|
|
Comments:2
Posted by Plutonium on Sun, 28 Aug 2016 00:02 | # What’s with your beef regarding the actual anxiety of nuclear attack for those kids in the 50’s? HE double hockey stick, look who gave the nuke stuff to the Russkies… PS, if I read you’re comment wrong, let me know. A tad on the inebriated side this evening. Getting too olde to play hockey with the young Quebecois… 3
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 28 Aug 2016 07:22 | # I don’t have an especial beef with anxiety in response to the possibility of nuclear attack, my point is to illustrate that there were powerful psychological conditioning factors at work against “collectivism”, and with that, against “leftism” (the unionization of social capital being most important in negotiation of the maintenance of EGI - economics are significant too, but not our priority as racial advocates - we are not thorough economic socialists and it is a lesser concern to me - I don’t have a problem with people being wealthy and unequal outcomes per se) the anxiety to which acted in concert with America’s valuation of individualism beyond reason, not only beyond group interests, but beyond the means (non-Cartesian) by which individualism actually comes about. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:13 | # The ethnic group is not available to be collectivised or authored from without. No form of prescription will be the thing itself. To the contrary, its commonality is permanently extant and unchangeable. It is a lived experience which can be energised, certainly, through consciousness, as it can also be forgotten and disvalued through error and estrangement. The thing itself, however, is what is it. It is more than a social group. It is the human model. Ordinarily, we live in a state tending towards error and estrangement. So, psychologically speaking, nationalism’s historical action is to release group consciousness from it, and this is the case ... this is the fundamental human condition ... whether or not nationalists understand it. “White left” is activist-speech that may have traction in the politics of white American identity, in part because the liberal project and its axiality is all people know there, but mostly because the bonds of white kinship are so much more loosely drawn than on the ancestral continent. It is most improbable that “white left” has any utility in European nationalism, where talk of an “objectivist individualism” or a “collectivist nationalism” or whatever cuts across, in the first case, tradition, charity, and patriotism, and in the second working-class identity. Nationalism must cohere all the human truth of the people. It does not do to steal away tradition and patriotism and middle-class pride in social mores and standards and claim that they are “white left” ... that, actually, everything you want “in” was “white left” all along. What that says is that there is a failure of understanding of the deep, abiding inequality within the European ethnic kind, and that this inequality is good and necessary, and natural. Find a way to cohere everything and prescribe nothing, and you have found a functioning nationalism. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:43 | # Daniel, Do you remember our conversation with Kumiko about Fabianism. I thought after that you might at least accept that European political history is rich and complex, and the Judaisation of politics, certainly before the cultural era, was not a clean and straightforward issue. Of course, that conversation only concerned the left of the liberal spectrum. But the right of the spectrum also has its deep history. That includes the birth of conservatism in England as a radical movement founded not in Catholic humanism, like the liberal tradition, but in the English constitutionalism of the High Middle Ages, and the emergence of the modern English state after the accession of Henry VII in 1485. We English still live in the shadow of these things. One can make all manner of criticisms of how they have worked themselves out in time, much of which will doubtless be cogent. But slapping a wholesale shipment of yellow Star of David stickers on them is crass and erroneous. I urge you to allow for the sheer ideological inconvenience of real life. I will very quickly deal with this notion of a union. A people is already a whole thing, and was made such when, in its founding age, it developed shared distinctive genes on the land which bears its name. Political activists can’t top that. They can, if they are clever and, on occasion, even if they are just lucky, effect a greater awareness and expression of it in the people. The cleverest will be looking for an holistic and systemic setting productive of that awareness. The people do not have to be made. They only have to be made self-aware. 6
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 Aug 2016 02:56 | #
Yes, I remember. And it does not matter, because even though they call themselves a leftist movement (the Fabian left) and claim to look after working class and unionist interests, it is still a form of liberalism with regard to natives, because it has not been unionizing on behalf of native race. That’s that. It is a detail that changes nothing of what I am saying. It is just another liberal movement (as far as native Whites are concerned) who are calling themselves “the left.” They were trying to distinguish themselves as a leftist alternative to Marxism, but didn’t unionize on our nativist interests. The Nazis used leftist cover as well - “national socialism” - as a popular appeal in alternative to Red Leftism. And they did have some sincere elements as I understand it, e.g., in the Strasser brothers and Ernst Röhm. But Hitler and his elite regime were at basis and in the end, right wing imperialists. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:06 | # It might be more help in respect to this Jewish thing to give some thought to the foundational distinctiveness of English liberalism and conservatism rather than to rely upon the French revolutionary parliamentary model of, on the one hand, the radical egalitarian and social democratic tradition and, on the other, the radical individualist model. When, needing to fill his coffers, Henry VII had the inspired thought that freeing the English merchant class to enrich itself would benefit everyone, including him, he set in motion an historical political dynamic that was much more than economic self-interest. It quickly developed into an alternative interest to the Crown and landed interests, and took on something of the tribal instinctualism, as well as the need of the settled for peace and stability, which pre-existed the Conquest and the appalling and destructive accession of Norman social heirarchy. The new freedom created an economic class that was not tied (very literally) as labour on the land but was urban, practical but innovative, and enterprising. We now know from archeological finds dating back to the Bronze Age - Must Farm, for instance - that this sort of mindset and activity was prevalent millenia before the Roman and, subsequently, Christian and Norman eras. It really wasn’t new for the ordinary people to think in terms of diversity of interest, trade and access to the seas, and personal enrichment. It was a direct expression of their native intelligence and creativity. It re-surfaced in the High Middle Ages when the possibility to do so presented itself - and that is an important principle for us today, because it speaks of something permanent to respect. It also speaks of something wholly material and real-world, and, therefore, quite outside the liberal paradigm of a notionally unfettered will. The latter’s roots lie in the Catholic Church of the 11th century and the debate about what it means to be made in the image of God and not subject to the salvatory process, and therefore bestowed ab initio with an individual worth and personal dignity which must be universal to all men. Where that is seen to be lacking through wretchedness, there Christian action in the cause of social justice must be taken. Now, it should be clear that this highly attenuated and artificial argument for a prescribed human equality and solidarity based in God-given worth disdains the principle of emergent property. It eschews what is authentic for what, ultimately, does not and cannot exist, and thereby the natural qualities of instinct, awareness, and interest for a particular and endless struggle for improvement. While it is not Jewish thought as such, it is thought within the Jewish framework of the gentile’s relationship with God rather than his own people. It is estranging from the first. It is not at all incorrect, therefore, to handle it with extreme caution, or to seek some means whereby Jewish influence can be filtered out. But, as Fabian incrementalism shows to the degree that it is informed by compassion and solidarity, and as the earlier trade union, self-help, and chartist movements of the struggle of the urban poor show much more, mixed in with this are elements of the authentic. At some none too definable point here the emergent has re-asserted itself, and is working through the Christian/Jewish prescription. Precious little of it might be salient in our time. But, exactly like conservatism, it has a solidity and permanence that will always outlast the prescriptive, and has to be respected. To return to the beginning, conservatism is impossible to write off as simple Jewish influence, be it objectivist or whatever, because in its origins and instincts it isn’t. It belongs in our thinking. Yet it leads to an individualism which, again in our time, has certainly become less easy to distinguish from the liberal individualism of the Lockean or even Randian type. How to distinguish it, therefore? How to claim it for nationalism rather than excise it ... rather than march across its long and complex history with a megaphone, declaiming for the white left and the requirement for something unionising, where the people are self-evidently extant? 8
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 Aug 2016 23:33 | #
The French Revolution has always been a bad starting point, the usual staring point of the right and is not the model that I use. The best starting point is against Locke and his trouble with classifications - classification is the fundamental matter of what we are up against and what the right is too retarded to deal with.
First of all, I never said that objectivism was primarily a Jewish influence. Your prove once again that you do not read what I say nor bother to understand it. I even repeated above, in comment #7: “First note that you have not bothered to understand that when I talk of objctivism it is beyond the individualism and kind of objectivism that Rand talks about.” Continuing with your comment…..
That is basically Locke’s (and yours) Cartesian starting point at the empirical end.
That’s your project and not my overriding concern. There are many ways to do that, none that I’ll propose here because you’re likely to just shoot them down from the start. I’m with Lister in finding the psyche less interesting and important than matters of social capital.
I don’t excise it. Though I must say that this project is your generation’s obsession and we have all suffered for it.
You are the one trying to drive a truck over the means of its creation, i.e., through social accountability.
I don’t declaim it - hermeneutics always moves to verifiable account.
Well, to the extent that the invisible hand works to enforce borders, kudos, but most of us think Passports, citizenship, rules of border control, membership and exclusion, incentive structures and more will be necessary. The more wise still recognize that hermeneutics (which includes genetics, genetic grouping) is the means by which the vast and complex history of English and other European people is done justice in its authentic forms. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:15 | # Most of what I am saying here I said in this post of four years ago: https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/nationalism_as_emergent_nature_nationalism_as_reaction ... and in comments on the thread. I only have one remark in addition, which I made the last time we discussed this subject, namely that I don’t much think or write about political methodologies, because that is not my current focus. 10
Posted by Links between Russia-Trump Campaign and Brexit on Sat, 21 Jul 2018 17:19 | #
Post a comment:
Next entry: A familiar face in the crowd. Well, not crowd exactly.
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:02 | #
It wasn’t really for lack of newsworthy material that I had not posted a news story after the Turkey stories, but because those stories were to complement Kumiko’s up coming evergreen post, which should finally go up today.
Nor has my quiet been anything remotely like acquiescence to the kind of right wing, Jewish controlled opposition that Farage’s libertarian objectivism represents. Farage’s support of Trump in Mississippi may provide inspiration and help to achieve wiggle room by means of a provisional neo-liberal way out, but it is at the price of a weasel’s way in - and a weasel’s way of staying in power at the expense of many true ethno-nationalists (though hopefully not at the expense of too many more of the better ones, ultimately).
Nor was my not putting up news stories an acceptance of (((The Alt Right’s))) attempt to bury this White Left perspective (that won’t happen), though they keep trying: Robert Stark’s side-kicks in spearheading that effort include (((Alex von Goldstein))), some kid calling himself “Rabbit”, who, at the prompting of Robert Lindsey, tried to co-opt the notion of the left and make it Jewish and alt right friendly - proposing it as a retarded combination of Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. Though he has now gone with the party ruse for idiots, that “the right / left distinction is moribund” (when in truth, it is more useful than ever to anyone but Jews and deracinated objectivists), thinking that they have succeeded in burying us. Of course their other go-to guy for trying to bury the White Left (a synonym for ethno-nationalism) is Keith Preston and his endless troth of anarchist bullocks (a synonym for liberalism) that he uses in (((service))) of trying to bury the White Left, as per the Regnery, Martel, Alt Right and right wing agenda generally.
Nor has my quiet been an acceptance of the attempted use of psychology to override sociological issues. Though the attempt to make a ubiquitous science of the human mind may have been tempting to a generation born of the red scare of collectivism, trained to hide under their desks for fear of nuclear attack, and raised on Orwellian and Kafka-esque narratives of collectivist dystopias, whereupon we might turn into a species of insects if we don’t find our “nature below human social nature” as it has been “alienated by civilization” and individual consumerist free enterprise - thus to be taken down as per Freud’s and Marcuse’s prescription - oh maybe not with Eros so much, but with yet another Jewish prescription in lieu of ethno-nationalism, namely, libertarian objectivism.
When Kumiko finally does put up her story it will be a good one. Too bad that it’s taken a while and that in the meantime some high quality comments that were perfectly lined up for a serious discussion will get bumped down as well, particularly the ones by Lister - they are providing solid theoretical backing.
.............................
Among the baby boomers, sci-fi narratives about the nightmares and horrors of collectivism abounded - we might even turn into insects in our very lifespan for our loss of individualism.
Baby-boomer school children ducking for cover under desks in nuclear bomb defense drill.