|
|
|
The underlying struggle: the next part of a paper on specialist activism Culture war advanced from the neo-Marxist left is, by its careful targeting and its singularly existential consequences, race war against us native Brits. But it’s a race war that need never declare its true nature and meaning publicly. Its constitution is such that the leftist race-warrior can break every moral bound and act towards our people as oppressively and hatefully as licence allows, yet still claim to be acting culturally and in the interests of an equalitarian and universalist human freedom, ie, excising “racial oppression” and “hatred” from this land. It is only the latest in the long, doleful line of utopian struggles to rid the world of all conflict. That it denies Nature and human nature and the Darwinian principle of fitness and selection ... that its demand for the obliteration of identity and difference is anti-human ... that it is a genocidally destructive process for us, as the native people ... that it commits all this trespass simply doesn’t enter into it. Quite the contrary, any action in defence of our people’s precious life, however culturally we frame it as our people’s way of life or by the proxies of “Christian values” or “Western civilisation”, immediately draws down upon us all the same old barely contained violence and hate-labelling, like Orwell’s vision of a boot “stamping on a human face forever”. There is no conversation to be had with the owner of the boot. The owner, ultimately, is the universalising, equalising, homogenising dynamic of utopianism, and it is deaf and blind to us. For all its rejection of racialism, UKIP found itself stamped on in its day. Already, Laurence Fox is finding that the boot needs must stamp on him, too. So while it is fair to say that there is no culture war at all, and never was ... that everything was always about our ethnicity and race, always about obliterating us by any and all political means, because our obliteration is both the goal of and the latest way to the utopia of sameness ... while that is all true, nonetheless the rules of the political game are that everyone must proceed as though the left is indeed innocent of all sin and, far from being pathologically, hypocritically anti-human, is the proper moral arbiter on nationalists and nationalism. This is how the left, as the client of the British Establishment, the corporate Establishment, has achieved the marginalisation of nationalists and forced the culturists, civicists, and conservatives to walk on the thinnest of eggshells. All this serves one purpose only: to remove the life-cause of our people from the debate and practise of politics and confine it in moral quarantine as far away as possible. Our job as advocates for our people, whether we are nationalists, culturists, civicists or traditional conservatives, is to put that life-cause back into the political, with all that implies for discrimination against the human Other - the Establishment’s tool of our replacement and dissolution. Discrimination for the life-cause of one’s own genetic kind is necessary, natural, and good, and is the true human universal. Discrimination for a greatly abused and discriminated-against, colonised people is likewise wholly moral and necessary. Our people must live, for that is what Nature commands; and, besides, that life is a higher cause by vast orders of magnitude than the utopians’ pathological and obsessive, profoundly unwanted dream. Comments:2
Posted by Tinker on Sun, 11 Oct 2020 11:45 | # “The worst thing that faces us now is inconveniences” Cool story bro ps. Next time just post the lyrics to Imagine it’ll save you some time 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Oct 2020 15:38 | # Louis, Thank you for your long but liberalistic reply to my post. I will try to bridge the divide between the thought world of natural humanity which is ethnic nationalism and the thought world of the notional individual which is liberalism. Ontologically, it is the difference between human authenticity and human artifice. Unsurprisingly, Homo artificialis does not know about Homo authentica ... does not even suspect his existence. But Homo authentica knows Homo artificialis only too well, and all his laborious ways, as we shall see over the course of my replies. Culture war from the neo-Marxist left - a most specific thing - effects through its critique various destructive modifications to the formative culture, ie, that commonwealth of, one must hope, preponderantly adaptive psychological cues which, together with what is in our nature, generate human personality. By its destructiveness culture war impacts the (in the words of Rafael Lemkin, the father of the 1948 Convention) “essential foundations of the life of national groups”. Here is his full quote:
The concept of a war on the hegemonic culture of the West was itself devised exclusively by Jewish intellectuals ensconced first in the ISR in the four decades from 1923 (excepting the Nazi years, obviously) and after the late 1930s also in American universities. The leading lights of Critical Theory have been amply demonstrated by Kevin MacDonald in Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique to think ethnocentrically about our race. Even if we take them at their word as sincere and simple utopians devoid of all ulterior motive and dedicated only to removing conflict and enmity from this world, it is difficult to acquit them of Lemkin’s charge. Gene-killing Europe’s peoples by fortunate accident is the best they could plead. But, of course, it’s no accident. If I may say so, it’s a bit rich of you to characterise an Englishman whose people are suffering a politically generated race-replacement and genetic dissolution as “too narrow” and unlikely to “find love”. Here is the Oxford demographer David Coleman writing in Standpoint Magazine in June 2016:
A genocide is in train. I find those who, from some personal psychological need, strive to look elsewhere to be irredeemably narrow. Further, I find that I love my people. I do not love Marxism’s classless society all across the world or modern corporatism’s Globality or Judaism’s Olam Ha-ba - none of these are so very different, and none can advance alongside our natural and necessary discrimination for kind and against the Other. Further still, addressing your objection, it matters not how young Europeans and Americans have been drawn into warring on their own kind. No doubt many of them are mentally disturbed. No doubt many are victims several times over. But they have forsaken their people and become agents of harm, and that is never OK. I know them well, having encountered all their very, very weak arguments. For example, if, as a nationalist, one deplores the loss of ancient family lines to miscegenation, these culture warriors will offer the atomised individualist’s plea that “it’s nobody’s business who people fall in love with”. But when atomisation is rejected up pops another claim, probably something along the jus soli line that Somalis born in Tower Hamlets and Syrians born in the Edgeware Road are “just as British as you.” And if that still doesn’t finish off the pesky nationalist there’s the favourite historical myth of the Anglo-hating mind, particularly popular with Scots: “Everyone in England,” it runs, “is an immigrant” or perhaps “The English are mongrels”. Celts, Saxons, Danes, Normans, Hausa, Igbo, Punjabis, Waziris, … what, after all, does it mean to be English? But we haven’t reached the end yet, because when that meaning is defined we finally get to see the fetid, pathological truth of all anti-racism: the awful, irrepressible desire to spew out, “Your racism is rejected by all decent people. You and your supposedly white people are history, so just eff off and die. The world will rejoice.” This is the bottom line. Why would we ever allow such evil to have its day? It’s not the British way to allow hatred and violence its victory - something you need to reflect upon when you are overcome by liberal insouciance and your own personal assurances to self that, actually, you love everybody and not just Louis. Honest. As regards the modern era’s (as you put it) “idealism, its flowering of culture, its experimentation, the things it seeks to make better and ameliorate” I urge you to separate the gift of European creativity, which is sociobiological in origin, from modernity, which is an historical medium having a well-attested reductive effect upon the life our people can ordinarily lead. To speak of the latter critically is, of course, a commonplace across many schools of thought. But ethnic nationalists do so in a particular way, eschewing idealism in favour of authenticity in the lived-life and the subtle discrimination for human truth which is emergent from that wakeful estate. Hence for an ethnic nationalist the European creative genius which brought material advancements into the modern world is also the existent source of solutions to its negatives consequences. There’s nowhere else. That will have to do for now. I will respond to the balance of your comment a little later. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:49 | # Right, Louis, let’s get back to work. Your Christianity. It’s Judaism for the gentile. It could have been Judaism for Jews too, but Peter lost that fight to the Pharisees, and the Christ cult as such was limited to the Pauline modus of persuading gentiles to do the world-perfecting work of placing themselves under Jewry! Had Constantine not converted ... had the rulers of the North not converted ... then what truths might have been yours (even as a person with expressed faith genes)? Heidegger’s refreshingly tangible anti-metaphysical reading of ontotheology, for one, separating the esoteric, Odinesque kernel from the exoteric religious husk, and rejecting the faith-claim to knowledge of the act of Creation; such that one can then access the former with integrity, without inducting the customary faith explanations (ie, the “design” you are trying to promote over evolutionary theory - a nonsensical quest). But history made you a Yahweh man. So you believe totally, exclusively, absolutely in the Judaic prescription for the gentle at the End Time. You strive, wholly against your own nature, to relate to the Judaic deity before blood and kin. You think that you possess a “soul” seeking “salvation” by the grace of the Jewish deity as and when you are well and truly dead and gone ... no brain activity, nada, rien, nothing. Jews, however, don’t believe in life after death. Who could be right, one wonders. I think this is right ... That which is ownmost of the self, known in Judaism by the term “I am that I am”, and in Heidegger’s formulation, which he derived from a somewhat creative reading of a single surviving fragment from Parmenides, “the same as itself with itself”. Even allowing that the most rarified elements in that latter formulation, which have been pursued and reported across millenia by monastics (so ... the annihilation of the sense of self, the experience of ecstasy, and the sense of union with the divine) are products of the manipulation of brain chemistry via one or other rigorous monkish discipline, and so not reliable standards for the purposes of this question … even allowing that, there remains the seminal fact that moments of, let us say, return occur in all our lives, including those of our great philosophers. Sometimes they are accidental in their arising … just a matter of neurons firing in a certain order ... and sometimes, for some people, they are non-accidental. But always they remind us, like - and I say this for you as a bible reader - a visitation from our better angels, that the ordinary condition of waking consciousness, which we mechanically accept and, by accepting, experience, is limiting, insufficient and diminishing. Accordingly, their influence in every age is quite sufficient to generate a narrative of illusion contra reality, of artifice contra authenticity, and of possession by external things contra possession of self which runs unbroken through Man’s creation stories and his prayer, his mysticism, his folk narratives, his art and literature, his metaphysics, and his understanding of human freedom and natural right. That influence rings no less through the clamour and babble of the political life of today, too. For some of us, known as nationalists, it cracks open the general complacency and acquiescence, and does so forever. We talk routinely of awakening to our people’s actual circumstance, to our own and our people’s identity and truth, and to the revolutionary means by which we might gift our people with the freedom and sovereign power to destine in security in their own cause. The parallel is not at all accidental, or even only a parallel. It is the same human movement, the only movement. It is the ground of all awakenings. All acts of authentic self-possession map on it. It is all there is. The pure experience itself, so … the sudden, renewing sense of physical location in space … the stilling of the inner chatter, which accompanies it … the separateness and aloofness from the serial beguilements, like hooked traps in the fabric of existence, to become ensnared and immersed again in absence … the returning sense of affirmation and possession ... the sense that this is actually the possession of what is most singular in us and native to us … the onward sense of opening up, in contrast to the state of closure which went before and will come after (and which is, by comparison, insufficient for any human being and diminishing even to the point at which “I am not”) ... that experience, however transient it may be, not just speaks but shouts out of the truly human and of a natural estate lost. It is that lostness, duly perceived, which makes the re-telling of our most profound words so enduring in their meaning for us. All that being so, one is bound to wonder what evolutionary cost … what failures to distinguish the evolutionarily adaptive from the maladaptive … are incurred because of the endemic and chronic under-performance of perception, because for the effective entirety of our existence the human estate is indeed one of a being sunk in illusion, given up to artifice, and immersed in external surfaces. Nationalists know these sins by many other names, and lay many social and political pathologies at their door. But nationalists are a higher constituency than Christians. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Oct 2020 22:47 | # To understand your self-estrangement better, let us cut to fundamental human principles. 1. What Yahweh-free, ie, true fundamental principle do you hold to be higher than the survival and continuity of the English people? (I assume, of course, that you are English, have an English wife, English children, and are not a betrayer of the English by reason of your reproductive choices.) 2. You are a universalist, probably in both Christian and liberal terms. But ... what universal cause on the soil is more righteous and necessitous than that every native people protects and preserves its own existence thereon, and so defend itself from all trespass against it. 3. Why, in your opinion, is the white victim people of a politically-engineered event of foreign colonisation and population replacement immoral for desiring to live sovereign and free in its own home, while the political creators of this event and their foreign, mostly non-white instruments are the moral party? 4. Kindly list the non-white native peoples to whom you think it acceptable to deny existence? 5. Why are you doing the work of real and truly powerful elitist and ethnic forces which seek control over all humanity in perpetuity? Why is the one race of Man in this world which has the innate capacity to frustrate that, the one race of Man which ineluctably champions human freedom and advancement, of so little value to you? 6
Posted by LouisXVIIIII on Mon, 12 Oct 2020 05:45 | # Hey Guessedworker, thanks for your replies. I think the depth of our disagreements on certain priors are fundamental enough that we may not end up seeing eye to eye. But thats ok.
You’re right in ascertaining that I’m a Christian. However I don’t think that your thumbnail portrait captures the breadth and depth of what is accomplished, or is possible, in Christianity. Christianity differs fundamentally from Judaism, as one sees by looking at Christ’s commandments (which are two), compared with the number of commandments in the old testmanet, which are 613. Also, the quest for a pre-Christian germanic spirituality doesn’t interest me all that much. I’m not a fan of Heidegger and I am not interested in Odinesque kernels of anything. Why would I want a religion without faith? I love faith.
I don’t really take the Bible that literally. I mix it with new age stuff, personally.
I don’t need blood and kin elevated to or spoken of as being on the same level as Deity. This weekend I visited my blood and kin, and bought them some groceries. I don’t need to intersperse a tissue of mythologized specialness to them. My relating to them is not, generally speaking, in conflict with my relation to God. And genetic relatedness is not a sanctified ideal for me, as you appear to be wanting to invest this idea with an awful lot of force. I view it more as a happy, cool similarity that people can share.
I don’t like seeing that word in quotes, Guessedworker. Do you not believe that man has a soul? Its strange, you approach me with this whole very well thought out critique of the origins of Christianity, but you question this basic tenet of metaphysics - that man possesses an immortal soul that lives foreer. You want to speak highly of Darwin, who was a sad modern materialist. I begin to see how much of this discussion hinges on the belief in souls.
I disagree. I don’t think experiences of higher states are reducible to brain chemistry e.g. materialism.
Man’s most certain possession is his own soul. And in my view, this world is the illusion - and the wider spiritual reality is the true reality. At this all important level, brown people are the same as us. You and I were probably brown-skinned folks in our past lives. We may yet emerge again as brown-skinned folks in future lives. Why speak ill of ourselves then? Surely you don’t believe that all your incarnations have been English, do you?
I see you have erected these powerful totems and you want to remain in allegiance to them. That’s acceptable to me. I don’t find that particular line of argumentation persuasive though. As a statement of your position, it does not lack for force.
That seems pessimistic. Its strange to me that you don’t believe human beings have souls, but yet think yourself possessed of some super special wisdom by which you perceive the rest of humanity “being sunk in illusion”. Yet you apparently do not believe in the spiritual world. So you have the exclusionism and elitism of an esoteric religious order without the actual payload of belief in the Divine. The British Inquisition, part 1:
I find this question already so loaded, Guessedworker. If the English were being exterminated in camps, that would be one thing. But in fact its simply that their metropolises are being overrun by waves of immigrants - a stark and shocking phenomenon, no doubt, but not the same as being exterminated. I suppose you want to double-down that the one is the same as the other. Maybe in the light of impassioned nationalist fever dreams, that can feel like the truth. But viewed in a more sober light, the survival of the English is not really in question. Some portion of them are going to become slightly more brown-skinned, and some are going to become more slavic. And that by the free-will choice of those persons. Many will decamp to less populated areas, where they will join closely related populations in the US, Canada or Australia, or the rural countryside. By and large they will continue to exist. Outside of the major metropolises they will probably even be pretty much similar in looks and genetics as they were in the past, for a good long while. Its ironic to me that you call me a Yahwist. Because this type of nationalism is exactly the ethno-nationalist poison that the original Yahweh infected the Jews with, and that Christ
Nations don’t exist forever, my friend. They naturally change and shift. If you could look into the eyes of an ancient Druid, I think you would find a man in every way quite differently inclined than yourself, and quite at odds with your own viewpoints and world. You could claim that your skin color and genetic heritage unites you with him in a bond - but what if, in point of fact, you looked a little bit Danish to him? The druid, you must realize, eventually ‘lost’ his nation - or rather, it morphed. I don’t personally think standing athwart these massive currents is wise - it can do damage to one’s own soul and ability to relate to others (all others, not just genetically related people). And what is more necessitous than that a people defend themselves? That they come to know themselves as children of a loving God, who created all people. That is the true self-knowledge. Being English and being British is one of the silk robes that adorn your being. But you have many. And beneath all the robes you have a being which is more beautiful still - and in that being, you are filled with Love. If in standing for this ancient ideal of the nation, you cover up from yourself this aspect of your beingness that is Love, and become frozen in a grimace of boundary-enforcing protectionism, then a greater opportunity is lost. This is why I urge you to relax and be humble. Allow your fellow human beings their freedom to move around and their freedom to mate (though it gall you, which is understandable). Release them from the stricture of recreating a historical nation, and let them be the carefree, experimental people that human beings are. Look to your own well-being and refine your grasp on love, because the hour is nigh. That’s the best I can offer. Thanks for speaking with me on all these things. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:04 | # Faith is inessential. It is inessential in the strict sense that the sense of essence in human beings, also known as identity, is not dependent on its operation in the brain; and neither is the experience of presence to being. These two human functions are the subjects of, respectively, the monastic pursuits of self-perfectionment and union with the divine, which comprise the entirety of the esoteric religious life. But neither is contingent upon mere belief in an organising deity. We do need to let them stand sans that belief, and then we need to understand what that belief is in itself, both ontologically and as phenotype (ie, in terms of its original fitness gain). It could also be useful to know in what percentage of the population it is expressed, and whether the possession of genes for it is falling among Europeans in modernity (a different question, obviously, from whether belief in deity is falling - that is so, as we all know). In other words, we would do well to de-mystify it and constrain it from speaking from its own standpoint, because its operation is singular, self-referring, and incapable of detachment. It answers every last question with itself, and is quite blind to the fact. When the answer has “an immortal soul” or “a personal relationship” with God attached to it, then all is lost. We also do well to remember that Christianity is only the submissive, gentile aspect of the original intention. The Apostolic faith was adopted and very slowly adapted by Europeans and Eurasians in three basic forms. The spiritual beauty of each is a statement of the beauty of mind of those two great races. Of the original cult itself, we have the gospels, and we have Paul’s testimony as to its gentile bifurcation. But nothing survives of Peter’s mission, post-Antioch. Had that succeeded in inheriting the Judaic mantle after the destruction of the Second Temple then the original cult’s observance of the law of the old prophets would have been manifest today instead of Talmudism. There is nothing to suggest it would have been less racial. As to your childish ascription of mythology to kinship, I am afraid it is you insisting on being “special” through the mythologisation of your own individualistic identity. Your entire function, my friend, is to transmit genes for fitness unto the morrow, in the teeth of Time and Entropy. You are a thread in a great cloth of fitness, and that cloth is ethnic in weave. A few months ago I wrote a piece here containing the following passage:
The piece this passage is drawn from is my rational Genesis, such as it is. Its fundamental principle is the life-essence’s struggle for continuity, which emerges eventually in the ultimate human interest in same. We do not have some liberalistic interest in losing the existence of kind. Your extreme silliness on this point needs driving home to you. Man is NOT a liberal individual. There has never been a liberal individual, nor can there ever be; for the liberal individual does not and cannot exist in Nature. Self-authoriality is a conceit got from that other yet more foolish conceit, the Christian soul seeking salvation from the racial sin of loving kind rather than losing kind for the suzerainty in perpetuity of that race which professes Judaism. Man is Nature, Man is blood, Man is kin. His turn away from his immersion or enworldment, or exile or confusion if you prefer, and towards light does not detach him from his nature; but finds his nature in authenticity, which is his whole truth; and affirms and appropriates it. In contrast, little liberal individuals doing “confected New Age stuff” remain locked in their estrangement, and know nothing of this. For something with some weight you might look at Sufism, some branches of which (Naqshbandis, for example) deal more closely in the struggle against mechanicity (sin to you) than others; so it’s a lottery. But that’s faith. It is inessential. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:33 | #
I am an Heideggerian but, actually, most serious thinkers have addressed the nature of Man in his enworlded or thrown condition - and all the religions have done so, of course. Here is a religious formulation from Kierkegaard for the journey out of that: “Here is where one begins (with the interesting, &c.) and becomes simpler and simpler, attaining simplicity. This, in ‘Christendom’ is the Christian movement: one does not reflect oneself into Christianity; but one reflects oneself out of something else and becomes, more and more simply, a Christian.” I have described this movement, sans religion obviously, by the title the Ontological Transit, arrayed thus: ABSENCE ◄ habituality (mechanicity) ◄ immersion ◄ negation ◄ reverie ◄ sloth ◄ passive attention ◄INTENT► active attention ► stillness ► detachment ► affirmation ► appropriation ► PRESENCE ► non-ascription of identity ► self-annihilation ► unalloyed Being Kierkegaard is referring to the detachment phase. Is it dawning on you yet that nationalism isn’t what you thought it was; just as Man and his condition are not what you thought, either? 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:33 | #
Child, you know not that of which you speak. The fascisms, National Socialism and Judaism array beside one another, sharing much (for example, National Socialism has the fuhrer principle, Aryan supremacism, and the Thousand Year Reich, while Judaism has the messianic principle, chosenness, and Olam Ha-ba). They are the polar opposite of the ethnic principle which modern nationalists avow, as distant from it as, within systemic liberalism, international Bolshevism is from anarcho-capitalism or, to be more specific to the case in hand, imperialism from nativism. Jesus also said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matthew 5:17). Well, the period of the Roman occupation was tumultuous, with what we would today call liberation movements cropping up all over, some overtly nationalist, some nationalist in the Judaic faith tradition. Religiously, Second Temple Judaism was exhausted, with money-changers in the sacred places. The struggle to replace it was cultic and, to judge from the Crucifixion, deadly. The Christ cult was in that struggle, obviously; and by the time of Peter and Paul had bifurcated into a racial cult, whose members could not sit down and break bread with the unclean gentiles, and a universalist cult for the gentiles themselves. You are quoting the universalism of that branch. An entire worldview has been built upon it for you, the meaning of which is that you are not Chosen, and so the dissolution of your blood is of no matter. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:50 | #
There is mental illness in this. Not a psychotic illness but an existential one. All human existence ... all of it ... is the struggle for survival and continuity, and it is a struggle not of the individual but of the people. In all human history no people of the land consented to its own colonisation and replacement. No sane people thinks it exists when another people with a different skin colour takes its place regardless of whether some part of its genes are miscegenated away into that people. Hence, statistically, there are no full-blood Maori in New Zealand. Already that people has gone and can never be brought back. Do you think that is what the Maori would ever have consented to? Do you think they fought the Victoria Wars for no reason? The ultimate interest of all living organisms is continuity. A people is a living organism. The English are a living organism. The war on our existence which is being fought along with the war on the existence of all non-Jewish white peoples in all their living spaces in the West ... and only on non-Jewish white peoples ... is a war of aggression conducted as violently as the aggressors can get away with. Your pathetic kumbayah response is an invitation to have your ethnic throat cut, and the throats of all your people. Every other people will defend its life. Here is the killer point for those like you, with your weedy and decadent insouciance. Polling data reveals that when the respondees feel safe to answer with honesty anything up to 77% of them want restrictions on immigration, and perhaps 60% want severe restrictions. This has been the case for decades. Let us speak on the matter of our own survival. But put the question honestly. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:34 | #
No it isn’t. It is a submission to those with expressed faith genes and an obsession with Yahweh. There is no self-knowledge in that. Any knowing requires a question and real knowing requires the turn which is there in the Ontological Transit, and precious few of you faithists have either. You simply accept what you are given, and then seek to impart your faith to the rest of us. Try to understand. Faith has no question about human understanding. It only speaks and speaks and speaks. Let’s begin with an acknowledgement of your own epistemological understanding. Let’s see whether we can unpick the means by which your suggestibility then conditions the content of your mind. One way we might do that is to ask you why you are not a cargo cultist, or whether you would be a cargo cultist if you lived in Yaohnanen. Are faith in cargo cultism and Christianity on Tanna qualitatively different? If so, why? 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:42 | #
You are arguing for a constructive genocide (caused by political decision, not by “people moving around”), which is an unnatural and self-hating thing to do. Have you bred with a foreign female? Because I can explain the transfer of genetic interests which occurs in such events. In that regards, a can (of worms) opener: If it’s all of no matter whether my English people lives or dies, why does it matter to you that multiracialism persists in our home? Why the bias for multiracialism and against the English? Surely your insouciance cannot be anti-English, can it? Because then you are not insouciant at all. You have a racist agenda, and all your pleadings to me not to care for my people are lies.
You are wielding a sword but against your own tribe, and it is the sword of a colonising Other to whom, if you are not a miscegenator, you have no connection. 13
Posted by LouisXVIIIII on Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:26 | #
This very specific viewpoint from which, some respect for the Divine is possible, but not insofar as granting that men have souls - and with the whole viewpoint housed in a Darwinian fitness framework. Darwin was wrong about evolution. There are mathematical reasons why the proteins uncovered by cell biologists could not have emerged from a random search of the space of possible amino acid combinations. Aside from the mathematical (‘combinatorial inflation’) problems, there is the issue of ‘irreducible complexity’, described here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLlJXn0XOFg There is also the absence of intermediate forms within the fossil record. The fossil record shows an explosion of different forms, from nothing - occuring in very short period of time (the ‘cambrian explosion’). Several respected members of the paleontologist community have rejected Darwinism for this reason, notably one of the most highly respected paleontologists in China, whose name momentarily eludes me. Richard Lenski’s very long term experiments with bacteria show an absence of evolution occuring among our micro-organism brethren. Bacteria do not evolve, Lenski has conclusively demonstrated. Finally, the fine-tuning discoveries across various domains of physics and biochemistry reveal a world whose very mathematical constants are fine-tuned to produce this very specific form of life which we enjoy: In light of this, Darwin’s materialist fantasy about humans evolving from apes by means of struggle and death
Faith is self-referential because it is based on something higher than logic and observation: the intuitive knowingness of the speaker. In terms of facts and predictions, faith’s conclusions can be factually correct or factually incorrect. But its spiritual valence remains ever positive, it is indeed the loadstar, a figment of God-energy made manifest in man. The working of a muscle which alone belongs to our higher nature. You are suggesting this very specific analytical breakdown of religious experience and philosophy - but I can’t say the analysis that has so impressed your mind also works for me. I began my search for truth with different sacred ideas and values - so I put things in different boxes.
I think rather this indicates that I have exited your wheelhouse, which is apparently the world of argumentation for mytho-poetic, yet non-fascistic conceptions of The People which base themselves on Darwinistic fitness as the highest ideal.
Do you also claim to have grokked Christianity, having once parsed it through the various lenses of your analytical mindset? You offer many characterizations of what this religion looks like from the outside, and potentially from what you believe you’ve found in psychoanalyzing its various exponents - but I have experienced it from the inside. I hope you understand that for this reason, this or that historical detail about Paul’s mission or this or that racial lens is not important to me. I have the real thing.
Its always an error to approach such a vastly many-sided and paradoxical domain of thought from the point of view of personal polemic. Better to be inquisitive and curious, in my view.
That is a poetic and rhetorically forceful argument for the most low-brow of all ideas. This is insanity, my friend. Genes are a momentary creation of God, they are mere data to help build these amazing bodies that house us. That is all that they are. The essence within is something called the soul. Many different sets of genes will house our souls, before all is accomplished. - I appreciate your para describing the vital force of life. Largely I agree with its characterization, with a few addendums. The description seems to lack ontological humility - you seem to think your words have actually caged the bird. Rather, in my view we remain students of these forces all our lives - and when we describe them, we are only seeing one face of the cliff. Also the description misses the fact that there is a layer of cooperation which is higher than the layer of competition. The higher energies freely combine and interrelate and form harmonies. In this there is peace. The emphasis on the struggle means that the fountain has not achieved the harmonious level where unity is grasped. Its fine as a portrait but its claims on all-encompassingness are something I would contest.
Its wild how you free yourself from the constraints of sober viewpoints and give free reign to your poetic instincts, never re-checking what you’ve said in another light than the one you conceived of it in. Detach for a moment from the wild poetic pageantry going on within your own mind on these topics and seek to formulate a thought that can bear transmission and has hope of finding agreement. Try to make a statement that can be communicated to another human being. I will start it: Many, if not most, of the people around you are enjoying liberal belief systems. This is a fact of the world you inhabit. That is, for you, Nature. It is the world as it is. When you capitalize Nature, I assume you are imagining that there is some special imagined scenario that you have access to - but that others may not, and in this world of thought experiments, your values are seen to triumph. That manner of thinking is delusional, Guessedworker. There is no state of Nature about which you are uniquely informed and for which you are uniquely fit - whatever you imagine is but one of many, many possible permutations. And as human beings do, I imagine that your thought experiment has you playing a heroic central role - you, as the illiberal True Man, can alone survive and guide your tribe through the State of Nature. That, in my view, is a delusional fantasy. Precisely that kind of overwrought mental nonsense
Yes but so, so, so much more as well! What you are adumbrating is merely the survival circuitry within the human being, and the
What I see and understand of what you have so far said is more like a specific configuration of internal wiring which you yourself have developed, and which I want to honor and recognize, while also pointing out how it can be improved upon perhaps in future iterations. I see you found a link to the transcendant through a putative and theorized elevation of the nature of Peoplehood, based on a (mis-)apprehension of Darwin’s fitness rubric as prima causa, and you retrigger the enlivenment of these ideals within your mind by poetic references to totemic words and symbols such as Blood, Kin, Kinship, and that you fuel this machine with Heideggerian prose and concepts, and isolate it from challenge via separation-causing stories of personal grandiosity. Questions of faith and the higher mysteries you wave away with references to Judaism and an analytical viewpoint that skewers the tenets of faith on the basis of characterizations of historical groups and what they have or haven’t done for or against the Race-Soul. I will grant that it is poetic. I will grant that you are a formidable person and a formidable mind. And I will grant that there is much good in these thoughts. But I cannot fully accede to their accuracy.
Eh, I don’t really agree with this. I see that you don’t go for the totalizing aspects of fascist ideology, but could you get five people together in a room who hold ideals the same as yours but also honor this distinction? I think you are denying how closely your thinking dovetails with National Socialism because the story of British Triumph in that war is too close
This is nonsense. Peter deciding to limit his ministry to his own locality and nation does not make it a ‘racial cult’ any more than my great-grandfather’s cricket association was a ‘racial cult’. The teachings of John the Baptist, their immediate predecessor and himself a teacher to Jesus, explicitly abrogates the racialist aspect of the Abrahamic covenant:
There is no way to re-racialize a religious movement when its most high profile figure has publically made that statement. At most it was exclusive in the same way that 1950’s country clubs were exclusive.
I agree with you that the situation of Britain would be improved by restricting immigration. I have my own lens and viewpoint on this which is not totally opposed to your racialist one but not the same thing as it. I think mass immigration is a kind of stressor and rift to the social contract, and too much of it can damage something like the public spirit of a place. (This may be my own sacred ideal, analogous in some ways to some of your concepts). I also totally agree that it should be put to a vote! And I agree with you about which side would win!
Faith is beyond human understanding, in my opinion. It is a higher faculty.
I didn’t say that I feel neutral about the survival of the English people. I don’t. I think they bloody well should survive! But I am trying to bring in a more sober and balanced view of it. I think its possible to relax into the embrace of higher concepts, and God will still allow you the Peoplehood you desire (but not necessarily in the precise measure that you so stridently seek it in.) It may require concessions, but ultimately your soul will be satisfied.
The only thing that matters to me on this specific point is that our fellow (non-English) human beings have migrated, and their lives are also precious and worth protecting. We are not in conflict with them. We have to make an active attempt to realize this or it will elude us. Competition is just one lens, one viewpoint. Another viewpoint is cooperation. Both are at play, but one is closer to the metaphysical truth of things. A soul that persists forever cannot admit to true competition, rather it is a narrowed and transitional viewpoint that accepts competition as the true view of things.
There are people I love who are non-white. Although they are men, and it isn’t a romantic or sexual thing. I have about 3 or 4 really deep, profoundly meaningful friendships with people who aren’t white or aren’t fully white. So I love those people and think of them as people. I am not wielding a sword, but to one whose heart is powerfully embattled, an olive branch also may appear like a sword. I’m trying to point out a middle road, a central point that can reconcile all these disparate viewpoints. I have also felt the pull of racially exclusionist thinking, and pugilistic us-vs-them thinking. I’m not beyond it. I don’t think it is some useless artifact or meaningless thing, much less a cardinal sin. But I also do not think it is the secret axis on which the world turns. You took the taboo blindspot of 20th-century English political life, and in an act of protest, made it into the heart of your metaphysics! Because you learned to be a Chef in a kitchen that forbade the use of cloves, you are now putting cloves in everything: cloves in the soup, cloves in the pudding, cloves in the minestrone! Cloves over salmon in an essence-of-clove brulee! All I’m telling you is to ease up on the cloves! Give another spice a try! Have you ever considered grieving the loss of the nation of your birth, and trying to come to terms with it in a frame of therapeutic bereavement? I have used this framework when dealing with my own feelings about mass immigration, and it has helped me achieve a more balanced and accepting viewpoint. Originally my feelings were very similar to yours, I would think. Thanks again for indulging me. Much respect to everyone who reads this. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:04 | #
Darwin was right. Evolutionary theory is remarkably robust. The attempts by god-botherers to falsify it are ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration, hence: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Douglas_Axe
Very weak arguments for a very large speculation (the existence of Yahweh) do not convince. Let’s be adult. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:34 | #
I have already told you that ethnic nationalism is the polar opposite of fascism, as nativism is the opposite of imperialism. Don’t offer opinions on matters of which you very plainly have no knowledge.
Are you perhaps unaware that the ideal of female facial beauty is not, in fact, in an imponderable accident of personal preference, ie, eye of the individual beholder. On the contrary, it persists as a composition of within-ethny averages for each facial feature. Beautiful women are profoundly average for their respective ethnic group. In other words, fitness advances from the median point of the ethny, not from outliers. That said, for “the highest ideal” read the maximal authenticity of the lived-life. Remember, if you can, that ethnic nationalism is naturalistic, defensive, existential and conservative; none of which apply to, say, fascism. Keep your focus on ethnic nationalism or you will miss the whole point of what I am saying.
Then, I hope you don’t develop cancer:
Amazing that Prince Philip can arrange all that from his little farmhouse on the Balmoral estate. Keep watching the sky for his Douglas DC3.
Two years ago my daughter and I were out walking in the lanes around our home when an out-of-control car rounded the corner in front and came straight at us. I had a very little time to throw her bodily out of its path but then had to take the hit myself. Even you can explain that sociobiologically, of course. But the real point is that for a man his individual life is not his highest value. His blood kin are his highest value, and in times of existential national crisis that extends to the whole ethnic group. It’s the reason that, next to foreign conquest, the greatest of national disasters, bitterly regretted for generations, is civil war. It’s not just within-group altruism that produces defence of kind, though there is some of that, naturally. It is also an adaptive behaviour for a man to protect his kinsmen’s child, for that protection will be afforded to his own.
So why not kill yourself now, if you really believe that and are not just saying it for the purposes of emotional grandstanding? I bet you have some cunning little reasons why you can’t do that (“suicide is a mortal sin” ... “Yahweh has a special plan for me ...”).
The average global Q of 91 ... the level of Turkey. The average IQ of Sub-Sahara Africa is 68. How much poetry, how much seeking do you see there? Oh, and Man is also hatred. Man is cruelty. Man is ignorance and neglect. Man is greed. “Open” to these, are you? Novelty-seeking, btw, is a pathological trait common among members of the destructive left. It is not a virtue, epistemologically speaking, to be “open”. It is a virtue to be prejudiced. But, then, the Judaic proxy of Christianity does demand openness and self-destructiveness.
Read Heidegger. Don’t presume anything until you have done that. And for your own sake avoid coming to conclusions about what I do or do not “wave away”, and why. Perhaps look for the fragments of existential knowledge which litter the gospels as short, often otherwise inexplicable phrases. They have an extraordinarily literal existential meaning. All the great religions have a reading of the existential; Buddhism more so than the others of course, but also Sufism. Put away the customary faith meanings, for they will cheat you. Distinguish between the esoteric and exoteric in that respect. There is an epiphany waiting. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:15 | #
You are not a revolutionary internationalist. You appear to be a classical liberal with a Christianised charitable ethic (ie, grounded in common love and not in equalness). Let’s say you respond to this description by confirming it. But then I persist in calling you a revolutionary internationalist or if not a revolutionary internationalist certainly a Trotskyite, or if not a Trotskyite certainly someone who uses a terminology that is very close to Trotskyite terminology, and anyway you don’t appreciate how close revolutionary internationalism is to classical liberalism! Would you be tempted to suspect that I did not have a real grasp of revolutionary internationalism or Trotskyism or classical liberalism? If Luke is to be believed, John did not banish racialism - that wasn’t his focus in any way. The full quote is: 7 Then John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? It is important to allow 1st century Judaism to speak for itself, and not to impose your own wants upon it. The Incident at Antioch is eloquent about the mission to the Jews of Peter. Indeed, it is so well known that the bifurcation of the cult existed at that point, I don’t see why you would deny it. The passage in Matthew about the woman and crumbs and dogs is also clear enough, surely - not that gentiles are dogs per se, but that gentiles have a subordinate place in God’s Kingdom, as dogs do in any household. I think the disconnect between us is not so much that I see ground-zero Christianity from an external (ie, analytical) standpoint, but that you experience the racially European adaption and adaption of it from within: the spirituality and beauty of it belongs to our Mind, not to the faith as such, and certainly not to the faith as it arrayed in Peter’s time. And before you recoil at the racial aspect here ask yourself why Hinduism is so characteristically Indian and Islam so characteristically Arabic. There is no human commonality at the level of the belief system. Everything, including all cultural artifacts, is coloured by human bio-diversity.
I haven’t followed the science, but there have certainly been studies conducted in the States on subjects experiencing beatific episodes. I only very vaguely remember reading about them. I think they mostly involved ECG and MRI, and I think they reported brain chemistry imbalances brought about through suitably monastic exercises. I also think that the unreliability of these studies consists in the inability of the subjects to produce effects to order under lab conditions, so the whole subject is parked, interesting though it is. However, faith is not a requirement for such episodes. Rather, faith appears to be an operative amalgam of the higher emotions - where it is expressed at all. I would judge that expression occurs in around two-thirds of Europeans, higher in South Asians, lower in East Asians.
I prefer Heidegger’s ontotheological approach, which disavows knowledge of the act of Creation. It really should not need stating that the vicious little tribe of Israel, happily smiting all and sundry in the desert-life of 2500 BCE, did not possess a special knowledge of the creation of the multiverse, or very much knowledge at all. Can’t we be grown up enough to put that away?
It does not require concessions. It requires freedom and democracy. My heart will be satisfied when we replace systemic liberalism and re-centre the lived-life of our people on truth and belonging, and when we freely pass on to our own children what we received from our fathers.
This is simply a lie. The coloniser comes into another’s land to take it. The populations who have come here know this. Their demands are growing every day. They are not self-estranged liberals. They think ethnically and racially. They hate us or hold us in contempt. A crime against humanity is taking place in our home, against our own people, and you are standing there grinning at these peoples like a monkey. This isn’t a game for brownie points at the Pearly Gates. Kumbayah gestures won’t save your children or theirs. Stand up!
A colonised people that cooperates with its coloniser is going to die. Stand up!
Your petty wants don’t matter. This isn’t about you.
We are past all that. We have a decision to make. Do we fight to live or don’t fight and die. There is no immorality in fighting to live. Put another way, it is impossible for a native people ... any native people ... to be morally inadmissable in any way for rejecting and ejecting a coloniser come into its home. We do not commit a sin when we do so, although everything you write indicates that you think we do. That is received thinking. We are the moral party, if such objectivism is really relevant at all in an existential crisis. 17
Posted by LouisXVIIIII on Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:25 | # I think that was a productive conversation, Guessedworker. We both outlined what our positions are and why we hold to them. Wishing you all the best things, and a solid and self-loving future for all European peoples and indeed, all peoples. 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:37 | # I wish you well. You are welcome to return to talk again. I am quite interested in exploring the relationship between formal-worship/exoteric faith systems and spiritual/esoteric systems. I’m sure there is much of value, possibly some of it original to academic study, that can be wrung from that. 19
Posted by Most High God on Wed, 14 Oct 2020 10:22 | #
Many years ago, I allowed myself to be talked into attending a Catholic Mass by a girlfriend (the things we do for love). Afterwards, outside the church, she asked if I’d “got anything” from the experience ; “Yes”, I replied “a headache from all the incense”. I didn’t ask if she’d “got anything” from the experience because it was obvious from her demeanour that she had.. Post a comment:
Next entry: A Brief History of Euroman’s Identity With 600M Years of Sex vs Euroman’s Sexual Mutilation
|
|
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— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:35. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) |
Posted by LouisXVIIIII on Sun, 11 Oct 2020 01:30 | #
Greetings Guessedworker and others. I’m a newbie around here and my thoughts are only my own.
Its always a question, whether one seeks agreement with one’s thoughts, and then to stand athwart the world,
believing in their correctness, and waiting on their enactment - or to rectify one’s thoughts by the threads of light offered by another, which may ameliorate the dissonance between “what one loves” and “what one sees”.
I disagree here. I think of all the possibilties on offer, you are choosing the least charitable or beneficial way of categorizing this vast panorama of human behavior and human developments. So many things fall under this aegis, that I don’t think it advisable to allow oneself the indulgence of this classification: Neo-marxist culture war.
What if a person went to high-school and was bullied. But was also courted, approached, spoken to, flirted with, pursued for friendship - but when he or she looked back over the whole experience, remarked about it:
“Oh yeah, all those people who are trying to kill me.”
It wouldn’t be a correct characterization. The modern era has so much more going on, in its idealism, its flowering of culture, its experimentation, the things it seeks to make better and ameliorate - to refer to this whole movement as ‘neo-marxist culture war’ is the viewpoint of one embattled. And people in such a mindset tend to focus on the most negative things.
The laws protect one from murder, kidnapping, and the worst forms of abuse. That they don’t explicitly account for the maintenance of the nation in pre-1948 configurations, is just where things stand.
I think your massive sense of having-been-wronged is narrowing your focus so sharply onto this area of conflict, that it has become your entire horizon. You have to make a deliberate effort to see the good, you know? Else you won’t be able to see it.
If you feed your mind with negative, anger-enciting examples of boundary violations, you will not find love. At least not in this arena of life. And that would be a loss for you.
Again, this is an ungenerous characterization. People seek to lessen the conflict in the world, but you say
“to rid the world of all conflict”, e.g. you make it an impossibility. Should we never have outlawed murder, then? Should we never have conceived of human rights? As one chap from the Netherlands is fond of saying,
“Utopias have a tendency to come true.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2vh5eMjGI)
If I walk into the modern supermarket, I enter an edifice that for all generations of man prior to the time of Christ, would be considered a Utopia. The same is true when I get in an airplane and arrive somewhere in under a day.
I don’t think its fair to capitalize Nature, by which you mean to say, your intepretation of Nature,
and have it be understood to mean something without explaining it.
Also there is a strong challenge to Darwinism arising now within the scientific community. See the work of Stephen Meyer, David Berlinski, Michael Behe and Douglas Axe for more info. It looks like Darwin was wrong about evolution, and the struggle to survive.
Identity and difference thrive in all these cosmopolitan megapolises that the open border’s folks have created. People still cleave to their identities. There is simply a public refusal to acknowledge this in the political sphere on behalf of the native original population. But this denial is IMO increasingly seen as a kafkaesque or pravda-esque lie of our times. I don’t think people take this as seriously as you give them credit for, aside from a certain proportion of college students.
The British people/natives are still allowed to live peacably alongside the newly imported peoples.
If people intermarry its by their own free will. If mosques and flags go up, that is a natural and acceptable expression of the imports. A person raising a flag or building a religious building might be alienating to you on a personal level, but in my view it doesn’t constitute ‘genocide’.
People move around, and those people have different cultures. Shifting groups of people doesn’t mean one group is being genocided. That’s my take on it anyway.
Where I agree with you is this: the large scale mass immigration into Britain in the 20th and 21st centuries did happen against the commonly agreed upon will of the people. It did represent a trespass. It did constitute a breech of trust. It did upend many, many people’s worlds. It did set into motion
some of the largest population movements seen on Earth to date. It was a violation of the social contract,
which few or none would have really wanted.
But it also happened. And in happening, it became part of the warp and woof of this mysterious tapestry we know as reality - a reality which, if we are in our right minds, we do well to accept. Being angry and feeling wronged about something indicate a lack of acceptance. I wouldn’t have wanted Britain to see such large mass immigration as it has seen - but I accept it. It is an accomplished fact.
“Our people’s precious life” seems to be a sacred value to you. I think its probably a good one. But things can get quite dicey in the world of group conflict, with minor slights and affronts being seen as “an affront against our people’s precious life”. I personally would try to get myself to relax that hair-trigger guardianship of the nation’s prerogatives. There is an element of self-importance in seeing oneself as the guardian or defender of the nation. You are talking about a group of people who number in the tens of millions, and have access to cell-phones and modern communications. Compared to our distant ancestors, they look like gods, at least in terms of knowledge and technological empowerment. If they had truly wanted to keep the English/British nation in a pre-Windrush configuration, they would have done it. They don’t, on the whole, care enough to really do so - so why do they need you as a defender?
I agree with you that there is an inability to reconcile with nationalist elements that seems in part to stem from the inability to acknowledge the rift/trespess which we outlined above - the cultural rift caused by mass immigration can never be named, because the dissonance that acknowledging it would cause would be too great. Thus they created a new, more shallow, non-continuous social contract *de novo* which is all about being nice to one another, for the most part. And the symbols of the past haunt them now, because they don’t know how to positively reconcile with them. So there is no good nationalism, they aver.
Its a pickle for them as much as anyone because they cant offer a unifying vision for all of us.
Polemicism and division are inherent in the pie they are serving.
I agree and would say there is a resurrected moralism / religiosity (I’m hardly the first to have said it), afoot here. Its interesting to observe.
To be fully fair to everyone involved here, I would imagine that a large percentage of English/British people do not feel a strong connection to “the life cause of our people”. They don’t see things in precisely the same terms that you see them in. Maybe they don’t feel they need your protection, or that the British nation has to continue existing in the same configuration - perhaps they are open to changing these aspects of national life, which you view as sacrosanct. But technically their claim on Englishness/Britishness is the same as yours, so thats a bind. I just bring it up to underline th the fact that every time you put on this mantle of “Defender of the People” you don’t actually elide out the many differing motivations and points of view that exist on these points. In your mind, many considerations may be subordinated to “the survival of the nation” - other people might not even care. Its wrong to project a destructive intent on these people, just for seeing things less conservatively than you do.
This seems like a beautiful and concise statement of what you’re going for, I like it.
Guessedworker, the primary reasons nations exist is twofold: geographical separation, and warfare.
People became distinct and not blended by virtue of geographical separation. And the societies of men became focal points for the development of a shared, purposive consciousness because of warfare, and the vicissitudes it imposed. If not for these two things, we would have naturally form a dispersed, motley web or patchwork quilt of many different influences. Because picking up and moving to a nicer place is very human, and very natural. And loving and falling in love with other humans who have moved to your locale is also very human, very natural.
These forces and drives - to seek the sun, wherever it may be, and to open oneself to love, though it come from elsewhere - are actually deeper than the drives which spur men to separate and build nations. They are deeper than the drive to discriminate.
Now we have removed the thorn from our side - we have no battlefields, for the most part, anymore. And, much more controversially, we allow people to move across this big bright Earth, as they please. The thorn being removed, the need for the bandage (which is the nation), also begins to fade.
The nation was a warm fire, shining amidst a heart-broken world of desolation and rapaciousness. It derived from the time of legends, of man making war against man with no end in sight. The mace, the shield, the bronze buckler, they were not images of pain - they were symbols of safety. In the strength of a champion, one could rejoice, one’s family could find safety.
But the development of man and his laws has saved us from these primal fates. The worst thing that faces us now is inconveniences. And sharing our lands with newly arrived multitudes.
Have you seen the image of the Wheel of Fortune on the Tarot card in the major arcana?
The wheel of fortune goes up, and then it goes down. This is always the fate of nations.
The Anglo-saxons were the world’s most successful nation, up until recently.
They controlled large parts of the world; their language is/was the lingua franca;
their culture the basis of a universal, world culture (to an extent). Their demographic
swelling populated not one, not two, but three continents. You can go to Johannesburg,
to Vancouver, and to New Zealand, and see the distant sons of that people.
Think of the art. Think of all the great stories from WWI and WWII. Think of all the great
movies and TV shows - I am a big fan of all this.
But the wheel rotates, it does go down again. And other nations now see their stars rising
in the firmament, so to speak. If we stubbornly demand that it is not our part to give concessions,
then we are not playing our part gracefully. We have to share the world with all these people.
Do you want to live in a mytho-poetic dream of peoplehood, or in a more sober vision that encompasses
all our brothers and sisters on this great sphere? We must harken to the call of metaphysics - which
sees us bound to a higher order than that of nationhood and genetics. Not to deny peoplehood or to destroy
it, but to acknowledge that its place is simply not of paramount importance.
This is, to me, the true British national anthem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M
It conveys everything that makes people love Britain. It is known world-wide. It has brought smiles to millions. And it has a more profoundly resonate message than “wider still and wider, shall thy bounds be set.”
I try to live by this formula, in spite of whatever kaleidoscopic shapes are thrown by the masses of men moving around in this world. Thanks for indulging me, everyone.