|
|
|
Stockholm terror attack: Four reported dead as hijacked truck ploughs into pedestrians  A Briton was among four killed in Stockholm terror attack
Comments:2
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 22:54 | # “though six of the eight are women.” Lulz What has that got to do with anything? 3
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 08 Apr 2017 01:23 | # Wales voted for Brexit so it necessarily follows that Leftist women on the Council wish to mitigate that disappointment by punishing the Welsh people for their “racism” by importing Third World anthropoid garbage. 4
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Apr 2017 04:19 | # If these Welsh women are anti-racist, they are liberals, they are not representing a White left. It isn’t a coincidence that Jewish interests have orchestrated the Alternative Right into arguing against “the left” and that the arbitrary upshot of these right wing sell-outs has obscured matters in such a way as to facilitate Jewish entryism; moreover, that these right wingers have led the way in quid pro quo with Zionism via Trump. The “neither left nor right thing” doesn’t wash either; that’s just a disorganized and disorganizing fall back reaction that Jewish interests will settle for once they’ve turned people off with misrepresentation of what a Left would mean for Whites and Whites can neither quite go along with typical right wing reactions nor the orchestrated reaction - the Alternative Right. 5
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:34 | # Or perhaps women are unthinking twats that shouldn’t have a say in so much as breakfast cereal ingredients. My own mother has a 150+ IQ. How many of you dumb fucks can say that? She has spent her life raising children and tending to pets. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Apr 2017 09:34 | # But nationalism isn’t left or right, Daniel. On the political compass test, for example, nationalists plot all over the place. Nationalism is a separate and distinct, non-liberal and anti-liberal politics which is not predicated on race or nation per se, but on nature and identity, which one can develop as genetic interests, authenticity, and relation (I↔We) - that’s pretty much the foundation. Neither, in the ethnic context of the mother continent, is nationalism a unionising or people-making force - native European peoples are already whole by their possession of shared distinctive genes generated on the land. Of course, the White American context of 19th century pan-European immigrationism and constitutionalism is different because the process of developing that distinctiveness is still very much in train. However, on both continents nationalism seeks to be a unifier within the, respectively, native or white demos, and it is within that strictly political context that you can argue your case. Is it a good case? Politics tends to utilitarianism first and judgemental accuracy only a generation after. If any given idea gains traction in its own time it must have some claim on virtue. Are you gaining traction? 7
Posted by Ebba Akerlund on Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:23 | #
8
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:38 | #
GW, I didn’t see this comment of yours. Let me respond to it now. Nationalism as I conceive of it holds together meaningfully thus, is correctly organized in classification - as Left Nationalist, as socially accountable groups - it holds up against our enemies and is natural. As accountable classification it is the opposite of the liberalism that you continue to try to falsely attribute to my outlook. Rather the naturalism which you hope will have things fall together is far nearer to liberalism. However, accountability does not mean that accounts have to be requested or that there cannot be not a great deal of latitude for individual nature to come to the pattern of its own accord - it only means that people are accountable in the event that they do clearly violate group (national) interests. And so, I must say that you are completely and utterly wrong and not about a trivial issue, about the most important matter of all.
I see, you are misconstruing and ignoring crucial aspects of what I am saying - I would guess that it is because the ideas that I am submitting are much better than yours and you are jealous (you persistently attack the best ideas and ignore their supporting arguments, replacing them with straw men). But ignoring things and misconstruing them doesn’t make what you are saying true and useful and what I’m saying false and unuseful.
You have not made a good case. You have made a pain of yourself in conceit - I would be gaining more traction without your obstruction. However, I have gained traction irrespective, as my view holds together cross contextually. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:16 | # I am not making a case against you, Daniel. I am simply touching the tiller of the blog from time to time, to keep statements made here connected to the general understanding of nationalists everywhere. 10
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:05 | #
There is a such thing as “Left Nationalism”, but there is no articulation of Left Ethno-nationalism, which there desperately needs to be. Especially when adding the prefix, “White”, it affords a whole new opportunity to define it according to specs suitable to our interests. The key difference from Right nationalism is that right nationalism would try to emphasize nation and its order coming about as a result of “natural fact” and thus minimize accountability - leading to its narrowing to atomization and right wing elitist irresponsibility to group/national interests as a whole; and worse, leaving it susceptible to sell out in complicity with foreign interests. The debacle with the alternative right is only a recent permutation of this. A people might be lucky for a time, come together and remain largely together anyway with the help of circumstance - an island nation, giving them some natural defense, but there is no harm in there being accountability to the nation anyway. A white ethnonationalist left has social accountability designated from the start, and as defined by ourselves need not require accounts where people are acting even with a great deal of liberty, within quite broad parameters of nationalist legitimacy. Because it has been undefined, we have the opportunity to define it as it can suit our interests; and we can maintain it as a defense against some of our greatest enemies - viz. our traitors, both elite and rank and file. That classification of ourselves as a people is the place to begin. It can always be tested against factual rigor, particularly when that criteria is established. When Otto and Kumiko said to me last night that we have to focus on our own first, that is correct, and that is what I am doing with the idea of accountable classification - working hypotheses (of our national peoplehoods) to begin. Accountable unionization once the criteria are sufficiently established. From there it has the capacity to draw group friend enemy distinctions - firstly, as I said, against our own traitors - right wing elitists and rank and file liberals who want to depict themselves as being above accountability for reasons of supposedly objective truth. That is why it is important to establish a neo logisim, if you will, of (White) left ethno nationalism. Secondly, it allows us to coordinate with other left ethno-nationalisms - e.g., left ethnonationalist Asians and Amerindios, in good faith, their knowing that we have common enemies in right wing sell outs, Jews and Muslims, along with a hopefully understood common cause to not be burdened by blacks. As left ethnonatioalists, we are not looking to lord ourselves over others, to go on imperialist campaigns, to use compradores against others or to otherwise subvert their ethnonationalism for our material exploitation. This way of organizing friend/enemy distinction may be argued on the basis of human ecology - similar as one would keep track of endangered species. Jews do not have a good track record of respecting other group interests, their human ecologies (nor scriptural intention to), just the opposite; certainly Muslims do not; blacks can’t help but impose on other group interests - hence the need for classificatory discrimination and accountability to be negotiated among the intelligentsia of our European, Asian and Amerindio allies, those who can be leaders for their sovereign groups, understanding the need to protect EGI, systemic interests and to coordinate them. Coming back to your original point, why nobody defines things in these terms, the reason is because Jews and no account right wing sell outs do not want that. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:54 | # The terms “left” and “right” are not artifacts of the blood or of Mind ... not constants of the human condition ... but labels stuck on a particular interpretation of radicalism in post-revolutionary Paris. That interpretation was, over the years, fashioned into a general scheme for reconciling as far as possible the radical individualism and social democratism which describe a world from which the aforementioned essentials have been shunted out - only to be expected, since the line of thinking runs from the failing Judaism of the late Second Temple period through Pauline Christianity to the Catholic humanism of the 12th century and finally, via the Renaissance and the English Civil Wars, to Enlightenment thinking. You and I (and, I imagine, every other thinking nationalist) can agree that this scheme quite spectacularly eschews the essential, the natural in human being. We are locked by it into a world of the notional which is anti-Nature and so anti-instinct, and which cannot but estrange us from who and what we are. Of course there are many other problems in the formative influences of our life now, some dating from earlier than Christianity. But it should be clear to us, and not a cause for disagreement, that a turn away from all this is a turn to foundation, which has its own terms and meanings which will serve us right. 12
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:14 | #
The social and national concept is a constant central concern and the left is the way we designate and organize it. Your objectivism is the way it is disorganized.
Social classification is a persistent, crucial need of the human condition - it is necessary to human sized organization, accountability, coherence, agency and warrant. The term Left has consistently underwritten in ordinary language the connotations of accountability to social unionization, with that, the capacity to discriminate against out groups and to marshal coherence, agency, accountability and warrant for members and against traitors; Left Nationalism would follow logically from that as a nationalist union, Left ethno-natonalism, a union of native nationalists or nationalists of a coherent ethnic group, and a White Left as genus European with its subgroups would then be the next logical extension - it makes persistent sense, critically important sense as you should see by how I use the terms, but which you choose to ignore. Calling ourselves Left Nationalists has thus crucial tactical sense as well, as it is recognized (by our enemies and by our own) as having social concern, having our group interests in mind while recognizing the legitimacy of the group interests of others as well, whereas the right makes sense, consistently recognizing those who persist in socially irresponsible theory and disingenuous/naive reaction.
The aforementioned individualism has been stunted out because the social ground and delimitation to which it may be accountable and be found, i.e., that which gives birth to it has been denied through rational blindness on the one hand and the disingenuous use of rules of its “pure source” against it on the other - (((making))) the enemy live by its rules in “civil rights.”
No, the essential concern is that we are being denied the crucial need to classify our people - it is being called “racism” by liberals and Jews and being called unnatural “leftism” by objectivist right wingers, such as you remain to this point. What you and other nationalists would correctly complain about is the “internationalist left”, which in the end allows Jews to be the only powerful union, and for all else is a prescription for national union crashing liberalism (and right wing, imperialist sell-outry).
That is your notion based on the Cartesian idea of the left and the social, the Cartesian divide of thinking from social and other interaction that you’ve accepted; not one corrected for speculation by hermeneutic process.
Well we should turn away from your stubborn insistence on the hand me down Cartesian understanding of the terms as you would deploy them. One can hope that people will do the right thing once you reach your foundation and destroy better, more important ideas along the way, as you inevitably do while you try to get to a point where you feel you can say, “you can do no other.” Or one can recognize that with the far more human concept of social classification, there is opportunity in the concession - a necessary concession anyway - of its slight arbitrariness, for liberation from mere facticity into agency, accountability, coherence and warrant of cause in which the human spirit is to be found - both individual and group. 13
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:47 | # I’m coming in very late to this, but I just have to say:
Yes, nationalism precedes the spectrum itself, of course. But what is important to note is which approach is best suited to assessing the day to day problems that are being faced, and which approach to implementing nationalist-orientated policies is the most effective?
It is not by coincidence that the most successful ones are somewhere in the top left quadrant of that political compass test. That is what I think people are trying to say, although no one has been able to express it in the way that I have, so far. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:32 | # Kumiko, I see today that Breitbart has a piece on an opinion poll conducted in Poland of attitudes toward immigration. Apparently, 75% are against non-European immigration, with 20% in favour of it, and 5% undecided. BB treats the 75% as a kind of victory. But to me it’s shocking that in a country as white as Poland anything like 20% - and this almost certainly includes a majority of the cognitive elites - should think that Africanisation/Arabisation is a good idea! Back in 2014 the British Attitudes Survey found that 77% of the population had a negative view of immigration, with 52% (I think it was) wanting “severe controls”. So there appears to be some correlation here, notwithstanding the much higher foreign component in the British population. But we can say with some certainty that this sort of percentage of opinion for health and normality is patently inadequate to the task of effecting change in Britain, and so may not protect the Polish people in the longer run. So is that simply because power and influence is effectively monopolised by Jewish millenarians, globalists, universalists and internationalists. Is this just a failure of political expression? Or is the failure of politics at the end of a long line of well-known, deep historical factors, the sum effect of which is to render us incapable of making the world sufficiently in our own image and for our own interests. In other words, is it a failure of formative philosophy? Another way of asking this question is: If, in the style of Richard Hernnstein’s famous motivation for writing The Bell Curve, this is just a cognitive elites problem ... the wrong race of elites, corrupt elites, “liberal” elites ... what values and interests, what common imperatives would obtain politically if these elites were brought under the will of the people? What is the will of the people in a liberal polity with liberal values and common interests and imperatives grounded in a liberal model of Man? Or a Christian model of Man. Or an economic model of Man .... an urban model ... a modernist model? The answer is that the only permanent basis on which a European people can re-establish a vivifying, secure way of life is by a systemic replacement and renewal of formative philosophy. Political change without attending to the fundamentals is akin to standing in a stream, expecting to hold fast to the same spot for eternity. 15
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Apr 2017 01:44 | # I know the question was directed at Kumiko, but it should be looked upon as a “foundational” idea that: Humans need to categorize, specifically, to render “human sized categorizations” in order to make sense of their world. That should be good news for you with your psychological penchant. I got clued onto that idea from the book “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind.”
He’s a bracket, sorry about that, but he was only adding a cognitive feature and supporting what I already recognized as the positive need for social classification by contrast to “the racist’s paradox:” The first and most important clue that I had of what was fundamental - of “foundational” importance - to our racial (and gender) defense was from a professor of Anglo-Saxon heritage, wrestling with a paradox brought on by the charge of “racism, sexism or other isms” - viz., that if you were accused of one of these isms, you could always be put “in the wrong” by the liberal accuser. Firstly, if you are accused of discriminating against people on the basis of a classification such as gender or race, and denied that, responding as a “good” liberal that you judged everyone according to their individual merit, then you could be accused of being disingenuous - of not taking into consideration the long history of discrimination against that classification; in which case you are “tacitly complicit with inveterate patterns of racism.” If you responded to this accusation of not being “progressive” enough by saying that you do take into account these social classifications and take into consideration the history of their having been discriminated against, then you are classifying and a racist by definition. Of course the best resolution is to admit to classifying and that it is a tad arbitrary, but add that it provides the means of accountability that can yield the most fair results for everyone. This professor needing to protect his position in liberal academia was not going to go the step of making that inference as I would, with me having been disgusted enough already by anti-racism so as to not care ultimately whether it would cost me my academic career - which it did (among the reasons why it galls me that you treat me and what I bring here as liberal/Jewish academic riff raff, after sacrificing myself to adapt these ideas among many others, correctly for ethnonationalist needs): There is an inference to be made that there is a positive need to render social classifications. It was supported by Lakoff, but not only by him and he does not need to be given credit for being supremely original either, only lending convenient support. There is also the more crucial, negative clue of John Locke’s notion of civil individual rights being based in his motive for foundational empiricism to say that social classifications such as “the aristocracy” were fictions of the mind without empirical bearing - he did not want for himself and other middle class people to be excluded from the finest education, hence his motivation to see the “utter fictionality” in social classification. This notion of “individual rights being empiricaly foundational” as opposed to the “fiction"of social classification becomes especially critical in a negative sense because it is at the basis of The American Constitution - thus, to question it is an ultimate taboo in the context of the most powerful, rich, opportunity promising nation that has ever existed; and can even be illegal if defied in practice (though practicing pure rights in reality is impossible). The hermeneutic turn which started in earnest with Heidegger, allowed for the liberation from the arbitrariness of mere facticity (ever shifting incoherently according to the next perceptual fact) and instead into the capacity to manage coherence and accountability - including to the alleged fictions of patterns - which of course are not really fictions; only the most disingenuous liberal would deny that race, or the English people, or the Swedish, exist; for the rest of us, we only need the working hypothesis confirmed - that social classification and discrimination is not only necessary, not only can be benign, but can be used to the very positive ends of individual and group coherence, accountability, agency and warrant in social capital and human ecology. What is necessary therefore, in answer to your question as to how to handle the disturbing news of the high number of people, Poles and native Brits, who’ve bought into a liberal view on immigration destined to destroy our native peoples is to counter them with the following - first of all, instruct the elite and powerful leaders among them as to the necessity of social classification, and not only potential benignness but also of the positive attributes of deploying social classification. Next, popularize that among the broader masses to counter the long standing Jewish and liberal conditioning against those discriminatory social classifications; finally, compel compliance of those who will not be persuaded - which is not immoral to do, as we are merely preventing them from imposing destruction upon our pattern; further, they are free to leave if they will not observe reasonable qualities and quantities of accountability to our social classification (for practicality’s sake, accountabilty requires unionization of these classifications - in and out groups; the legitimacy of which is the central function of racial maintenance against anti racism.). Thus, it is necessary to make these fundamental - foundational - ideas known, among other ideas; not to be so indignant as to deny their significance over and over and over and over again, as you have done to an idea that was ready for elaboration in 2009 (and before) and had what should have been respected as knock down supporting arguments (The White Left Imperative) no later than 2012 - to begin elaboration and promulgation. Sadly, people coming here today might think that I have not provided excellent supporting arguments to radically important ideas - simply because you ignore them and attack them for no good reason what so ever. It is an obstruction that you should discontinue; and it would be shameful to continue to aid and abet this destruction - like the best friend the Jews ever had. While the word “left” doesn’t have empirical reality any more than the name “Daniel” does, it designates a coherent pattern just as Daniel does, in fact it is remarkably consistent in making sense as I deploy it. There was/is every good reason to accept my argument , as there was/is here, for the utility of a “left” perspective as its ordinary language underwrites the all important concept of managing social unionization against liberal oppression from above and from rank and file. Another clue as to the centrality (‘foundational’ aspect, since you are into that word) of the matter of (social) classification is to be found in the concerns of “Principia Mathemetica.” Russel and Whitehead wrestled with how to resolve the liars paradox: “All Cretans are liars. I am a Cretan.” They decided that this was a violation of “logical types” - 1) The Classification 2) Its Members With Russell’s conclusion that a “class cannot be a member of itself” being admitted by him as being “the most ad hoc thing that he’d ever had to do.” - what he was being forced to admit was the limits of an empirical, in his case analytical school, bias in application to praxis (the social world). The thing to do, is to acknowledge that tinge of arbitrariness and rather than being overcome by it, to see the positive side of Godel, Heisenberg and Bohr et al. - this does not preclude verification, on the contrary, insists upon its not too infrequent necessity, but adds the opportunity in its open endedness for coherence, agency, accountability and warrant in classification. Heidegger was a little ahead of Russell and Whitehead in that hermeneutic method could negotiate these paradoxes and contradictions as Harre and Davies showed (by means of serialization, hierarchicalization, parallel entry, etc.). But Whitehead was largely there as well, when he said that “one cannot continually investigate everything (as you seem to want to do anew, starting from the day zero every time), but must work from a given state of partial knowledge.” Further, “even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.” Moreover, there is no reason to believe that “The English”, “The Natives of European Nations”, etc. are false or inadquately warranted working hypotheses that cannot be verified without having to start from the day one and being placed at the decided disadvantage of not being able to take those obviously valid working hypotheses for granted as valid - real, “ontologically grounded enough.” Again, the key is having these ideas understood by endorsement, elaboration and practical applications that powerful elites can see, understand and adopt; and to promulgate these ideas enough through the masses, whereas they have not been understood for their obfuscation by contrasting (((PC))) narratives: red capes, disingenuous reversals of terms and concepts, etc. Unfortunately, in that regard, while you have been very good in providing this forum, I’ve had to come to anticipate from you endless contentious dissimulation, straw men and obstruction otherwise, and that is why I have taken to fighting you, because I don’t believe that you can or will adjust, you will continue to disparage important ideas for whatever mistaken reason - you can’t get over your resentment of how academics have abused terms and concepts against you, so anything that even remotely reminds you of academia is tantamount to the same thing - it isn’t true that they are tantamount to the destructive ideas you resent, but even where you should adjust to that fact, it can be anticipated that you can’t or won’t - even adding the fact that these ideas can work in complement with your ontology project, and the many great ideas that you bring to bear, which is all the more reason why you should adjust - it can be expected that you will dissimulate and obstruct these important ideas in contentiousness, burying ideas which are just too important for that to be accepted. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:06 | # Daniel, One of the large jobs which remains ahead of me is to produce from the two basics of my psychology model - tri-partite cognitive structure and the ontological transit - a model of epistemology; which model I hope, but cannot yet guarantee, will underpin and make practical (ie, draw into the psychology) Heidegger’s revolutionary anti-Cartesian notion of being-there as a site or state or act of disclosure of the being of beings. I would expect that the higher characteristics of the model would include operative harmony (at least in potential), the inclusion of subject and object in the cognitive field, and wholeness. I would, therefore, expect it to add understanding of the real action of what Heidegger terms “essential thinking”, and to demonstrate why “calculative thinking” is always partial (though not necessarily reductive). Now, I mention this because such a model has the potential to resolve for Nature and discrimination, among other things; and, to put it bluntly, make redundant all the intellectual wisdom about the Naturalistic Fallacy. It would, if successful, also replace the sociological with the familial, and subjugate classification to the status of bean-counting. All that is would be emergent, and therefore “of being”. Now, I can’t say at this moment whether any of this will be concretised soon. I am not scholarly enough to do academically respectable work. I just get ideas. I am hoping to interest Otto in this one - but he may not be interested in it. We’ll have to see. In the meantime, I will do my puny best to make progress. I’d appreciate it if you would allow me the space to do so, and not endeavour to impose your own thinking on me. 17
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:53 | #
When I first ventured upon advanced studies, I thought to build a cognitive model as well. Then I came to realize that this, especially in isolation as a foundational objective, was exactly an epistomological error, not an epistomology - praxis is another matter (Tanstaafl and Carolyn Yeager will tell you that’s jargon and you will take their word for it; Jews will encourage you as such as well).
If it helps to create an outlook with tends to vivify and maintain the most vital “human sized categorization” (classification, knowingnly or not) - our human ecological systems among systems, then it can help. That would be of most interest to people, in Heidegger’s use of the term essential - inter essence - gauging the general and the particular in human sized terms - what we care most about.
This is where your “philosophy” goes beyond idiocy and becomes absolutely destructive to what is most important. This quest for absolute purity and the idea that our place among social relations and peoplehood is somehow only impure in a bad sense - that something like the natural fallacy isn’t to be warded off indeed as itself a tyranny - in another direction, but nevertheless also a vexation to human life.
As I have said before, as a rightwinger, and a lucky man, you can blind yourself to your social indebtedness, perhaps seeking to avoid accountability, and focus only on ever narrowing circles, narrowing to family then “the mind” and finally peak moments, perhaps being sufficient to deny interactive source, having already counted up enough beans for yourself. You have demonstrated a persistent terrible habit of attacking the best and most important ideas. You will never replace the need for the sociological unit of analysis nor the need for classification and under the circumstances, you can only do greatest harm before our enemies by your vain attempts to deride these ideas and others such as hermeneutics that I bring to bear as integrative. But let me tell you this, I will never allow you to plow under the sociologial unit of analysis nor the importance of classification as such. You will never make it unimportant no matter how much you ignore it and try to trivialize it.
As I said above, if it allows for a hermenteutic outlook tending to be calibrated on the individual in relation to their nation as one of their primary outlooks, then it is concretized well.
You are also not scholarly enough to recognize the difference between important ideas for racial interests and other stuff that comes out of academia.
I will not impose my thinking on you, for myself I will quietly know that your project is inadequate and do my level best to ignore it; I will do that provided that you do not barge in and try to walk over and dismiss ideas that I have brought to bear, as you have once again here. Your inability to be satisfied with what you do well (which is much) and with the idea that it could be coordinated with what I do will remain your problem - the conceits and jealousy of an arm chair philosopher. If you do barge in and try to walk over and dismiss ideas that I have brought to bear, as you have done time and again, I will defend them because they are just too important. 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:40 | #
Classifying would be tautologous. We are talking about pure animal necessity here ... ethnocentrism in action. You could appoint state apparatchiks to draw up lists if that is what you like, but the vital imperative functions regardless and on its own account. 19
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:51 | #
Social classifications are hypotheses, extremely important working hypotheses in this case, not “bean counting” and not exactly perfected, even if they could be replaced by natural “tautology.” Again, it’s your quest for purity that runs the risk of tyranny here, not my concern for agency and accountability as it recognizes (is accountable to the fact) that accounts requested can go too far.
You are talking about that alone, and that is why it is an insufficient concern for humans.
One could resort to a cartoon mischaracterization of my motives, suggesting that I threaten to appoint apparatchiks in league to quell human nature, but that would not be true. 20
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:42 | # There is what should be a very fine silver lining in that what you want to do with your ontology project as it corresponds with an ideal of mine, which is that it would not even be possible to miscegenate - that may be a pretty far-off dream, but an ideal nevertheless. That’s why I’ve asked at times, what kind of woman (genetically) is least likely to miscegenate? That does not correspond exactly with what you see as a natural objective of authentic ontology, but it is echoed somewhat in the sentiment of yours that “there can be no other”, i.e., that one could not act otherwise in authenticity. While speciation is an ideal (of mine, anyway), to where we/some of us cannot even breed with others, we do have other pressing matters that need attending to, and I would view those other matters as every bit as important, of a different, though non conflicting unit of analysis (though on the same hermeneutic pendulum for me). Furthermore, there are positive aspects to be utilized in our current, more open ended condition - aspects of accountability, agency and warrant among them. 21
Posted by Adriana Ostrowska on Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:14 | # 12 Year old Adriana Ostrowska is quite reminiscent of 11 year old Ebba Akerlund, in age, appearance, expression of youthful vivaciousness, and means of death…
Post a comment:
Next entry: The Coalburner’s Daddy: Inter-Ethnic Family Implodes
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:07 | #
After London, St Petersburg. After St Petersburg, Stockholm.
Meanwhile, Breitbart London reports:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/07/politicians-wales-transformed-worlds-first-migrant-sanctuary/
The Committee members do indeed appear to be ... Welsh!
http://senedd.assembly.wales/mgCommitteeMailingList.aspx?ID=447
... though six of the eight are women.
BB’s article helpfully provides some notion of the vox populii on the matter: