David Morris has a very nice article, “The Contemporary use of Philosophy and Ideas,” on the BNP website. Much of it reflects recent blogs on this site (here and here), with a British twist. A major theme is that the British have a strong attraction to universalist abstractions, often pursued with a moral fervor.
The orthodox views held by progressives encompass Liberalism to Marxism and they believe in universals, but we believe in “particulars.” Universals are abstract terms like humanity whereas a specific people is a particular. Universalist thinking leads to intervention in the internal policies of other sovereign states as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. We particularists are concerned with our own nation and if we were to do any invading it would be to sort out the conflict within our own nation.
The progressives erect a set of idealisations – what we are becoming, what we should think and how we should behave.
Whereas it’s natural to be concerned about family, kin, ethnic group, and race, the universalist embraces abstract ideas, with no concern with how they will affect his natural interest in preserving those closest to him.
The government planned drastic financial cuts for us, but increases in overseas aid! This perverse attitude grew from the Victorian middle class influenced by evangelical Christianity, which believed it had a duty to ‘save’ unchristian natives. It became a preference over the British working class which endures today. Characteristic of this is Mrs Jellyby in Dickens’s Bleak House, whose eyes ‘had a curious habit of seeming to look a long way off, as if they could see nothing nearer than Africa’. Like the elites she neglected those around her, including notoriously her own children. Her thoughts were directed instead towards the fictitious African possession of Borrioboola Gha and her idealistic plans for its development.
This is the British equivalent of the moral fervor of their American offshoots, the Puritans, who were intent on freeing Africans by waging a Holy War on their Southern cousins (see Kevin Phillips, Cousin’s Wars). Morris sees these trends at work in contemporary British society: “the belief that we are progressing to a utopian future – The Brotherhood of Man, a classless society, etc.” It relates to ideas of “the ‘perfectibility of man’ and a supposed God-like ability to transcend nature including their own nature. It is this manifestation … that is destroying our way of life” [his emphasis].
The perfectibility of man was also fundamental to the Puritan tradition that has been so influential in American culture and politics.
The result is a failure to face reality:
Even though once luxuriant African states fall into crime and poverty, while once prosperous, economically successful Detroit descends in to crime and poverty, even hunger is there now, progressives pretend we are progressing. Even New Orleans didn’t penetrate their bubbles. They go on holiday to Jamaica where safe areas are sectioned off for tourists, but do not connect that reality with Brixton or other inner cities which are no-go areas for Whites. Even when Muslims blow up trains and there are almost weekly terror trials going on, they dream that we are all coming together. … Our cities are being colonized by people with Medieval mindsets and there are no spontaneous colonies of nice liberal progressives springing up in Nairobi and Beijing.
Exactly. While the West pursues its utopian fantasies with great moral fervor, the rest of the world continues as it has always been—except that they are now colonizing us. “Our cities are being colonized by people with Medieval mindsets and there are no spontaneous colonies of nice liberal progressives springing up in Nairobi and Beijing.”
When you invite people in, they will take territory, assert their interests, and ultimately displace you. But the utopian universalist is unable to consider the obvious practical consequences: “To think practically about this would be to reflect on what is really happening from examples and, not, like progressives and the Soviet Union, propagandise people into believing that what they wish would happen is happening. It is to consider the consequences of actions and not socially engineer people for a future utopia; it is not to pretend human nature is a social construct, but by accurate judgement of how people really behave in given situations to make wise judgements of others.”
Morris is a race realist: “Our Englishness is our essence as it is in our genes which created our culture which in turn moulds our descendants.” Unfortunately, one of the ethnic traits of a great many Englishmen and other Europeans is to be prone to moral universalism and utopian thinking. Morris is quite aware of the ability of culture to exert control over more natural emotions — a theme that fits well with contemporary psychology. Nevertheless, there are limits. Indeed, “The contemporary totalitarian elites are actively suppressing natural feelings and risking a mass break out of negative emotion” — exactly the sort of anger that is resulting in public furor over illegal immigration in America.
In other words, these attempts at erecting utopias will ultimately result in huge psychological tension as people are expected to swear allegiance to universalist abstractions even as they see their neighborhoods invaded by non-Whites, even as their jobs are outsourced to foreign countries or taken away by immigrants, and even as they see the political and cultural power of their own group declining — in a word, displacement. In these circumstances, the more selfish and particularlist emotions centered around family and ethnic group inevitably bubble to the surface to compete with the universalist abstractions. In the contemporary world these abstractions are being imposed on us by elites—including the Jewish component of the elite which manages to aggressively promote moral universalism in the Diaspora in the West while also aggressively supporting its neo-fascist ethnostate in the Middle East. Indeed, as noted previously, promoting multiculturalism as a moral imperative in Western societies (but not Israel) is reasonably seen as a Jewish ethnic strategy. No moral universalism there–just the facade.
By all accounts, particularlist anger is welling up in White Americans — especially among the middle and working class — outraged at the changes they see; they are also the ones are are more negatively affected by these upheavals. (It’s always easier for elites to pledge fealty to moral abstractions when there a no costs to them personally; they seem blissfully unaware of their ethnic costs.)
There are certainly legitimate doubts that this anger will be productively directed given the record of elites in the Republican Party. Part of what we need is an intellectual revolution that challenges the unique Western proclivity toward moral universalism and fratricidal aggression against morally defined outgroups. We’ve got to stop thinking like the Puritans and base our attitudes on a foundation that is in tune with biological reality. All the data show that multiethnic societies are prone to conflict and to less of a sense of civic responsibility, among other things.
The good news is that culture can trump biology (see also here). The conflict between the universalist strands and the particularlist strands of our ethnic nature as Westerners may be resolved if we realize the folly of a universalism that results in the dystopian nightmares we are seeing form before our eyes. Culture and our rational thought processes can indeed suppress biological urges — including our urge to wage holy war on behalf of abstract principles. And right now we have to realize that it is entirely rational to suppress our biological urge toward moral universalism. Our survival is at stake.
Facing the Future as a Minority
BNP has no problem with the “Jewish component of the elite,” nor with multiculturalism so long as the Muslim religion is excluded. BNP too “may be seen as a Jewish ethnic strategy.”
HA it is clear that elite zionist may attempt to jump on to the BNP platform as is no doubt has, how ever limited. It doesnt change the very reality of it’s platform in hopes that more ethnic “English” will in large numbers become involved while in the long run puahs the zionist thugs farr from the party.
Christianity has taken a beating here lately, but I think it is one of the cornerstones of what makes Western Civilization so great, if not the entire foundation. Thus, the greatness we are fighting to defend/protect/save is as much Christian as it is Whiteness. My take is that all of the pathologies that are being laid at the feet of Christianity can just as easily be laid at the feet of White vs. White tribalism, are White on White one-upmanship pathologies. And the White pathologies that aren’t being laid at the feet of Christianity can be laid at the feet of organized Jewish social, cultural and political well poisoning, which has additionally manifested in Leftist well poisoning due to Leftism’s formative relationship with Jewry.
Money hungry/ambitious/power mad/authoritarian/corrupt Whites will always be seducible by subversive strains of organized Jewry and/or their pathological manifestations; authentic Christians will never be, at least insofar as the Christianity that is the basis of Western Civilization has always been practiced, because that Christianity is allergic to Pharisees and their works. Many (most?) Whites are not.
Once again the article goes into JUSTIFYING White advocacy by emphasizing its destructive nature. This is very common among Euro Nationalist who continuasly need to justify themselves and their mission. Other ethnic groups around the world do not need any such justification.
Many times the arguments they bring forward to justify White advocacy are easily refutable and many times they appear incomplete or too simplistic. It usually falls into black and white analysis like we are going around the world “helping” others while neglecting ourselves, or those outsiders are bringing all kinds of “problems” to our nation. These arguments are almost always easy to refute.
I have a better argument.
Even if these foreigners bring us fortune and prosperity and peace, even if we are only concerned about ourselves and not others, even if immigration is needed by our societies and their economies, we would rather just preserve our culture and heritage like everybody else. Man does not live by bread alone.
Thats a better argument and it can’t be refuted.
Thats the reason why the BNP is losing support because how many terrorist Muslims are there in the UK? How many African cities are infected with crime? How much “aid” actually goes overseas compare to business deals for British companies under lucrative contracts?
Thats easy arguments to refute you see.
There is something special about WASPs perhaps because of the original immigants’ unusual occupational profile. There was a contrast with the white Southerners from the begining
. (from Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War)
A possible explaination: -
The South was settled from those border regions (often via Ulster) which may be why the population in the South never was big on universalism, (ie the ancestors of Southerners had undergone selection for non- universalism). The Puritan heartland of East Angia was strongly Anglo Saxon admittedly but WASP’s universalist propensities were strengthened in those going to to America. As this migration was of the economically successful it’s reasonable to speculate on an economic origin, or at least intensification, of universalism in the WASP.
This may explain why the South didn’t really believe the North would fight a war over slavery and ended up in a war they never stood a chance of winning or even forcing to a stalemate. The WASP’s universalist mindset was so alien to them that Southerners failed to grasp how slavery could be an issue for which the North would fight to the finish, no matter what it cost.
I’m sure the current generation are going to be similarly astounded at just how far the WASPs will go in acting on the logic of their universalism.
Interesting online book:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/nameless/1.shtml
“A major theme is that the British have a strong attraction to universalist abstractions, often pursued with a moral fervor.”
Norman Mailer on “WASPs” – http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/07/norman-mailer-on-wasps.html
Jewish Norman Mailer on WASPs – “Hymenopterist Mailer, who has called Wasps “the most Faustian, barbaric, draconian, progress-oriented and root-destroying people on earth…”
“The South was settled from those border regions (often via Ulster) which may be why the population in the South never was big on universalism, (ie the ancestors of Southerners had undergone selection for non- universalism).”
That’s an interesting perspective, Someday, but let’s not forget that the vast majority of white southerners didn’t own slaves (they really weren’t fighting for slavery, but their homeland), and the poor Scots-Irish of North Carolina, Kentucky (border state) and Tennessee were the least likely to own slaves. They were also among the most likely to be Union sympathizers in the south.
Someday, I meant to mention it on my previous post- Despite my reservations about the particular application to the Civil War, I agree with idea of Puritan- Celtic dichotomy in America.
Yes Jim as John S. Mosby said “a soldier fights for his country — right or wrong — he is not responsible for the political merits of the cause he fights in … The South was my country.” And the idea that the South could have imposed slavery on the North or expanded to an extent that let poor whites own slaves is absurd ( although Lincoln pretended to think that and some continue to insist that was the motivation).
Black slaves were rewarded by the largely English owners with indentured white women servants in the early years. And right to the end a Southern slave owner would defend a slave accused of raping a poor white woman or girl by claiming the victim was a prostitute or daughter of one.
Dr. MacD.’s article brings to mind a seminal work by the late, great behaviorist, B.F. Skinner, entitled Beyond Freedom and Dignity published in 1971. Skinner recognizes that Anglo Saxon/Puritan (a people from whom he is descended) utopianism as evidenced through the ideal of unfettered freedom and the dignity of all men will lead inevitably to chaos and collapse. He posits that man must now take total control of his evolution by consciously designing his entire culture so that it will shape the behavior needed for survival, but that this is hindered by the pervasive belief in autonomous man. Unfortunately, this will never happen.
“Black slaves were rewarded by the largely English owners with indentured white women servants in the early years. And right to the end a Southern slave owner would defend a slave accused of raping a poor white woman or girl by claiming the victim was a prostitute or daughter of one.”
Wow, I didn’t know that. It brings to mind one of Kevin MacDonald’s peripheral links to an article about Lincoln, though (can’t remember which one.) Lincoln apparently said that the most distasteful thing about slavery was that it was the only institution within which miscegenation took place in America.
In view of this, I tend to believe Lincoln when he said he wanted to send negroes back to africa after they were freed. His public statements concerning this certainly weren’t meant to pacify Southerners, as they would depend on blacks as cheap labor for decades after the war. I also can’t believe this notion would’ve appealed to abolitionists, either.
So what do you think? Could he have realistically accomplished this? And did John Wilkes Booth destroy a dream and, ultimately, ruin a country?
Bigmo: “we would rather just preserve our culture and heritage like everybody else…Thats a better argument and it can’t be refuted.”
I agree. But who defines what the culture and heritage is that we are trying to preserve, and its borders? The only way to re-attain the kind of localism and patriotism that would allow for this is to end the elitist-imposed open borders and anti-sovereign initiatives like NAFTA, the EU etc, and to put an end to what Pat Buchanan calls the “bloodless” elites, who see themselves as an international class, unbound by the restraints of local and even patriotic loyalties and duties. They seem to have internalized the “international Jew” mentality, which sees itself as having transcended “local-yokelism,” (except in the case of “sacred” Israel, which is the exception to the rule that, in the minds of Jewry, tacitly “proves” Jewish supremacy.)
Bush, Blair, the Obamunists, and all of their insane overreach, wars and open border policies that have been so self-destructive to the West…all are byproducts of the bloodless elite syndrome. Not surprisingly, all of these have also been “sacred Israel”-firsters, shepherded by a bodyguard of Jews.
It matters where the bloodless elites learn their poisonous “modern” attitudes because it is crucial for the survival of Western civilization to cut off their oxygen flow, which has made them drunk on their own greed, vanity, delusions of grandeur and utopian fantasies. And additionally, because most have internalized the deep-seated hostility to localism and common folk that is characteristic of diaspora organized Jewry, and its contempt for patriotism, except when it can be exploited to do Jewry’s bidding, like during the War on Terror and the Iraq war when all of a sudden the Jewish neocons started preaching “national greatness. This is similar to Bush/Cheney’s simultaneous unpatriotic open borders policies coupled with its demands that America patriotically get behind the Iraq war.
This entire self-serving, sociopathic elitist amalgamation is literally poisoning Western Civilization in service of its own narcissism. Either it dies, or Western Civilization dies.
The assertion that belief in universals inexorably leads to utopianism is false. It can be shown to be false because there have been great Western philosophers and cultural traditions that have affirmed the reality of universals while simultaneously defending the superiority of Western culture.
The denial of univerals notoriously leads to the undermining of scientific inquiry, or at least renders scientific truths relative and subjective.
While it’s true that various modern ideologies have employed univeralist concepts in the drive for utopianism – by no means can belief in univerals be shown – in all cases – to entail utopianism.
Eric Voegelin has an excellent analysis of the modern tendency towards utopianism, both in his New Science of Politics and Science, Politics, and Gnosticism. Given all the talk about the errors of modern utopianism, I’m surprised his name or work hasn’t been mentioned around here.
There have been several Western philosophers – mainly classical and medieval, who have defended the reality of universals – while simultaneously asserting the primacy of Western culture. Modern philosophers since Descartes have denied the reality of universals, yet continued to make morally universal claims, rendering their philosophy inchoreent.
That humanity would share the same essential nature, the same moral order, does not entail some man made project to re-make the world. In fact in medieval philosophy – politics is recognized for the limited endeavor that is – not some utopian fantasy project.
While I share the deep concern over the preservation of White, Western culture, I think the tendency towards reductionist theories of truth is fallacious. That is – denying the reality of universals and reducing the meaning of truth to ‘what’s good for whites’. So apparently should adopt some form of relativism despite the fact that relativism is philosophically self-refuting. Or, per Tom Sunic, advocate polytheism over Christianity, despite the fact that it less rationally defensible.
And just to note – Voegelin has an excellent analysis of Puritan utopianism in his New Science of Politics.
More whining. Please, now we’re going to put a spin on being Loosers!
“Oh we’re loosers, but only because we have such big hearts”
Moral Universalism is bullshit. It’s a good excuse to watch Whites wilt, wither, and die.
It isn’t Moral Universalism that shuts you up when you see a nigger cut in line and say nothing.
It isn’t Moral Universalism that keeps you from taking to the street with a sign “Stop All Immigration”.
It’s fear. Simple. Straighforward. Fear.
I know KM hates Paul Gottfried, but boy, every time Paul talks, listening makes you feel good. KM is indeed an “over the top” critic of the Jewish people. Yet he underperforms when it comes to first hand knowledge. As Gottfied points out in his latest on Taki’s Mag: COURAGE. We don’t have it, and we don’t know what it means.
So let me pitch in.
Courage is not clinging to guns.
Sitting in a tank turet.
Bombing from an A-10.
Courage is when you face your foe, and don’t flinch. When you don’t strike first, because you quiver. When you don’t need preemption, because you know you will fight if you need to.
Courage is when you get over scapegoating, and start being civil while engaged in civics.
Courage is to stop looking for excuses for weakness, and accepting those which just so happen to nicely assuage any psychological tension.
I’ll see courage from KM, when he admits to knowing far less about Jews than he claims, opens up the debate a little, but still sticks to his guns.
It’s spelled losers, RabidFoamingAtTheMouthJew.
“Courage is when you face your foe, and don’t flinch. When you don’t strike first, because you quiver. When you don’t need preemption, because you know you will fight if you need to.
Courage is when you get over scapegoating, and start being civil while engaged in civics.
Courage is to stop looking for excuses for weakness, and accepting those which just so happen to nicely assuage any psychological tension.”
Does this remind anyone else of the sermon given by the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz?
“Courage is when you face your foe, and don’t flinch. When you don’t strike first, because you quiver. When you don’t need preemption, because you know you will fight if you need to.
Courage is when you get over scapegoating, and start being civil while engaged in civics.
Courage is to stop looking for excuses for weakness, and accepting those which just so happen to nicely assuage any psychological tension. ”
Does this remind anyone else of the sermon given by the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz?
Eric Voegelin Biography:
What is important and very clear is that Voegelin’s two other books, also in German, did not satisfy the Nazis who submerged Austria into the Third Reich in 1938. Hitler’s idea of eliminating the so-called “inferior and non-Aryan” people was based, according to Race and State (1933) and The Idea of Race in the History of Ideas (1933), on specious 19th-century sources. Voegelin’s contempt for the very idea of a “Master race” led him to the conclusion that no just government can be based on anything but universal humanity.
“Universal humanity”. In other words, Voegelin was a utopian. A super-liberal anti-”racist”.
AJ says: “I know KM hates Paul Gottfried”
How do you “know” this? MacDonald treats Gottfried’s arguments with respect.
Courage is when you pull into the synagogue parking lot with a nice big “Trotsky was as bad as Hitler” bumper sticker on your car.
@Severus
Hitler had no problem with the idea of destroying the Polish people, eliminating their intelligencia, resettling Germans in their territory, and utilizing the remnant as a helot class. What of the other European peoples who inhabited the lebenschraum he coveted?
“Racial affirmation is not the destruction of others.”
I think you are somehow confusing Jared Taylor with Adolph Hitler.
Trotsky was as bad as Hitler?
I don’t think so. Just factually wrong.
Pol Pot? Sure. Stalin? Sure. Mao? Sure.
But just because Trotsky was Jewish, doesn’t mean he was as bad as Hitler.
Kevin,
“Whereas it’s natural to be concerned about family, kin, ethnic group, and race, the universalist embraces abstract ideas, with no concern with how they will affect his natural interest in preserving those closest to him.”
It’s a mistake to reduce this down to moral universalism is bad, and then champion moral particularism. That’s either a bit too reactionary or not conceptually precise — the critique of abstractionism is much more on the mark. The West has always had a strong universalistic aspect, as with the East and the Muslim middle East, and so on. Form this we can infer that moral universalism is one aspect of High Culture.
Refer here:
“Shall I tell you, Roman, what cause it was that so exalted your labours, what it was that nursed your glory to such a height of fame that it has put rein and bridle on the world? God, wishing to bring into partnership peoples of different speech and realms of discordant manners, determined that all the civilised world should be harnessed to one
ruling power … The untroubled harmony of human union wins his favour for the world; by division it drives Him away, with cruel warfare it makes Him wroth; it satisfies Him with the offering of peace and holds Him fast with quietness and brotherly love. [Prudentius. Against Symmachus 2.583-597]
From: “The Roman State and Genetic Pacification,” 2009
http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/~harpend/readings/Genetic_Pacification_Frost.pdf
And here:
“..Confucianism that dominated the minds of the Chinese for almost 2,000 years. It is the acceptance, or not, of this culture that separated the Chinese and the Others, or the ‘barbarians’. Furthermore, culturalism did not regard the boundary between the Chinese and barbarians as static or fixed. Once the ‘barbarians’ adopted Chinese culture, they became Chinese, and vice versa.6 In defining the Chinese relationship with the ‘barbarians’, culturalism adopted a view of China-centric universalism (Tianxia zhuyi). Such a view firstly envisaged a hierarchical world system with China sitting at the center.”
Nationalism, Internationalism and Chinese Foreign Policy, 2005. p.37
http://www.irchina.org/en/pdf/czm2.pdf
Are you familiar with Haidts’ work?
Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H . (2003). Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds.
http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/moraljudgment.html
Let me quote from: Haidt and Graham, 2009. Planet of the Durkheimians, Where Community, Authority, and Sacredness are Foundations of Morality:
“The analysis of such transitions was the life-work of Ferdinand Tönnies (2001/1887), who saw this process unfolding in 19th-century Europe. Tönnies referred to the traditional pattern of social relations as “Gemeinschaft,” which is usually translated as “community.” Gemeinschaft relationships rest on the three pillars (whether real or imagined) of shared blood, shared place, and shared mind or belief. The prototype of Gemeinschaft is the family, and the family (particularly the patriarchal family) is easily scaled up to create larger Gemeinschaft institutions such as the Catholic Church or the feudal system. Tönnies labeled the new, more impersonal kind of relationship “Gesellschaft,” which is usually translated as “society” or “civil society.” Gesellschaft is what happens when the social restraints of community are weakened, mid-level institutions are eliminated, and people are largely free to pursue their own goals as they see fit. Gesellschaft relationships are “characterized by a high degree of individualism, impersonality, [and] contractualism, and [they proceed] from volition or sheer interest rather than from the complex of affective states, habits, and traditions that underlies Gemeinschaft” (Nisbet, 1993, p. 74.)
Modern social scientists, who are likely to feel repugnance toward concepts such as patriarchy and feudalism, may find themselves equating Gemeinschaft with oppression and Gesellschaft with equality, freedom and progress. Yet even if you are a proud Gesellschafter, devoted to the scientific study of how to structure society, the legal system, and the family to improve the lives of individuals, you might soon discover that there is a dark side to Gesellschaft. That is what happened to Emile Durkheim. Durkheim was politically liberal (Coser, 1977), but he spent his career investigating the importance of some rather conservative and system-justifying ideas.”
Let me note this in the news:
“But even though the People’s Republic may have become more attractive for some authoritarian rulers, only a few see it as a model. Beijing has already installed more than 500 Confucius Institutes around the world, in hopes of promoting what it views as China’s cultural superiority.”
From: “China’s Soft Power Is a Threat to the West”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708645-2,00.html
Moral (in the sense of L. moralis — proper ways of society) universalism is normal. Moral particularism is not something most people will accept. The issue really is what type of universalism. Like Salter’s universal nationalism, our ideal is a moral order based on local community or, Gemeinschaft. Global communities. There is nothing ununiversal about that — it’s just not abstract. Somehow, I have my family and others have theirs, yet there are common laws we both follow. This is just scaled up. The problem isn’t the moral universalism, per se, it’s the social universalism that comes from hyper abstraction. Obviously Christianity is morally universal. But it’s not necessarily socially universal. It’s agnostic. Confucianism, with it’s filial piety, is a little less agnostic, but equally moral universal.
I think the issue here is to articulate a moral universalism, where social particularism is a moral imperative. Or conceptually distinguish between global morality and local morality.
Is AJ now opening the door to racial epithets? I thought KM wanted to avoid that sort of thing. I’m pretty sure AJ has been a net beneficiary of that policy.
Tanstaafl,
I’m familiar with Voegelin’s work, not internet summaries of his work. And in his work, he does not promote utopianism and ‘universal humanity’. You could have done better than a little 15 second internet search.
Look just because Auster likes Voegelin doesn’t mean you have to dislike Voegelin
Though it is disturbing that Voegelin stayed completely silent on the Jewish issue, despite being well acquainted with the Jewish involvement in many 20th century revolutionary movements.
It is indeed disturbing that Voegelin stayed silent on the JQ, especially considering his eminence.
But the Jews did not leave him alone. Moses Hadas, for instance, thought the whole notion of modern gnosticism as “implicitly anti-semitic”–meaning, of course, that perspicuous readers of Voegelin were free to wonder how the sort of activites documented by KMD in Culture of Critique might themselves partake of the the “gnostic” aberration.
Voegelin well worth reading and pondering–no one is perfect.
“It is indeed disturbing that Voegelin stayed silent on the JQ, especially considering his eminence.”
Do you guys ever read the literature out there.
http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/hoffmann94.pdf
The question of nationalism and cultural continuance is complex and not exactly reducible to meddling joos. Kevin’s steeped in evolutionary thinking, so that shapes this perspective — but the issue is, in my view, much more complicated.
Any thoughts on E. Michael Jones’ ‘The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit”? I’ve always wanted to order it but it’s expensive.
Jones is the greatest Catholic alive. Don’t be cheap.
@Severus
I’m going by Irving’s *Hitler’s War*.
Just a little correction. The article sited at the beginning is not on the BNP’s website but one called “yourbnp” which was set up by the BNP’s disgruntled ex-webmaster Simon Bennett.
Angry Jew says:
“Trotsky was as bad as Hitler?
I don’t think so. Just factually wrong.
Pol Pot? Sure. Stalin? Sure. Mao? Sure.
But just because Trotsky was Jewish, doesn’t mean he was as bad as Hitler.”
Hitler wasn’t that bad, as Severus pointed out. It was a peaceful occupation for the Europpean peoples. When the Germans took food from villagers, they gave money or something back in return.
Severus said “John,
I have a good essay written by a German man on the Polish issue. Please see:
http://www.virtualseverussnape.org/?p=4719
And here is a terrific essay on the “exhuberant” Purebloods who nearly soiled themselves with excitement at the time of the Bolshevik invasion of Poland:
http://www.virtualseverussnape.org/?p=4643
SS
Great reading. Your last article spells out in greater detail some of what I read in Anatol Lieven’s book The Baltic Revolution (1993). The Purebloods welcomed the Soviets with flowers against the wishes of the Lithuanians and were among the secret police too, all before Hitler invaded. Thousands were deported. Lithuanians don’t forget. How do you forget something like that? Especially when here in the West they always make the Europeans, or other peoples into the bad guy. Two sides to every story, and your articles fill in the misses pieces. Thanks.
As a Brit, I can say I would never fight in the British army. I’d only fight for Aryans, to protect Aryans and to keep White homelands pure. British guys die every month in Afghan, and for what ? They fight to protect oil pipelines and the heroin drug trade – some say, and at the same time, immigrants are pouring into their working-class communities! You’d have to be exceptionally dumb to join the British army.
I believe it was this type of thinking that lead Britain and the United States into World War II. I also believe “Moral Universalism”, at least as we know, has its roots in Christianity.
“Moral Universalism”, at least as we know [it], has its roots in Christianity’.
There is evidence for that
Ambrose (337 – 340) said
but things were more complicated.
The Roman State and Genetic Pacification
Chuck–thanks for the link. It is, however irrelevant to my comment, which dealt with Voegelin’s failure to confront the JQ, which incidentally is not at all reducible to the claim that all problems can be reducible to the Jews! Why the red herring? Got something to hide?
Cicatrizatic–by all means, read Jones. He is a good researcher and a courageous man. You will learn a lot.
“Chuck–which incidentally is not at all reducible to the claim that all problems can be reducible to the Jews”
Point taken. Nothing to hide.
Someday says:
[paper on The Roman State and Genetic Pacification]
Yes, I think this is very plausible. It doesn’t really go far enough, however. The genetic modifications to the White race that have ensued (and are ensuing, since it is an ongoing project) as a consequence of the development of the technologies of state go far beyond just breeding a more submissive, less violent citizen. After the Roman period, for example, and as detailed by Dr. MacDonald, the Catholic Church set about breeding out ethnocentrism among Whites by prohibiting consanguineous marriage among them to an ever greater degree. This happens because the state (or its co-regents, such as the Church in the Middle Ages) always desires to make loyalty to itself paramount. To do that efficiency demands that it must destroy potential rival centers of power such as the family or race. This kind of unofficial eugenics program — or dysgenics, depending on your point of view — has been a recurrent theme in governing institutions all over the world, from ancient times right up to today.
Not really covered in the paper is the great growth in conformity fostered by the apparatus of state. The state, through an intricate system of rewards and punishments, and through its “educational” systems of indoctrination, exerts a tremendous selection pressure on the populace that favors those who can conform their thinking to officially approved channels. The most noteworthy theme of states as they have become elaborated in the modern era has been to try to extend its control even over the thoughts of its citizens. And this is not just the result of Jewish machinations, of course. This has happened in technological states everywhere, from Nazi Germany to Bolshevik Russia and Communist China, to the USA and Europe right now.
It’s not the propensity of Whites to engage in moral crusades that is the problem, nor is their propensity to engage in utopian fantasies the source of the trouble. After all, many would consider saving the White race to be a kind of moral crusade, and the establishment of an explicitly White homeland to be a utopian fantasy. Moral crusades and utopian fantasies only become hurtful when they are combined with a mania for egalitarianism. Dr. MacDonald doesn’t stress this because it doesn’t fit very well with his theories, as the White mania for egalitarianism predates the movements he talks about in The Culture of Critique by many centuries, and indeed, was a necessary precondition for it. Without it, Jews would never have been regarded as the equals of Whites or admitted to their societies, and their critiques would have fallen on deaf ears. Likewise, the White fascination with egalitarianism is a precondition for its moral universalism, since it is necessary for it to imagine that other races are like themselves. Without this, moral universalism makes no sense.
There are many reasons for the increasing prominence of egalitarianism in White societies through the centuries. It can be found as a relatively minor theme even at the very beginning, before the advent of Chrisitianity, in ancient Athens and old Rome. It was there in the citizenship and government of Athens. Caesar Augustus was careful to call himself primus inter pares, first among equals, lest the illusion of equality be too brazenly outraged, and a revolution triggered. In the Empire, Roman citizenship itself was another manifestation of this. In attempting to knit together diverse peoples to make a functional whole, the Empire became the first “proposition nation”. It is also likely true that one of the reasons that Christianity eventually triumphed was because it appealed to this fascination Whites have with the idea of equality. If the low-born or poor could never be equal to the noble or rich in this life, Christ flattered their vanity by assuring them they were already equal to them in his sight. Still present, though now held captive by the Catholic Church in this modified form all through the Middle Ages, egalitarianism broke out again into the secular world during the American Revolution, and a few years later, with great virulence this time, during the French Revolution. The Abolitionists of Civil War-era America were also a manifestation of it. They were the cultural forerunners of today’s anti-racist Whites; just as blind, just as suicidal, just as crazy. True believers in the sole-Jewish-cause hypothesis will, of course, advise us that Christianity was, itself, a Jewish racial plot against Whites; and that Jews, working through their front group the Freemasons, were the fatal source of the infection that triggered the French and American Revolutions. It is certainly true that Jews and Jewish ideas have been influential in White societies out of all proportion to their percentage of the population. Yet, it seems equally certain that without a pre-existing deep attachment to the notion of equality on the part of Whites, none of these events could have happened.
It can’t be doubted that in recent years – the last century or so – Jews have played upon these innate egalitarian sympathies of Whites for their own racial benefit. But other developments have been just as important, if not more so. The explosive growth of technology has, on balance, served to level the biological differences between races, and even the sexes. Men and women, negroes, Jews, and Whites, all have access to the same body of techniques. Anyone can drive a car, use a computer, fly a plane, or fire an M-16. At the same time, the much-lamented death of God has left a spiritual void in White culture that many Whites have attempted to fill with fanatic devotion to egalitarianism. Like a river shifting its bed, their spiritual energies have, with the state’s encouragement, all come together to flow into the idea of human equality. Egalitarianism has become a kind of secular church with its own pantheon of saints and martyrs. Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and now even Barack Obama, have all attained mythic status among a large segment of Whites. Whites who don’t bow down and grovel before these minor deities of egalitarianism are depicted as racists in thrall to the Satan-figure Adolf Hitler, who rounds out the demonology of this ersatz religion. It also must be appreciated that, for various reasons, many of them systemic in nature, the full weight of “progress” has been focused behind advancing egalitarianism. Some of these are market-driven, since generally speaking, products that can be used by all, without any special abilities or training, have a better chance of making more money than those sold into a restricted market. This isn’t a plot, it’s just an economic fact of life. The prominence of negroes in professional sports and popular music, or of Jews in mass media, academia, and finance, which is probably ultimately based in biological differences, has also had the perverse result of making these alien races seem more equal to Whites than they actually are.
But what is the solution? Though the implementation is difficult, in concept, it’s quite simple. Reshape the world in such a way as to destroy the pleasant fantasy of racial egalitarianism that so captivates the White psyche. Smash the glass, wake up the sleeper. Therefore, what is needed is not “progress”, but regress. The terrain of this struggle must be changed so that the biological differences between the races are once again made more important in societal interactions, not less. Even the biological differences between individuals of the same race must be made more important, just as they once were, since only in this way will a new leadership emerge. This likely will entail much blood and destruction, but it must be understood that only such a radical transformation will have a chance of succeeding. Yet once this is accomplished and made a permanent state of affairs, the problem will solve itself. It will disappear of its own accord.
Horse manure. These universalist tendencies somehow never managed to bring more than a trickle of non-whites into Britain until just recently. It’s control of the media and thus control of the government. They don’t appeal to your “attraction to universalist abstractions” they put a gun to your head and make you conform. The poorer the product the harder the pitch, and multiculturalism is the hardest pitched product in history. They wouldn’t need a tenth of the laws they have put on the books to enforce it if this “attraction to universalist abstractions” had any real traction among the population. Naked POWER in the hands of white-hating neo-Marxist racists assisted by hate-filled minorities and a crooked business class that would do anything for money, up to and including committing genocide against their own people and nation, that’s the problem.
People seem to be trying to put “moral universalism” in a particular frame — as the people saying it is from Christian roots. What Moral universalism means is NOT any particular set of maxims or principles of moral behavior in particular — just that we try to find and operate by universal moral principles. We try to find the truth, and construct principles of behavior from it.
Moral Universalism in OUR HANDS is actually the best thing there is! When WE and OUR interests are seen as a universal moral good, for example! If we saw morality in this way (as I show it in my book) then all our problems would be quickly solved by those willing to stand up for universal moral ideals.
One good example of this is Raymond Cattel’s “BEYONDISM” books and ideas. These constitute morality from the principles of science, from the truths about this world. All religion is attempts at moral universals and even eugenics without the benefit of modern science. All morality, all religion is like alchemy in this respect — moving inthe right direction, but woefully inadequate because of LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.
My people are being destroyed before my eyes because of a LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. If we knew truth, and used it to form our ideals and our moral universals (such as the differences between races and the different destinies of peoples), we would be SAVED. Truth is the armor of moral universalists — that is why freedom is so vital to us alone in the world,adn why we invented it.
One of the slogans of Ulster Protestantism to defy the united Ireland project was that “home rule” (early Irish independence movement objective) equated to “Rome rule”. The American situation is presently interesting in that the very bogeyman scenario of Ulster style Protestantism has come to pass in the USA. Your country no longer enjoys ‘home rule’ but has become controlled by a foreign power and its interests.
Protestantism is a failed project in the USA and in resisting ‘Rome rule’ it has facilitated rule by Israel.