Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Apr 2014 09:57 | #

A paragraph from Heidegger’s Black Books:

http://enowning.blogspot.co.uk/

“Die Juden, leben, bei ihrer betont rechnerischen Begabung am längsten schon nach dem Rasseprinzip, weshalb sie sich auch am heftigsten gegen die uneingeschränkte Anwendung zur Wehr setzen. Die Einrichtung der rassischen Aufzucht entstammt nicht dem ,Leben‘ selbst, sondern der Übermächtigung des Lebens durch die Machenschaft. Was diese mit solcher Planung betreibt, ist eine vollständige Entrassung der Völker durch die Einspannung derselben in die gleichgebaute und gleichschnittige Einrichtung alles Seienden. Mit der Entrassung geht eine Selbstentfremdung der Völker in eins – der Verlust der Geschichte – d. h. der Entscheidungsbezirke zum Seyn.”

“The Jews, with their marked gift for calculation, have already been ‘living’ for the longest time according to the principle of race, which is why they also defend themselves as vigorously as they can against its unrestricted application. The establishment of racial breeding does not stem from ‘life’ itself, but from the overpowering of life by machination. What machination is up to with such planning is the complete de-racialization of peoples, by fastening them into the equally constructed, equally divided arrangement of all beings. De-racialization goes hand in hand with a self-alienation of peoples—the loss of history—that is, of the domains of decision for being.”

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:23 | #

Thank you for putting that comment there, GW. I believe it (also) applies an important criterion through which to view the post, one which JB called my attention to my having a tendency to be in remiss, viz., between the Ought and the Is. ...particularly regarding gender relations, I can be a bit off, perhaps wanting females to ought a little more where instead they is.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 07 Apr 2014 03:19 | #

Continuing to discount in-group conflict means the definitions are prescriptive not descriptive. Whether mono-cultural or traditional, societies cleave and conflict. It was not unknown for such societies to ritualistically sacrifice and cannibalize their own children. Kings and their gods were as prone to enslave as protect their people. In-group conflict was as much a harbinger of the quest for equality and universality as any other factor, as the ancient Greeks demonstrated.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 07 Apr 2014 05:40 | #

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 06, 2014, 10:19 PM | #

Continuing to discount in-group conflict means the definitions are prescriptive not descriptive.

I don’t see whereas these topoi discount in-group conflict, although I could agree that would be a very important, if not the most important, matter to analyze at this point. That was why I was hoping that Dr. Lister would weigh-in with more discussion and detail on the matter and tendency of “fratricidal” conflict and how it tends to be intervened by “parenting” of good judgment, where it does emerge: that is to say, close genetic relationship does not necessarily guarantee absence of in-group conflict - often it is just the opposite.

It is a good point, Desmond, and bears elaboration.

Whether mono-cultural or traditional, societies cleave and conflict.

Yes, I would only say that these topoi do not necessarily deny that.

It was not unknown for such societies to ritualistically sacrifice and cannibalize their own children.

I guess that the argument on behalf of this definition of monoculturalism would be that they might be taking on “god-like” status as sacrifices; that kindred empathy for their similarly human wish to survive was being discounted; or by contrast that like them, they did not consider human sacrifice to be unthinkable.

People were pretty much the same in way of life - that does not mean they did not occupy different status. Rockefeller’s tribe had taken lives, therefore his tribe had a debt of life to pay, as any of their tribal rivals would. 

Kings and their gods were as prone to enslave as protect their people.

Indeed. Moreover, they were not the only kinds of highest rank in what might be designated ethnocentric societies.

In-group conflict was as much a harbinger of the quest for equality and universality as any other factor, as the ancient Greeks demonstrated.

Exactly. Very good point - that is why I have explained and will continue to explain that “equality/inequality” is an epistemic blunder as a paradigm - that the right continues to perpetuate - as its presumption of commensurablity by which to wage comparisons leaves it unnecessarily, wrongly susceptible to intractable conflict both between and within peoples - it is an epistemic blunder and a missed opportunity to promote symbiotic functioning.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:16 | #

Much ado about very little. There is nothing wrong with bourgeois democracy, so long as it is understood that there must be racial boundaries to any polity, democratic or autocratic.

Being and Naziness
The authentic Heidegger.
APR 14, 2014, VOL. 19, NO. 29 • BY LEE SMITH

The literary and intellectual world was up in arms last week with the publication in Germany of Martin Heidegger’s private philosophical notebooks. The first three volumes of the diaries, from the years 1931-1941, bring conclusive evidence that the man who is arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century was an anti-Semite.

“World Jewry,” Heidegger wrote in one 1941 entry while Hitler’s armies were well on their way to overrunning Europe, “is ungraspable everywhere and doesn’t need to get involved in military action while continuing to unfurl its influence, whereas we are left to sacrifice the best blood of the best of our people.” In another passage, Heidegger wrote that the Jews, with their “talent for calculation,” were opposed to the Nazis’ racial theories because “they themselves have lived according to the race principle for longest.”

In spite of all the media attention—not only in Europe, where Heidegger’s influence is still felt strongly in philosophy departments, but also in the United States and Israel—the publication of the “black books,” so-called because of the color of the oil-cloth covers of the diaries, hardly amounts to a revelation. Heidegger’s pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler positions have been known for more than 80 years to anyone who cared to pay attention. He joined the Nazi party in 1933, and in a 1935 lecture notoriously spoke of the “inner truth and greatness” of national socialism, a passage he saw fit to include in a collection of his work published in 1953. Heidegger never resigned his party membership during the war, and after it never publicly repudiated his pro-Nazi statements.

The question then is not whether Heidegger was a Nazi sympathizer, or an anti-Semite, for he was clearly both. As the public response to the publication of the “black books” makes clear, the question is how Heidegger’s ethical and political positions should affect, if at all, our understanding of him as one of modernity’s great thinkers.

This isn’t the first time that Heidegger disciples and defenders have struggled with critics over the philosopher’s vicious political history. In 1987, the French scholar Victor Farías published Heidegger et le nazisme, which split the intellectual world on both sides of the Atlantic between those who believed that his Nazism could not help but color his work and those, like Jacques Derrida, who drew a clear distinction between the philosophy and the politics.

At the time, another French philosopher, Vincent Descombes, cautioned against making too quick a judgment in either direction. Descombes, who was sharply critical of the German thinker’s philosophy, observed that “it may well be that those readers who claim to have no difficulty making the transition from Heideggerian metaphysics to politics are really only too happy to find themselves on more familiar ground.” In other words, Descombes was warning against the easy moves afforded by what Hoover Institution scholar and Weekly Standard contributor Peter Berkowitz has called “tabloid scholarship.”

Berkowitz coined the phrase in 2004 while reviewing a sensationalist and mendacious book by Anne Norton, Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire. It may be difficult now, a decade later, to recall some of the outrageous claims being made back then regarding Strauss’s sinister hold on figures working in the George W. Bush administration, or for instance, that journalists from prestige publications, like the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh, thought the seeds of the Iraq war had been planted decades before in Strauss’s seminars on the history of political philosophy at the University of Chicago. And the fact that Bush had taken the country to war to rid Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction, weapons that would never be found—well, this was a calculated executive branch deception plotted precisely along the lines of Plato’s concept (supposedly endorsed by Strauss for use in practical politics) of the “noble lie.”

The problem was that this was a fanciful, indeed fallacious, reading of Strauss. Far from being, as many of his critics claimed, an antiliberal, Strauss, as Berkowitz wrote elsewhere, “found liberal democracy superior to all its realistic rivals.” His complicated philosophical judgments were consistent with and even supported a practical preference for liberal, constitutional democracy.

Consider, in contrast, one of Heidegger’s notorious statements, in which he compared industrialized agriculture to the Holocaust. “Agriculture is now a motorized food industry,” Heidegger said in 1949, “the same thing in its essence as the production of corpses in the gas chambers and the extermination camps, the same thing as blockades and the reduction of countries to famine, the same thing as the manufacture of hydrogen bombs.” Heidegger’s philosophy apparently led to an incapacity or unwillingness to distinguish the mechanized slaughter of six million Jews from the mechanized harvesting of industrial amounts of food. Heidegger’s philosophy seems to provide no sound basis for distinguishing, as Strauss does, between good regimes and bad ones. And indeed Heidegger saw no difference between Nazism, communism, and what he called Americanism—all of them, from his point of view, were virtually identical forms of nihilism.

Still, Strauss himself thought that Heidegger was perhaps the most important philosopher of the 20th century and a great reader and teacher of philosophical texts—texts that Heidegger taught his students to read as living sources of wisdom.

For Heidegger, to do philosophy is to ask the question, what is Being? Or, why is there something rather than nothing? From his point of view, philosophy took a wrong turn with Plato, who was not merely content to ask the question but attempted an answer, too. For Plato, according to Heidegger’s interpretation, Being is the immutable and eternal presence. This, argues Heidegger, is where metaphysics goes astray, leading Western civilization down a rabbit hole and away from Being, from authenticity. That there is no ground for Plato’s answer, no way to discern such a presence and thus the immutable truth, leads finally to nihilism, or the view, in Nietzsche’s words, that nothing is true and everything is permitted. But Heidegger seems to have thought that nihilism opened up a new horizon, once again offering man the opportunity to ask again authentically, what is Being? Heidegger’s attack on the Socratic philosophical tradition that led man down the wrong path seemed to open the possibility of a necessary and radical restructuring of Western civilization.

Here Heidegger was little different from many of his 20th-century peers in literature and the arts, like the poet Ezra Pound, a supporter of Mussolini who wrote that Western civilization was “an old bitch gone in the teeth.” The problem with modernity as they saw it was that it was nothing but a great leveling. The lawmakers, poets, and artists that any sane society would beg to rule over it were pushed aside in favor of the mobs. To the aristocrats of spirit like Heidegger, liberal democracy was aesthetically offensive and fundamentally corrupt. The only solution was to bring it down and start again, with the philosophers and poets in charge. Thus, for close to a century now, some of the West’s greatest minds have taught that the privilege, and duty, of the Western intellectual is to unmask and unmake the West, even—or especially—through violence.

For Heidegger the necessary agent of apocalypse and rebirth was the Nazis. For one of his French apostles it was Iran’s Islamic Revolution. “Industrial capitalism,” said Michel Foucault, had emerged as “the harshest, most savage, most selfish, most dishonest, oppressive society one could possibly imagine.” It leveled the playing field with the result that everyone was mediocre. It stripped the world of its primordial magic. The authentic life was to be found in the charisma of the great leader and his stark displays of power, the superman who transcended liberal democratic values.

In 1978 Foucault went to Tehran to cover the revolution for an Italian newspaper. “It is perhaps the first great insurrection against global systems,” wrote Foucault, who was later disappointed by the Iranian Revolution—as Heidegger eventually was disenchanted with Nazism. But what he found in the bright blood spilled in the streets of Tehran was a fulfillment of the orgiastic violence his work seemed to anticipate and celebrate.

The Heidegger debate matters because even 80 years after the German philosopher announced his political affiliation, and 70 years after the concentration camps were liberated, generations of Western Europeans and Americans, much of our cultural elite, have been shaped by an intellectual current that despises liberalism and dismisses as mediocre a politics based on individual freedom and committed to equality before the law. Instead, the Heideggerian spirit welcomes the return of magic, of blood and power, the violence of the strongman. In the end, the Heidegger debate is not about his thought as a philosopher but about his message as a false prophet, one who heralded the end of the liberal democratic order and the birth of something new, something terrible, something unknown.

Lee Smith is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:12 | #

Posted by Leon Haller on April 07, 2014, 04:16 AM | #

Much ado about very little. There is nothing wrong with bourgeois democracy, so long as it is understood that there must be racial boundaries to any polity, democratic or autocratic.

Wrong, Leon, these differences in ways of life and their confusion are profound matters (which a trivial man as yourself may not wish grasped, probably wishing instead to place yourself at the head of a Catholic flock in mass), matters which are going to be dealt with here in days to come.

But to begin with… just because Heidegger proves to be a more valuable guide to what ails and needs western man has than say, Wittgenstein, does not mean that we hold his every word and position to be unassailable.

“Heidegger’s philosophy apparently led to an incapacity or unwillingness to distinguish the mechanized slaughter of six million Jews from the mechanized harvesting of industrial amounts of food.”

I would say this inference is so badly to misunderstand Heidegger in his criticism of technology as to not grasp that it is the kind of mentality that can lead to the horrors of the Holodomer against White Ukrainians and other unconscionable, inhuman treatment of humanity.

But again, these are profound matters…and there is a particular aspect of this that I am looking forward to addressing very soon..

Posted by Robert Reis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014 05:14 | #

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2601682/A-white-wing-supremacist-Vicious-swan-attacks-foreign-ethnic-minority-students-university-pond.html#ixzz2yaXD1apX Swans are more intelligent than most of my relatives

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:17 | #

The Trenton, New Jersey community

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Zj9F5dR1E

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 01:51 | #

Tanstaafl has announced that he is moving on from the White Network.

http://thewhitenetwork.com/2014/04/15/the-end/

I had always found it regrettable that he was there, as I found kindredness in his work, but not in his fellow travelers there.

I would like to invite Tan to MR, a site committed to the White Nationalisms and the 14 Words.

Posted by tribal vs universal moralism on Wed, 04 May 2016 10:48 | #

THE LIMITS OF WHITE TRIBALISM - by James Lawrence

Lawrence’s article contains a few decent precepts and turns of phrases in a critique of tribalism as opposed to universalism, but still commits important epistemic errors and lacks important articulation.

Though the white race is now expected to justify its position with self-flagellation rather than supremacist trumpeting, it is remarkable how little this structure has been altered in psychological terms.

That extreme selfishness is at the heart of a lack of ethno-nationalist concern; and prescribed altruism is just a dishonest way of hiding a lack of concern for the wider circle of kin; in fact a wish to see them destroyed and profit from altruism to outgroups is probably a more accurate assessment than “pathological altruism.”

In contrast, if we try to map the moral patterns of modern Western progressivism onto the concentric circle model, we are confronted with a bizarre sight indeed: the smallest circle, drawn around the self, is strongly fulfilled (by “individualism” and “self-esteem”), and so apparently is the widest circle drawn around the whole of humanity; but in between these two there is an empty circle, corresponding to the race or nation, which is not only ignored but also vociferously disowned and negated.

On the other hand, while he acknowledges Christianity and evolutionary psychology as factors having contributed to this mind set, and that others, including “Zionists” can hypocritically take advantage of the prescription of universalism to Europeans, he sees universalism as an important goal and one which has precedence in our Stoic philosophy and outside of European peoples - in Confucianism, in Islam.

Of course, he is not recognizing that Islam shares the Abrahamic, universal, panmixia god of Christianity and Judaism. And that is hardly an endorsement of why universalism should be retained as a value of itself.

Nor is the similarity between Stoicism and Confucianist concentric rings of concern from self to other tribes ultimately persuasive - although a better potential model, no doubt. But again, that it bears a resemblance to Stoicism, its universalism and its acceptance should be no cause for enthusiatic subscription to neo-Stoicism.

There are several problems with Stoicsm and its being one of the most popular philosophies of our forebears probably has more to do with our problems now than with our solutions.

There are certain universals which are necessary to take into account: there will always be rules indicating what is prohibited, obligated or legitimate in any culture.

I would add that ecology is always applicable, whether acknowledged or not.

But to make universalism an objective rather than a premise would seem to outstrip the optimum human, social sized objectives that our peoples have lost sight of to their ultimate detriment.

More, the lineal progression from self to partner to family, to extended family, to nation and other peoples, is a prescription to wear blinders and be dumb to the broad orientative perspectives that one must take in an honest acknowledgement to feed back from and be accountable to what our social group has bequeathed to us from its horizons. Attend to one’s humble personal responsibilities no doubt, but don’t leave the big questions all up to them - they will ask you to be Stoic universalists, and accept all manner of nonsense as somehow necessary, things that our people never would have accepted with better philosophical precepts and judgment.

“The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” - Kenneth Burke

The Dark Side of Self Actualization

It lacks the social, esteem for the basic and ordinary, and episodic communion with the divine patterns of aeons.

Posted by Blandine Reales on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 16:10 | #

ArchyWorldNews, White woman takes her two young daughters to a remote village in Gabon as a humanitarian and they all get killed.

A mother and two daughters were killed there in the remote village where they lived, in circumstances that remain unclear. For the last ten years, Blandine Reales, aged 35 years, had made the life choice to settle in the country where she was very involved in the humanitarian sector. She had even been “literally” adopted by his small bush village, situated about 500 km from the capital Libreville.