|
|
|
British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena
Comments:2
Posted by Bill on Tue, 23 May 2017 07:12 | # History tells us such events in the past are shoved down the memory hole as quick as. All will be forgotten within a couple of weeks. All done and dusted. London Tube.
3
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 May 2017 07:20 | # Amber Rudd, in all her predictable correctness, tells us at the first opportunity that Muslims R Us:
4
Posted by I'm Paul Weston, I am a racist and Islam is... on Tue, 23 May 2017 08:26 | #
5
Posted by Update on Manchaester Arena attack on Tue, 23 May 2017 08:45 | #
6
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 May 2017 09:25 | # Meanwhile, at the Speccie an interesting comment on the liberal teleology by, probably, a Christian poster:
7
Posted by Salman Abedi on Tue, 23 May 2017 18:37 | #
8
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 23 May 2017 20:05 | # Ariana Grande’s song “Side to Side” is about White girls riding baboon cock - no, I am not kidding. If those British girls had their minds right they wouldn’t have been at that shit show to begin with. Regarding Paul Weston, I once asked him what his opinion of National Socialism was when he showed up here to receive questions. He said something to the effect of me being part of the problem, not the solution. Translation: every time Weston thinks about MI-5 knocking on his door he shits his pants. 9
Posted by Weston on the Manchester bombing on Tue, 23 May 2017 20:21 | # 10
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 23 May 2017 21:35 | # “Hello, my name is Paul Weston. You can trust me because I’m a good goy. You know that because I’m wearing a suit. I don’t talk about Jews, only Nazis do that. The real problem, you see, is muh Islam. So vote for my pusillanimous political party and I can assure nothing will change.” Lulz 12
Posted by Salman Abedi of sect opposed to Gaddafi on Wed, 24 May 2017 08:49 | #
13
Posted by Update on Manchester on Wed, 24 May 2017 10:25 | #
14
Posted by Amber Rudd: American leaks "irritating" on Wed, 24 May 2017 10:30 | #
15
Posted by A miserable lie in Whalley Range on Wed, 24 May 2017 11:36 | # The terrorist was living in Whalley Range, Manchester, a place hosting the dismal consolation that Morrissey sang about - of affordable rooms for non-committal trysts. Morrissey of “Smiths” fame, talks on Faceberg about this incident that took place in his hometown:
A Miserable Lie: The dismal consolation of a rented room in Whalley Range for trysts by people who don’t belong together.
16
Posted by Authorities were warned about Abedi on Wed, 24 May 2017 18:22 | #
17
Posted by mancinblack on Thu, 25 May 2017 09:13 | # The photograph @15 is of Elsmore Rd in Fallowfield. There are no council houses in Whalley Range. Also most of the press are only counting those hospitalised through injury. The total number of injured, including those treated at the scene, is 120. 18
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 25 May 2017 10:56 | # Thanks for the feedback and correction mancinblack. 19
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 28 May 2017 13:07 | # It is a sad fact that hers is an audience most in need of waking-up to the brutal reality of liberalism, a brutality that it shares much more with the right than either side of this “rebellion” and reaction are inclined to believe. Although they are blithely unaware of it, in the end liberals and right wingers are aligned and marked by their pseudo justification in “natural law” or “divine law” viz., their arguments are founded on pseudo objectivism. Any time you hear someone (trying anyway) to justify something horrifically destructive, it will almost invariably be done under the rubric of divine or natural law - read, pseudo objectivism. That doesn’t mean that liberals and right wingers are void of intelligence - their abilities are often what make them more able to flout social accountability and advance themselves with strokes of affection for their quanta of power, despite their hazard to people who really don’t deserve the bad breaks they’d attribute to the mere facts of life. With that caveat, we can endorse that which they may have right despite themselves. Keith Alexander is coming from that right wing position of natural law where he isn’t completely off the rails into Christianity (“not a wasted word in the bible”), a Jewish narrative of yore that right wingers use to deceive themselves if not others - narratives forming such a colossal, convoluted labyrinth that despite that, and sometimes because of it, high I.Q. people (such as Alexander) can negotiate it, wield it and achieve with it (for a time) in clever facility. O.K. So Keith Alexander can deceive himself and his audience that there “is not a wasted word in the bible”, and he can deceive himself that he and the rest of his Alt-Right audience that they have not been deceived to conceive of THE Left as liberalism and as the enemy; and that there is no difference in a White Left. The same people who deceived them with Christianity have now given them the comprehensive narrative that “THE left” is the enemy. I guess it’s just a coincidence that that became the popular enemy to cite only with the rise of the (((Alt-Right))).
Anyway, if you excise a few remarks that intimate the error in Alexander’s platform, the reality of the White Left, of peoplehood and its necessary relative defense, compels him to use his intelligence to provide a nifty take on the Manchester bombing. Edwards manages one good remark as well.: http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/radio-show-hour-1-20170527/ I will try to find time to provide transcript later. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 May 2017 01:17 | # What would be the politics of the “White Right”, should such an entity ever come into existence? What would be its differences to the equally speculative “White Left”? Which would be more fitting, sociobiologically, given that the blood of the northern European is individualistic, not conforming? Are we talking here about a human universal? Would Asian or Eurasian peoplehood have the same general balance of individualism to conformism as the Northern European, notwithstanding the known sociobiological differentials? How about Southern Europeans or Western Slavs? How, as a product of common descent, would peoplehood, indeed brotherhood, manifest among the human races and sub-races? Would it be more a matter of coherence rather than adherence, of congruent interest rather than collective interest ... or less? For me, personally, this isn’t a question I have to resolve, because I am an identitarian and not a national socialist, and the details self-resolve as a necessity of their own making and by their own right. But there is an axis in nationalism (or two, or three): https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/axis_forces ... to which the generalities of the question can apply, notwithstanding the plain fact that “right” and “left” as such are established particulars of the socio-economics of systemic liberalism. I suspect that all this noise about a White Left derives either from a lack of axial clarity rather than from philosophical principle as such, or from a lack of applied differentiation in regard to the human product. 21
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 May 2017 04:17 | #
It does exist. I’ve explained this a thousand times, but you’ve ignored every word.
Again, I’ve explained this a thousand times. You seem to think that by ignoring things it makes them go away and you “win the argument” by repeating questions over and over. Nevertheless, I will do so again, but later today. I’ll say briefly for now, “the speculative” aspect is not that speculative, but it is pivotal and what people disposed to the right - at least in initial, reactionary stages - cannot bear.
Ah, you begin to understand then, that this would be charactaristic as preferred angle for the right - but what you do not understand is that it is not either/or (a false either/or indicative in your question, “which would be better?”).
I’ll come back to this, but I suspect there is a distinction to be made here between a tendency to look for and focus on commonalities between peoples (universals) as opposed to asserting working hypotheses, viz., classifications of different peoples and the necessity for some argumentation for those differences being important against those who would invoke the modicum of arbitrariness (as opposed to universality) in the distinction as an argument that it is ok to breach the classification.
Probably not.
I think the individualism of Southern Europeans tends to be under estimated; as I’ve said before, I almost wish the nordicist stereotype of their being clannish were more true, so that they would protect themselves. I don’t think that it is. But for whatever differences there are between northern and southern Europeans. nationalist distinctions and coordination should be maintained. Notherners are doing themselves no favor by narrowing the nationalist buffering zone by drawing an overly hard line in terms of us and them between northern and southern Europeans, especially not in terms of nationalist coordination. Western Slavs might have a slightly better formula - pretty indivdualistic, except that they will come together at a national level. I suppose something like that is paradigmatically “ideal” (something like that, not to say Western Slavs are necessarily ideal). At any rate, despite whatever differences, my focus is on ways to protect European people and to reach commonalities in and for their defense - it is important to understand biological differences and samenesses, but my focus is more on anti-racism and liberalism (both of which are founded on objectivism and its naive/disingenuous misuse).
Well, now you are getting at a fundamental question that I am grappling with but leaning for a more scientific inquiry and hoped for answer. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I am more prepared for it to require argumentation, and at different levels, than you might be.
There isn’t necessarily a difference. I suspect you are going after coherence because it is one of those good ideas that you didn’t come up with, so you are jealous, fearful and instinctively compete against it - to all of our detriment, but rather for the sake of your gargantuan ego. rather than collective interest ... or less? Again, this is just you and Bowery trying to apply your psy-fi novels that were mandatorily popular post WWII and sitting on top of the desks that you were occasionally drilled to duck beneath in case of communist nuclear attack - whether Orwell’s 1984, Kafka’s metamorphosis, later maybe “We” by Eugene Zamyatin ... you as the hero against the inculcated stereotypes - “neo” against the “matrix”, to use a more recent, obnoxious example of liberal, “anti-collectivist” propaganda. American Constitutional rights, democracy, free market capitalism, universal rights are other biggies, in terms of “anti-collectivist” narratives/ideas that really are not necessarily issues to be dismissed without reconstitution (re-negotiation of “rules” is another issue which you are so stupidly averse to - “rules” being another idea that you hadn’t considered, ‘therefore the issue must be a bad consideration’).. all of this with bona fide concern but the issue is how group and individual level “rights” are going to be maintained and who is going to do it (who being particularly important since the YKW have done a number on both sides, misrepresenting and distorting both group and the individual). It isn’t that there aren’t dangers of collectivism, and that questions shouldn’t be asked, but I do (and have) taken them into account and with safeguards in mind (that your scientism is more likely to breach, for the “naturalistic” response of its “naturalism”), it is clearly not our priority concern at the moment - viz., hermeneutic survey does no have to come to it as often at this point - though it must, from time to time - because there is merit to concern about loss of our individualism through various patterned engagements, as in the case of hypotheses like Bowery’s, that reckless conception and engagement in war could result in a more permanent genetic loss to precious individualism.
Well, look, I might come back to that article later. As a premise I will say that it is a bit disingenuous to say that Nazi Germany has a patent on the terms nationalism and socialism, or that they best represent these terms - at all. So the polemic is not accurate to begin But let me say this for now, as I have said, I am not that concerned with the questions that you posed me either. In fact I am more like you in that regard than you think - that if the national bounds (“identity” as you call it) are somehow understood and functioning, that what happens afterward can resolve itself in many satisfactory ways.
They are established in liberal terms as you want them to be, for the sake of your ego. As a matter of fact, you take that so far as to try to say that I don’t mean by these terms what I mean in my definition of them. Nevertheless, a liberal underpinning of these terms is emphasized by Jews and right wingers. The later especially will focus on Marxism and its disingenuous economics. The deep pattern of the the Left is the opposite of liberalism, it is a focus on group responsibility and a delimitation of liberal prerogative by a unionization of sorts - that group unionization can be the native nation, should be.
It isn’t noise, it is the most important thing in the world which the noise, the screams of your childish jealousy is trying to drown out.
I have clarity. You lack the wherewithal to be critical of a paradigm (“an axis”) that you’ve been handed and to suppose that maybe it is not “the” axis, just because right wingers and Jews have told you so.
Yes my difference from the received “axis” that you ingest unquestioningly is a philosophical move.
We are concerned with maintaining national differences between people (at least I am, but I am coming to believe that you are more concerned with your ego). Therefore, that tends toward an applied unification of concern, yes. Differentiation among peoples are fine where they facilitate the maintenance of these nationalist distinctions, they are a problem to be grappled with where they breach or fail to maintain them. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 May 2017 10:58 | #
In practise, of course, no man “looks for” or “classifies” that which is authentic to him. Epistemologically, we are not librarians. Rather, the question is how we abide qualitatively “there”, at the moment of disclosure, and take possession thereby of meanings which have, or have not, fidelity to the object. A clean epstemological act (by which everything hangs, of course) already presupposes, and is made possible by, a clean existential act. Maximally, it will function the same way in respect to the disclosure of the being of the Other as that of self. Both will have a maximal fidelity. But the latter alone will trigger that cascade of affirmations which signal authenticity. That is how the transition is staged. In this superior sense, your “focus ... on anti-racism and liberalism” seeks to address the cleaning of the epistemological act. Of course you know that well enough, though I suspect you won’t want to admit that battling negative actions on the human personality is quite a crude, lower-order activity. I also don’t think you want to follow the logic in that what belongs to a clean epistemological act is precisely human genetic interest, or even that its relational structure ... the “with”, “of” or “in” ... through which meanings must pass before they enter the three great systems of Mind already do your work for you ... would, in a world without negative effects in personality, be enough in themselves. I know for sure, incidentally, that you don’t want to understand why the personality is open to abuse ... what it is about personality’s constitution that makes it such and obfuscates the cognition. Regardless, the real guts of nationalism, when we free it from its reaction to the travails of the age in which we live, and see it not as a political utility but as a permanence in the natural world and the maker of a total true life, is all there in those three little prepositions “with”, “of” and “in”. I am not saying this to over-simplify the task. Man, in the end, is made complicated by surface things. In his essence he simply is. Given an opening, he expresses in his lived life and in his history what is most natural and authentic to him. Nationalism should never stray far from that. 23
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 May 2017 12:07 | #
You are seriously mistaken. It is not exactly that we necessarily look for classifications, it is rather that we cannot possibly avoid doing categorization. If you want to be radical about cognitive psychology, that is one place that you might begin to cure you. Again, in attacking this most important issue of classification your disgusting habit of attacking the most important ideas comes through - you would obstruct important elaboration and implementation for your jealous ego - it is a hideous obstruction to our well being. And your “reasons” for doing this are a bullshit cover-up of that.
Right, as I said. If you want to focus on how categorization “happens” you are welcome to do that. I like to focus on active hypotheses. Not coincidentally, most of the people would agree with the classiications of people that I use, and I with them - from DNA charts to national kinds.
A solid one is important. “Cleanliness” may be an expression of a STEM hang up and aversion to the “uncleanliness” of praxis.
Well, if it does that, fine.
Yes, that’s true.
It is not crude at all and it is very important - that is what you do not seem to appreciate. Nor is it my only focus, a negative focus, as you say. Your last two remarks indicate that you are enamored of aspects of Plato that are not fully sufficient. 1) If you know good, of course you’d do good. People do bad things through ignorance. 2) That the “true philosophy” is pursuit of the telos. “Rhetoric” is the realm of “Sophists”, who went around teaching the inferior arts of persuasion.
This thing about “cleanliness” reminds me of the guy who thinks Al Dimeola is THE BEST guitar player because he is fast and doesn’t miss a note. In a sense, it is a matter of taste, and bad taste at that. Again, this is you and Bowery express your tastes, wanting to universalize your scientific predilection as THE thing, the only thing.
I concentrate on what I want to concentrate on, what recognize as important. I don’t tell you what to concentrate on. If you want concentrate on things like “THE” personality, go ahead, don’t tell me to concentrate on what you want to concentrate on.
Good, go for it. Aren’t you happy to have these great projects before you?
Well, bullshit. But if you want to concentrate on “THE personality”, go ahead. I have affinity for things like “with”, “of” or “in” ...“you” “I” “The” “We” and more abstract relations… but in relation to priority.
Oh do you? I am always supposed to care about these pyschologisms of yours? I care about the issues that I care about. I don’t ask you to adopt the matters of my attention, do not ask me to adopt a psychological perspective, let alone one concerning “the personalty”
I can see why you are mystified. It is a really primitive concern. I mean how much do you want to circumscribe organic function that is most in line with nationalism? However much you want to pursue it, I will not stand in your way, but don’t ask me to say that it is anywhere near a sufficient inquiry, because it is not.
Permanence in the natural world - good luck with that story, unless you want to make that story into a religion after all. If you want to pursue an end in which English cannot breed with others even if they wanted to, I would be ok with that.
Ok, well that’s good for you to elaborate on. These can be interesting matters, I am not averse to radical and provisionally reductionary thought - provided it does not show the bad motivation to push adide more important thought. Your reducitonism indicates, as ever, a wish to console yourself that the smoke from your armchair is the only matter of importance.
Depends upon how you want to look at it. I am not making things too complicated, I am not standing in the way at simple ways of looking at things where that helps.
It doesn’t have to.
24
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 May 2017 17:34 | # And so, in what may be said to be a take-away of this… If you want to go the cognitive psychology route of looking into how people categorize (which is part of where I got the idea of the significance of classificaiton from) that is a perfectly fine inquiry and there I see no contradiction with what I am doing. Furthermore, if you want to look at an “adherence” aspect of coherence, that is fine too. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 May 2017 19:16 | # The takeaway is that no matter how precisely I endeavour to formulate the problematics which underlie what you are saying, you will not tolerate criticism. 26
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 May 2017 20:57 | #
That isn’t true. I tolerate critique when it is accurate and actually addressing what I have said. The problem is that all you’ve wanted to do is criticize (that’s called contentiousness) rather than elaborate on solid ideas, whether mine… or just going ahead with your own. You can make the idea of classification work with your ontology project and your psychological perspective by exploring the very ccognitive psychological concept of categorization. It could be very fruitful. This is yet another olive branch among the many times that I try and will try to accommodate your project with mine ..the same effort to accommodate my ideas has not been forthcoming from you to me - but hope springs eternal. I see anther way of reconciling our projects in your exploring “adherence as coherence.” 27
Posted by Family of Manchester terrorist arrested on Tue, 30 May 2017 08:51 | #
28
Posted by Victims of Manchester bombing on Wed, 31 May 2017 16:45 | # Express, “All 22 victims of Manchester terror attack named and identified”, 25 May 2017: The full list of the victims: Saffie Rose Roussos, eight
Post a comment:
Next entry: ‘Western man, stand up for your wives, daughters’, Kate Hopkins tweet investigated as inciting hate
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 May 2017 04:29 | #
The details hardly matter anymore, except that this time the target was children and young people. Which will prompt the black hole of a question ... but why? ... which can never really be asked of terrorism in the public space? In this respect, the only recent terrorist in mainland Europe who possessed a clear political rationale was another murderer of the young: Anders Breivik. He at least wanted us to know. But Sunni terrorism? Most probably, all we will hear from our leaders and from the press is that it is nothing to do with Islam. Along with the fact that integrationism such as that of the next pretty boy to lead a European nation (Austria, in October):
http://kulturelle-integration.de/pressetext/15-thesen-fuer-zusammenhalt-in-vielfalt-aufruf-zur-mitzeichnung/
... will very likely now be considered by the May government, because the nationalist alternative is too too awful for any neoliberal/neo-Marxist Establishment party to contemplate.
One wonders if poor, lost UKIP will now realise that it has a role to play, if it wants to be relevant in the post-Brexit environment? Probably not. Hitherto, it has proved too politically correct to assume the role of a scourge of political correctness. It has proved too civically nationalist to advocate any real nationalism, beyond a half-baked policy of a burka ban (a suggestion which came from the membership, not from the party leadership). It won’t want to take on Paul Weston’s fight, which is what it needs to do, and what our people need it to do.