|
|
|
Improving prospects for the AfD With this spring’s resurgence of support for Angela Merkel and the Union parties, and the resignation of Frauke Petry from the AfD leadership on 20th April, polling had shown an alarming collapse in support for the fledgeling party. But now, with the election imminent on 24th September, there is evidence that a surprisingly strong performance is likely.
One might consider this a triumph of low expectations. But this is Germany, the most cowed nation on earth, where any expression of German pride is scandalous:
Gauland is right. The freeing of Germans from the shadow of the National Socialist past ... the acknowledgement of Germans themselves that they, like any other people, have a life to live, and that life is ethnic and unique, as well as noble and precious ... is a keystone in the wider struggle of all European-descended peoples for a sovereign and free life. A reasonable result for the AfD on Sunday will show not only that the party is still viable and can move forward, but that German self-respect and German destining are also not impossible dreams, but historical necessities and, perhaps, coming facts. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:00 | # The Union in question is that of the alliance of the Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union (a Bavarian party). Obviously, these are not ethnic nationalist parties. Peoples are ethnic. They are not unions. Political parties, of course, can unite. Peoples can’t. Perhaps the word you are looking for is “singular”. I just don’t know why you would want to rescue the term “National Socialist”, even if it were possible (it’s not). As an Englishman whose politics are not socialist but ethnic, and not leftist but nationalist, messing about with these terms is confusing and unnecessary. Perhaps Americans might find some utility in them, though I see no evidence of that at the moment. It is extremely probable that you committed yourself to an impossible task of dubious value, Daniel, when you began to focus on these labels. The first law of holes springs to mind. 3
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:37 | #
Unions are of peoples, get over it and don’t be ridiculous.
It was my clear point that I do not want to obfuscate Nazism and its scientistic imperialism and supremacism behind the terms Nationalism and Socialism, terms which do not represent the problem of the regime. Obviously. I don’t know why you continue to refuse to understand or pretend to not understand what is clear.
You say this because you are as blind as a bat in your Thatcherite nonsense. I make consistent sense in my terminology. The reasons why to talk in these terms have been made clear as day over and over again (one important reason is to take control of the social option in our interests and not allow our enemies to define it and wield it against us). You just have to be moved around like dead wood, that’s all. 4
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 03:41 | # Krauts will be given two choices in this election: whether they wish to be fucked in the ass or fucked in the mouth. Lulz 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 07:10 | # Unions are of peoples, get over it and don’t be ridiculous. Is it really too difficult for you to understand that different entities can be brought together, but the same entity - in this case, blood - cannot. Its very nature is singular, which means that struggles relating to its self-expression are revelatory in character rather than unificatory. Simple, logical truths like this are important, because if you do not get them right then what follows will be confusion. The National Socialist German Workers’ Party is named after its guiding philosophy of National Socialism (Nationalsozialismus). You cannot change this. You cannot decide by yourself to redefine the terms. If you start using them differently, you will only confuse people about yourself. No one will understand that you are attempting to triangulate against those aspects of the Nazi ideology you don’t like, so you can hive off aspects you do like and incorporate them into your growing ragbag of equally strained signs and signifiers. Terminological consistency is less important than the depth of thought and clarity of exposition. 6
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 07:34 | #
Is it really too difficult for you to understand that they can? That the nation as a “union” is a metaphor but not a very loose one. You are in the union/the nation or you are not. If you are in the union, you have certain duties and privileges, obligations, prohibitions and legitimacies. You are part of a bounded governance which non-union/non-nationals are not.
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things that I’ve ever heard - Who is not following simple logical truths? It is you, apparently so enamored of the invisible hand and wishful thinking so as to be completely oblivious to the obvious. A UNION - the word derives from ONE - UNI ! UNI-FY. UNIFY TO WHAT? UNIFY people to account.
It began with and gained popularity through some national and socialist ideas and ideals but imperialism and supremacism (that regime’s Nazism) was closer to Hitler’s heart and aims. It is important, non-trivial that Nazism not contaminate the word Nationalism or socialism, for that matter - in fact, it is very important, of the essence of nationalist concern that Nazism be disentangled from nationalism and socialism in its benign uses. Only an idiot, or one trying to hide the egregious aspects of Nazism would deny the importance of disentangling these terms from one another.
You cannot change that.
I am not doing it by myself at all, I am going by the pervasive undercurrent themes of ordinary language.
No I will not, ultimately, though it does take some time to overcome the deliberate obfuscation of YKW, complicit right wingers and, well, stubborn reactionaries such as yourself.
Yes they will.
I am not trying to hive off aspects of Nazism that I like, that is what you are trying to do. I am an ethnonationalist from the start, it is just common sense that there is going to be more or less a common social duty.
Well then, you’ve got to get with it, because my terminological use is consistent and deep. Yours is no deeper than what the YKW and the mere practical convenience of right wing sell outs have disingenuously maintained - i.e., received, not penetrating, not deep at all. 7
Posted by The Viennna School of Logical Positivism on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:21 | # .....were a bunch of Jews inspired by the early Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, who had in mind a project similar to your aspirations, GW, an ontology free from metaphor. This was ultimately shown to be both impossible and undesirable. However, the Vienna School of Economics basically maintained this premise, as did one of its members, Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek… As do you, by way of Hayek/Vienna School via Thatcher, conceive of an ontology project which is supposed to “liberate Euro man and find him emerging spontaneously as a nationalist.” To maintain this fallacy, you must ignore the fact that what I am proposing will not interfere one iota with anyone who so happens to act into/of/marry into their own nationalism naturally. But apparently to maintain an identity as “debunker of academic artifice, the liberator of natural nationalist euro man”, you must dishonestly put forth endless strawmanning to misrepresent my positions as cliche’s of the “unnaturally imposed ‘left.” Thus, when “the nation as union” is shown to be the least bit metaphoric, the least bit socially constructed, you act as if you are doing nationalism and the world a favor by “exposing it” and denouncing it as whole cloth and obstructive artifice; when in fact, you are wielding the counterproductive obstruction with your obsolete philosophical bearings, beliefs and aspirations. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:14 | # Well, let’s continue with this question of (i) nationalism as the philosophy of the singularity of kind wrought by relation, which has the primary concern for, or interest in, being, and (ii) liberalism as the philosophy of parts wrought as such by foundationally Jewish thinking about the gentile at the End Times, which has the primary concern to direct the subject into a life of petty individualism blind to all but immediate personal concerns or, for the less intelligent, artificial unities fashioned for conflict of one form or another. Plainly, the concept of socialism as it functions in the nationalist world of thinking is different to that which functions in the liberal world. In the former it is a descriptor of an inherent connection and a comity from which politics seeks to generate a unity of action. In the latter, it is a descriptor of an artifical connection under constant demand for the unity of same. Nationalism’s point of contact with the notion of unity is in respect to action, not being. You cannot create a people by politics. But liberalism itself is a formative philosophy. It simply does not take account of what inheres, but sets out from the first to fabricate an alternative, using terminologies which are specific to the task. As nationalists we must be sensitive to these distinctions, and not make the error of confusing them - which you are doing. 9
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 23:58 | #
You pronounce such a thing as if it is a perfect definition - nationalism is a primary concern for, or interest in being. You are probably the only person who would define nationalism that way and probably will remain the only one - correctly so, because it is an absurd definition, traceable to your desperate quest to be singularly revelatory of empirical corollary. Nationalism needs and deserves a much more ordinary and accessible definition, a human sized definition. It does not arbitrarily circumscribe a people, especially not ethnonationalism, though you will try to say that I am imposing such “liberal” and arbitrary circumscriptions because you are desperate to maintain your autobiography, which requires a foil (stereotype of a leftist academic unaccountably imposing artificial constructs upon nature and people) - thus, you pose me as this foil, and must lie to do it, and misrepresent what I say, rather than see that I am often taking a different but complementary perspective on the same goal.
Predictably, you are whipping out your picture of the world, trying to say that I am representing liberalism because I do not subscribe to your scientistic nonsense.
That might often be what Jewish people are doing, and that might be a valid foil for your concerns.
Not a comprehensive statement but I can agree with that much.
Heidegger acknowledges that Being is a verb
Neither can you, and I am not trying to.
No, I am not confusing them, this is you being an ass, trying to say that I am not taking into account of what inheres, and am merely “fabricating” an alternative - when in fact, the only fabrication to the specific task is your straw man of me as your liberal foil, which you draw rather than allow for terminologies more descriptive and useful concepts which are actually liberating from the Jewish liberal world view; a box that you won’t let yourself out of; and worse, a box that you insist is necessary for “nationalists” to remain in - your Jewish prescribed world view. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 16:45 | # You make one interesting comment: Heidegger acknowledges that Being is a verb. Of course, it is a little on the short side to ascertain whether you know what you are saying. Heiddeger spoke of being and of beings in the context of the ontology of truth. One characteristic of Heidegger’s thought that he claimed to be absent in Western philosophy before him, and that, obviously, I do like, is the attempt to posit the human truth as “what appears from out of itself, in appearing shows itself, and in this self-showing manifests.” He is talking here about the emergent truth of the being of (human) Beings. To have relevance, however, the emergence must (eventually) enter the experience of another human being - really, the conscious processes of all of us as isolated Beings. Of course, Dasein implies we humans actually inhabit a sub-stratum or drama of a pure, detached, super-hard reality of life and death, clear of conscious human perception, in which every Being appears and disappears in its own unchanging truth. So what’s the point here? Well, the question is: how does a Being extract meaning from that world and bring it into the world in which he is “thrown”… how does a Being truly perceive, or as near to truly as possible, the being of other Beings. Heidegger posits Dasein as a native of that hard reality, whose nature is to disclose its own meaning to other natives as well as to receive the disclosing meaning of those natives. I’ve suggested in earlier essays that this process is prior to workings of the great perceptual systems of Mind, and also that Dasein’s nature or constitution quite literally includes genetic interest (or care for being) and probably also certain aspects of the sociobiology, and that these predispose how, subsequently, the disclosed meaning of other Beings will be processed. So what I have tried to do is to extend Heidegger’s model to Mind, without getting trapped in the Cartesian subject or in Husserlian transcendentalism (though I do think there is perceptual function in maximalising presence … that Dasein can be close or further away, in addition to being true or false itself). 11
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:15 | #
I make many interesting comments.
No, I don’t know what I’m saying only you do in your fart-infested armchair.
Oh good, like I am trying to stop that.
yeah.
Your poor, isolated mind.
Are you trying to make me laugh now?
Really? and so what? They are no longer subject to interpretation? Things they’ve done during their life cannot be discovered or re-evaluated to change the implications of their truth? The genetics that flowed through them and animated them are done and gone completely, without any further influence?
The problem here is that you cannot get over objectivism. 3.14 equals pie of a circle, ok. but the important matter is how that counts relatively, non-universally, for a group of people. What I am calling ‘objectivism’ is the fetish for objective truth beyond utility to one’s relative interests - i.e., the interests of one’s people. What I’m calling ‘objectivism’ is the fetishization of objective truth beyond its account to the interests of one’s people (relative group).
That was an epistemological blunder to the extent that it was held to be a ‘hard reality’
Well, I am not stopping you from engaging such considerations. But I won’t let essential and crucial matters be set aside as “trivial” for what is apparently the sake of pursuing a futile quest to get back to the innocence of pure mood signals.
Yeah, I agree.
Well, it would be a good thing if you’d see that the full aspects of existence that you’re interested-in are a part of a systemic process that I am not opposed to, but on the contrary, am always interested to contribute in upholding. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:09 | # You make two interesting points here. First, you feel a need to mock the “spacial reality” ... the “there” ... of “being there”. I suspect you think this is something to do with meditational practise, because I once tried (on Skype) and failed to get to the knub of the issue through your own youthful experience of that, and well remember the sarcastic intolerance with which you shut the conversation down. But, actually, one of the ways in which Heidegger influenced later thinkers was precisely to re-introduce the concept of such a space or site of disclosure. I happen to think there are interesting alternatives, but the idea of this space of “thereness” is perfectly respectable and can be got at through other means. For example ... As nature is the particular essence or defining property of substances which occupy a space in the world, so nature’s truth (alethea), to be accessible to Mind and the senses, must at least refer to space in the same sense - not physical space, of course, yet possessed of a definite depth, since truth has the possibility of being covered over by other things which, although they are closer to the immediately accessible surface, follow the general outline and lay claim to truth themselves. There is, therefore, a sense in which we can say that truth occupies its own space. It is truth’s space, and it is capable of being additionally occupied by untruth. Untruth, whilst it is an impost, is not simply a lie. It has, or also has, the general demeanour of illusion (lethe). From a certain perspective it functions very like a whole state of being (though this, of course, is a product of the perception, resulting from certain weaknesses in our ordinary waking consciousness). Untruth is perhaps better understood as the illusory content in any specific case where truth is attacked or covered over. The relation of truth to untruth correlates, therefore, with the relation of the nature of a thing to the illusion of it. We can also say, that while truth is finite in its range and scale, untruth is without upper bounds. Layer on layer of untruth can be applied, such that eventually the nature of a thing itself will become lost to view entirely under the sheer weight of contrary data, and may remain such. What, for example, do we know today of the verities and mysteries of the pre-Christian faith of the northern European tribes? All we have is some stones and mounds, and a few stubborn myths eviscerated of their meaning - along with the presumption that there could not possibly have been intellectuals in that time who also reasoned philosophically, travelling just as far by that means as we moderns today. I’ll stop there on truth’s spaciality, you will be pleased to hear. But you made a second and more substantive observation which was of interest, and it was this:
Well, I agree with you, in as much as I think I understand you. But my approach to this issue is a little different to yours, and perhaps coloured by my non-academic background. Probably unfairly in many instances, I tend to disdain the comfortable but bloodless approach to truth of what Heidegger called calculative thinking (got, actually, from the ponderous and detached method of the thinking faculty). It has a particularly pernicious effect in ontology, which should be filled with the light and certitude of (what Heidegger called) the essential thinking experience. As its recipients, we should be pulled in leaps and bounds from realisation to realisation as truths disclose. It should be a total experience, but so much of what is offered is like being bored into an early grave by the deliberations of some constipated, proto-typical German logician. That said, there has to be a relationship between philosophical propositionalism and empirical facts - and something better than the view that metaphysics ended with science. One sees in the European New Right’s rejection of American scientism a flawed preference for modes of thought which are no longer viable. The scientific exists and, like it or not, imposes certain bounds on the philosopher’s will to speculate. I said here at MR many years ago that there has to be a new synthesis, and still believe that. 13
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 23 Sep 2017 04:17 | #
You’ve begun dishonestly, strawmanning straight away, putting quotes around something that I’ve never said, “spacial reality” and then attribute motives to me, “that I feel the need to mock it.” I’ll look at the rest of this later. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Sep 2017 05:16 | # There is nothing there of importance to look at. It’s only casual observations of unexplored possibilities, none of which constitutes a live conceptual framework for me. I am just doodling. 15
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 23 Sep 2017 05:48 | #
You’ve begun dishonestly - you put quotes around things that I did not say, “spacial reality” ... and attribute psychological motives that I do not have of “feeling the need to mock” “being there.” That’s a strawman. I have spoken positively where at I’ve spoken at all of there being. I suspect you dislike it (there being) as you’ve sought to go back to the Cartesian - first to third person - starting point with “of being”
I was not thinking here of meditational practicse, but I would be impatient with any overstatement of its utility to the cause of our people’s plight, yes.
I would never mock “thereness” as a significant consideration. If the first to third person perspective on it is critiqued, it is for the sake of not getting stuck there, as it forgets the interactive, participatory process and proceeds imperviously, destructively to organic interactive processes.
Well, one can see the general outline of a group system in that.
Untrue if it does not follow the logics of meaning and action of another truth when it purports to do so.
Truth and untruth does not only correspond to natural fact, but to logics - logics of coherence, and logics of meaning and action.
I suppose this is how you try to justify to yourself having attempted to trivialize and set aside important ideas, misreading them as hostile to what you want - which is human organisms, especially Europeans, especially English, that function in their interests, to respect and protect their inherent form individually and as a part of their kin and land (without being obnoxious and affected about it).
That is why I am adamant that this platform be free of Christianity. It is, however, possible to ascertain what is, or should be worthy of consideration as sacred.
Well, I don’t have any problem with those motives, but what I am seeing is perhaps a knee jerk reaction to conceptual tools or working hypotheses. For example, when I say that the quaternary system can provide useful topoi for analysis because it is simple enough in its components to manage cross contextually and yet too complicated in its interfaces to reify, thus being amenable to adjustment and backing off where need be in praxis, for the flow and reflexivity of the social world. A working hypothesis, for example, inquiring into means to balance a quaternary system of motives that are hypothesized as being out of balance for systemic maintenance is not necessarily hostile to a close reading of individual and systemic “nature” ... and it is not necessarily clunkily oblivious.
I do not reject scientism, American or otherwise, from a perspective of the European new right - I reject scientism (bad science or misapplication of science) because it is to be rejected, and it is a typical kind of error of right wing reactionaries. Though Alain de Benoist would be drawing on some of the critical resources that I utilize, I do not accept what I’ve seen of his dismissing of the significance of biology at all. I consider biology, factual biology, vitally and essentially important to our interests and defense.
I would never suggest otherwise. I have said repeatedly that verification, including scientific method, is an integral part of sufficient inquiry.
Now we’re getting somewhere. How to do that is one of the issues we should be taking on. I have observed repeatedly that verification, including scientific method, is an integral part of a sufficient process of inquiry. That is hermeneutic process, it is integrative.
16
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 23 Sep 2017 09:57 | # Michael Ravioli has been officially banned at Counter Queering by nancy boy Greg Johnson. Lolzllulzollzzzolz 17
Posted by Nina Rosenwald, benefactor of AfD on Sat, 23 Sep 2017 16:06 | #
18
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 24 Sep 2017 16:33 | # Good performance. More than good, actually.
19
Posted by F. Petry on Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:22 | # Despite the AfD success in achieving 13% and 80 plus seats, Frauke Pety left AfD, apparently believing that they are destined to marginalization where her softer line is necessary to achieve the comprehensive success that she seeks for a German nationalist party in subsequent elections.
20
Posted by mancinblack on Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:33 | # Is this the same Frauke Petry who once said that German border guards should “use firearms if necessary” to stop illegals entering the country? Just how far to the right are the AfD intending to go, exactly? 21
Posted by Tatjana Festerling on Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:32 | # Counter-Currents interviews Tatjana Festerling. Tatjana is an anti-immigration activist born in Germany. She joined the AfD when she believed the party had legs. She became friends with Frauke Petry but, like Freda, grew disillusioned with the party and its prospects after it had become infiltrated. She doesn’t like the chances of Western Europe given the opposition to native European interests and their lack of fight and so she’s resumed her fight from Eastern Europe - Bulgaria in particular.
Post a comment:
Next entry: America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars: We don’t need their war with Iran
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:04 | #
Merkel and the “Union parties” ....unions of what?
Not a union which secures the border and sovereign national union of Germany and its peoples.
In fact, national socialism should not be the terms used where Nazism would accurately denote these terms nationalism and socialism (a common sense merging of these terms and concept) as having been shunted aside into right wing scientism (under the guise of the “free and natural individual” and folk in their will to power - i.e., imperialism/ not nationalism).