Thanks to Alexander Baron for the link.

Now and again even left-of-centre commenters make useful observations.  Like this one in the Independent on Sunday:

So, how does the average British citizen regard the state? The first problem lies in the existence of that shadowy entity known to social historians as “them”. In their myriad guises, “they” can be positively protean, taking in everything from the tax authorities to park-keepers. To my father “they” were a malign and anti-meritocratic force at work to obstruct his and his family’s path through life.

... But if you get rid of “them”, what do you put in their place? Here you face another problem; the almost complete lack of civic awareness and communal spirit shown by a good 80 per cent of the population. Orwell himself once proposed that most of the patriotic flag-waving that takes place in this country was carried out by small minorities. The same is true of collective action. It is not even that we are all sturdy individualists, for whom collaboration is a kind of selling out, merely that, rather than having any deeply held opinions about how our relationship to the state might be better managed, we simply want to be left alone while, paradoxically, enjoying all the benefits that the state has to offer.

For “civic awareness and communal spirit” read “a sense of peoplehood and belonging”.  Then the second paragraph reads absolutely, depressingly true.  And truer than the general run of nationalist excuses as to why we have acquiesced while the political class has imposed its genocidal will on us.  The “them” of the Talmudic (or, anyway, millenarian) Jew, anyone?  The “them” of the greed-driven banker and the CEO of a mega-corporation?  Or of the eponymous guilt-ridden left-liberal of the cultural Establishment?  And then, somehow, in its turn MacDonald’s meta-thesis of innate individualism never quite convinces.  Out-group nepotism likewise.  But this idea of limited intellect and limited horizons, of an all-too-easy immersion in the mundane preoccupations of modern life, of mounting debt, of mounting material expectations, of fear of unemployment ... this hits home.  This is how life is for most people.  It used to be physically exhausting, dangerous, disease-ridden, destitute.  Somewhere in modernity’s struggle to do away with all that the relation between citizen and state was mislaid, and into the void slithered the Jewish niche-fillers and the greedy bankers and so on.  They are not where we, as dissidents and lovers of our people, have to take aim politically.  Rather, we have to find incentives for re-engagement that touch real lives.  And that’s not easy.

Although I, personally, have been feverishly working to prevent the Malthusian reckoning for nearly 3 decades, I have to recognize that conditions are increasingly favoring Søren Renner’s prophecy “Billions will die, we will win.”  There are militarily sophisticated optimists, such as John Robb who, based on fourth generation warfare theory, are holding out for a newly decentralized global economy that bypasses massive organizations.  However, these optimists don’t seem to understand that once you accept group authority over individuals, you doom yourself to mass warfare as these groups are, in essence, asexually reproducing organisms that don’t die as do sexually reproducing species, but merely compete with other asexual organisms in their ecological niche, and without limit, for mitotic resources.  These organisms will doom the planet unless a dramatic expansion of carrying capacity and reduction of ecological footprint are achieved soon.  I continue to work toward this end but pragmatism increasingly dictates evaluating Malthusian options. 

Civilization Takedown is the only Malthusian option that retains the human species.

Civilization itself can avoid mass warfare only by uniting the world in one mass organism which is inherently intolerant of individuals.  In this, civilization’s end-point is to eliminate the human species as we know it—at best, breeding for a eusocial species.  Mass warfare between these asexual species will increasingly become warfare against individuals—indeed against human sexuality (except in perverted expression)—within the mass organisms. 

The Indo-Europeans understood this but were progressively bogged down in India by the Dravidians—expressing in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions, and in the Mideast thence Mediterranean by the Semites—expressing as Judeo-Christianity.  The last hold-outs of the culture of individual sovereignty were the Vikings.  Therefore, as the Malthusian crisis emerges, it becomes increasingly likely that some phenomenon like the Vikings will re-emerge.  A future post will provide a more viable Malthusian option, but for now I’ll settle for advising against the—ultimately unsuccessful—Viking strategy.  Below the fold is an incisive description of that era related in the chapter “The Revolt of the Vikings” of the book “Human History Viewed As Sovereign Individuals Versus Manipulated Masses” from the Valorian Society.

READ MORE...

Dear Have Your Say contributor,

Thank you for contributing to a Have Your Say debate. Unfortunately we’ve had to remove your content below.

Posts to the BBC website may be removed if they are considered abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, disablist, homophobic or racially offensive, or disruptive to discussion. For more information, please visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#house

You can read the House Rules in full here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#house

Please do not reply to this email. For information on appeals visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#canappeal

Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may have action taken against their account.

Regards,

The BBC Moderation Team

URL of content (now removed):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/blog477/F19259040?thread=7849831&post=102491907#p102491907

Subject: Should schools teach pupils about the dangers of weapons?

Posting: If we cannot even be honest enough with ourselves to acknowledge on the BBC that gun and knife crime is substantially a pathology of black youths, how on earth can we do anything about it?

I must confess, I’m about to blow the bolts on GW’s project given the rapidly evolving situation in the field, but before doing so I must fulfill my promised contribution concerning Heidegger’s “as” structure.  I’ve had a few false starts on writing the related post so I’ve broken it up to get it rolling.  This first installment provides a sense of how fundamental that contribution was to Heidegger’s work as well as to a new paradigm for the philosophy of science.

READ MORE...

by PF

Starter

In a few weeks thousands of people will gather in New York to celebrate the passing of another year. Thousands of confused people, joining together to recognize the passing of 2010. In some way, it is still the end of a century. We wave goodbye to the 20th century and welcome in the 21st. When that sphere touches the pavement, it will signal to us the onset of a new era. We hope its an era where our peoples receive acknowledgement of what we have to do to remain what we are. Time will tell.

Kievsky’s blog had an article mentioning high-fructose corn-syrup, which as far as I can tell, seems to play a central role in modernity, particularly the large rolls of fat which envelop modern persons. They say that if you throw an average American into a large vat full of corn-syrup, that he will free himself by consuming all of it. Anecdotally, this is what happens even if the lid of the vat is low enough to allow escape.

People’s body shapes tend to change with the times. In the old days of classic 50s civilization, men had little pouches of fat on their stomaches. Perhaps these men were 10 pounds overweight or 20 pounds on average. The pouch was small enough to contain a 1 L jar of marbles. The pouch began to extend through the 70s until 1985, becoming too prominent to be sucked in anymore. The pouch had now become a proper belly, and signified about 30 pounds of excess weight. Going into the 90s the belly began to extend into other body-areas, subsuming what were previously separate structures. It used to be easy to tell, for example, where someone’s belly ended and their legs began. There was also a clear line of demarcation between ‘belly’ and ‘chest’.

Main

But as the 90s rolled on, it became more and more difficult to tell what was legs and what was belly. Because at a certain point the belly starts hanging and overtakes the groin area,  and in persons who are 50 pounds overweight, the belly, groin and upper legs fuse into a one big flabby region that is no longer clearly demarcated. The belly was on the move, and not only downwards. Its roundness began to take over what had previously been ‘chest’, to the point where it became difficult to tell where people’s abdomen’s would be. The ‘chest’ began to take on some of the bulk that was creeping up from beneath.

READ MORE...

Science’s capacity to explain the “what” but not the “why” has excelled itself again in a new study of population genetics reported under the title Genes predict village of origin in rural Europe.  It is published in the European Journal of Human Genetics.  Coordinated across ten European institutions, the study is, in fact, focussed on three different area of bucolic Europe, as the abstract explains:

The genetic structure of human populations is important in population genetics, forensics and medicine. Using genome-wide scans and individuals with all four grandparents born in the same settlement, we here demonstrate remarkable geographical structure across 8–30?km in three different parts of rural Europe. After excluding close kin and inbreeding, village of origin could still be predicted correctly on the basis of genetic data for 89–100% of individuals.

All four grandparents being born in the same settlement is probably about as tight as one could reasonably expect to frame an investigation into rural population structure.  The result - that up to 100% of study subjects could be gene-mapped to within 8km of their familial villages - reveals not merely an increasingly refined technical capacity on the part of the researchers, but a remarkable portrait of European blood and soil.

I don’t think I would be presuming too much upon the study’s methodology to say that the portrait endures because, while a certain number of individuals move away and the rural population as a whole is declining, others move into these areas far less frequently.  It is easy to fall into the trap of seeing a wider picture of conflict between the modernity, dynamism and cosmopolitanism of urban life - a life which is heterogeneous and destabilising in character - and their opposites among the fields of green and gold.  It is worth remembering that, irrespective of whether one is born to town or country, in a healthy, monist society everyone’s forefathers will have worked the land in all weathers with forks, graips, shovels, hedge knives and hoes, brewed the beer, baked the bread and butchered the livestock, or milled flour, made pottery, worked iron, and taken up arms alongside his brothers when bidden.  Timelessness underpins everything.  And while science cannot tell us why the genes of the people who did all this, and which we all carry today, should be preserved and not lost to Neo-Marxism, globalism, Christian universalism and Jewish millenarianism, yet we are them, we serve them, and in the turn to our selfhood they are no longer a mystery or a mere portrait.