentially conflicting, groups, to work together in establishing the infrastructure of the new colony. Neither group knows whether they are going to stay in the existing infrastructure or are going to end up in the new infrastructure. They, in that sense, share a similar prospective fate. This is analogous to the “gene’s eye view” of the meiotic lottery in the sense that when building a new individual, the genes share a prospective fate in the individual’s germline - a prospective fate determined at the time of the meotic lottery forming the gamete. 134
Posted by Silver on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:12 | #
No, the issue is not as simplistic as our (yours and mine) ignorant ancestors thought. What prevents you from acknowledging that there is a solid rational case against there ever even being a real Jesus? You don’t have to agree with that case, of course, but you must admit it exists and that existence of that case complicates the easy “Either Christ was who he said he was or not” picture.
You’re not paying attention. The ethical precepts aren’t as valuable as the “way of relating to the universe” it creates for the individual, which is capable of making life better for the individual regardless of what anyone else does.
135
Posted by MarkE on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:00 | #
But the transhumanists/Singularitarians seem to want to ultimately go beyond genetics altogether and become minds in computers, cyborg bodies, etc. That is cease to be organic, biological life forms altogether. Is this merely sexual nihilism? Or is it more than that - biological nihilism, absolute nihilism? 136
Posted by Roland on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 04:19 | # Interesting post. It has been suggested that Greek Philosophy, hence modern natural science and philosophy, emerges from the conceptual distinction between nature and custom—physis and nomos. One explanation is that this distinction became apparent in the context of the conquest and destruction of sedentary Bronze Age civilizations by pastoral Indo-European (proto-Greek speaking) groups, and perhaps the “Dorians”, or whoever was responsible for the destruction of 12th-century Mycenaen civilization. The barbarians would have noticed that custom allowed unworthy individuals and families to rule over large, sedentary populations in Egypt, India, Persia, Minoan and Mycenaen Greece, etc. They also would have noticed that physical superiority and breeding (phenomena they would have been very sensitive to as pastoralists and warriors) were responsible for their own ability to rule over and conquer “customary” civilizations. Of course Socrates used philosophy to endorse obedience to custom and collective rule, however this is clearly not the case with the various tyrants and sophists who became his imagined opponents in the famous dialogs. Presocratic philosophy endorses the natural rule of the stronger, though not necessarily in a manner that is consistent with the Valorian natural duel ideal. 137
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Aug 2021 17:38 | # A refined proposal for the origin of dogs: the case study of Gnirshöhle, a Magdalenian cave site
Post a comment:
Next entry: Exploiting the equalitarian state
|
|
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) |
?6&imgrefurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/eddie-murphy-girlfriend-paige-butcher_n_2079300.html&h=711&w=570&sz=135&tbnid=VxKnSNGvyMXoMM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=72&zoom=1&usg=__p3CK3Efkdx0ZP09hEH__XuMFSbU=&docid=5K41ESk0wd04VM&sa=X&ei=xkHkUaicB4iOtAa894CwDw&ved=0CCwQ9QEwAA&dur=1813
Posted by Matt on Thu, 04 Jul 2013 18:59 | #
Interesting post. Thanks James.
Your quote of Socrates’s discussion of the origin of the State sounds remarkably like what pervades dominant thinking and discourse today. Except that today, “The Market”, which Socrates seems to include under the term “the State”, is also explicitly named and discussed and rationalized in this manner.
Regarding the “dissonance” of Greek philosophy, do you suppose this is expressed in the division between “pre-Socratic philosophy” and the Greek philosophy of Socrates and after (which includes Plato, Aristotle, et al)? Pre-Socratic philosophy is focused on natural philosophy and the natural world and cosmology in general, whereas Greek philosophy with Socrates and after turned more towards social questions.