Alfred Kubin ( War), 1902
(Translated from the French by Tom Sunic.)
Modernity successfully gave birth to three major competing political doctrines; liberalism in the eighteenth century, socialism in the nineteenth century and fascism in the twentieth century. Being the last in line, fascism was also the one that disappeared most rapidly. However, the breakdown of the Soviet system has not brought to a halt socialist aspirations and even less so the ideas of communism. Liberalism, for its part, seems to be the biggest winner in this competition. In any case the principles of liberalism, spearheaded by the ideology of human rights, and thriving now within the New Class all over the globe, are today the most widespread within the framework of the process of globalization.
None of these doctrines are totally wrong. Each one of them contains some elements of truth. Let us have a rapid look at this panorama. What needs to be retained from liberalism is the following; the idea of freedom accompanied by the sense of responsibility; the rejection of rigid determinism; the importance of the notion of autonomy; the critique of statism; a certain tendency towards republicanism, anti-Jacobinism and anti-centralism. What needs to be rejected is: possessive individualism; the focus on the anthropological concept of the producer vs. consumer in which everybody searches for his best interest; the principles based on what Adam Smith called “the gift for peddling,” that is, the inclination for tradeoffs; the ideology of progress, the bourgeois spirit, the primacy of utilitarian and mercantile values; the paradigm of the market — in short, capitalism.
What needs to be retained from socialism are the following points: its critique of the logic of the capital in so far as socialism was the first to analyze each of its economic and supra-economic dimensions; the idea that society must be defined as a whole (holism, the original key-concept of sociology); the desire for enfranchisement; the notion of solidarity and the idea of social justice. What needs to be rejected is: historicism; statism; the drive toward egalitarianism and doleful hypermoralism.
From fascism what needs to be retained is the following: the affirmation of the uniqueness of identity of each people and its national culture; the sense of heroic values; the bondage between ethics and aesthetics. What needs to be rejected is: the metaphysics of subjectivity, nationalism, Social Darwinism, racism, primitive anti-feminism and the cult of the leader, and of course, again, statism.
The Interregnum
Will the fourth political theory, the one the twenty-first century so badly needs, be a radically new doctrine, or will it provide a synthesis of what was best in the preceding ones? In any case this project has been a major focus of interest of (what one calls) the “European New Right” for well over 40 years.
The twenty-first century will also be the century of the 4th Nomos of the Earth (general power configuration at the global level). The First Nomos, the one where nations lived relatively isolated from each other, came to an end with the discovery of America. The Second Nomos, embodied by the Eurocentric order of modern states (the Westphalian order), ended with the First World War. The Third Nomos was the one in place since 1945 and it shaped the Yalta regime and the Soviet-American condominium.
What will be the Fourth Nomos? That one may take on the form of a unipolar America-centric world, i.e. a vast global market, that is to say, an immense free trade space, or possibly a multi-polar world where major continental blocks, being both autonomous power actors and hubs of civilizations, play a regulatory role vis-à-vis globalization, preserving thus the diversity of lifestyles and cultures that make up the wealth of mankind.
But it may just as well be said that we have entered now World War IV. World War One (1914–18), which ended for the benefit of the City of London, had brought about the dismantlement of the Austro- Hungarian and the Ottoman empires. The two big winners of the Second World War (1939–45) were the United States and Stalinist Russia. World War III corresponded to the Cold War (1945–89). It ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet system, mainly to the advantage of Washington. World War IV began in 1991. It means a war led by the United States against the rest of the world; a multifaceted type of war, both militarily and economically; both at the financial, technological and cultural level and inseparable from the world-wide “enframing” and rationalization of everything (‘Gestell’) by boundless capital.
The evolution of warfare depends not only on technological advances in armaments, but also on the succession of political forms and institutions to which they are related. One can say that the well-defined military forms of conflict have gone through four stages in modern times: first came the war of sovereign states — as a fall-out of the birth of modern politics, so well described by Hobbes and Machiavelli. In other words back then we were witnessing the dispossession of the theological in favor of a pure political conception of the sovereign. Henceforth, wars were solely conducted for the interests of each state. These were limited wars — wars against justus hostis (“just enemy”), in which only a specific political order was defended.
In the 18th century surfaced the “democratic war” of nations, who in their turn became sovereign actors. This was also the war that included irregulars while giving birth to guerillas within the context of rising nationalism, and in which what needed to be defended was a given territory as the first priority. In the nineteenth century one could witness the rise of wars conducted in the name of humanity, i.e., wars of a moralizing and criminalizing nature, wars based on an ideology in which abstract principles were defended. This type of war signaled the return of “just war” (its first apparition could be observed during the American Civil War). The fourth form of warfare is now the war against “terror” (or “Star Wars”) — a war of asymmetric and total character.
In many aspects we have already entered the fourth dimension of warfare. Entering this fourth dimension brings us closer to the moment of truth. The question remains as to what will be the general configuration of issues in this century, the major lines of demarcation and the decisive cleavages? For the time being we still live in a kind of interregnum. Yet from now on, the essential issue needs to be addressed: the enigma of the subject in the historical process in a world dominated by Capitalism, in which Capitalism is itself subject to terrible internal contradictions, while at the same time becoming stronger and stronger day after day. Who will be the historical subject to shake things up in life now?
Being a historical subject and not an object of the history of others requires full self-awareness and awareness of how to unfold oneself towards one’s own potential. Heidegger spoke of Being (Dasein), a Being shaped by his time, waiting to unfold. But there is also a Being (Dasein) of peoples in the political sense of this term. All peoples are waiting to see the end of their alienation — as peoples. Facing the objectified forms of their work — which is represented by capital — they need to affirm themselves as historical subjects in the present age — in order to become again the subjects of their own social endeavors.
Alain de Benoist is a philosopher residing in France. His websites are: http://www.alaindebenoist.com/ and http://www.revue-elements.com/. This editoiral was originally published in Elements, Nr. 136, June 2011.
Facing the Future as a Minority
This man is advocating paganism.
Like most modern French intellectuals, he specializes in stylized gibberish. Yes, he opposes unrestricted immigration and a few other good things, but it’s not worth dealing with people like him who hate the US more than they do the Soviet Union.
Here is all you need to know about Alain de Benoist:
De Benoist has made pointed criticism of the United States: “Better to wear the helmet of a Red Army soldier,” he wrote in 1982, “than to live on a diet of hamburgers in Brooklyn.”
That’s dumb in the extreme. I don’t know why we have to endure these “Continental” philosphers.
On American Exceptionalism:
Americans have at times “theologized” their history, seeing this experiment as an instrument — maybe even the instrument — of God’s unfolding purposes. That way of thinking has been out of fashion for some time now. When it was in vogue, it was sometimes attended by a doctrine of American “exceptionalism” so exaggerated that American purposes were depicted in angelic hues, untouched by the ambiguities, corruptions, and lust for power associated with mere mortals… The caution is always in order. Those who think of themselves as angels may end up by giving themselves license to do things that are, in fact, quite beastly.
~ Richard John Neuhaus, FIRST THINGS 107 (NOVEMBER 2000)
At a town hall in Strasbourg, France, Obama stood before an audience of mostly French and German youth and admitted that the U.S. should have a greater respect for Europe.
“In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world”
… he said before offering other European critical views of his country …
“There have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”
General Observations:
America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail, it knocks over a chair.
~ Arnold Toynbee (1889 – 1975)
It was wonderful to find America, but it would have been more wonderful to miss it.
~ Mark Twain
When you’re born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you’re born in America, you get a front row seat.
~ George Carlin
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
~ Oscar Wilde
In America the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience.
~ Oscar Wilde
The thing that impresses me the most about America is the way parents obey their children.
~ King Edward VIII (1894 – 1972)
I read in the newspapers they are going to have 30 minutes of intellectual stuff on television every Monday from 7:30 to 8.00 to educate America. They couldn’t educate America if they started at 6:30!
~ Groucho Marx
America… just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.
~ Hunter S. Thompson
Perhaps because most posting here don’t understand the basic social policy implications of your own homegrown researchers or those who preceded them (not that I’m endorsing European obscurantism). I note that you aren’t paying attention to Quine and Skinner either. Is this not a sad reflection of the USA’s education system today?
There are many good Americanswho have gone unheard, when they’ve pointed out what The Bell Curve, along with earlier and later) warnings of where unbridled, naive, equalitarian meritocracy leads, but most of you don’t know when to listen, the thumbs up/down behaviour on this blog along with supporting comments is prima facie empirical evidence of that, but they have, (ironically, given Murray’s later work) been drowned out by Libertarians.
Take this on board:
The respectable epidemiological study of endogamous groups such as the Jews, is research into the behaviour of the cognitive elite in microcosm (i.e a sample), just as similar study of American Blacks is a study of the cognitive underclass in microcosm.
Therefore, an attack on ‘the Jews’ is a political attack on your own cognitive elite and ruling class per se, just as attacks on Blacks is an attack on your ‘underprivileged’.
How smart is that in an alleged democracy? Look back through history. Nations which have attacks the Jews (part of the cognitive elite) have suffered economically and politically. Why? A little careful analysis should explain, but how many people here will be capable of that?
Quoting the likes of George Carlin (who hated White people) and the drug addict Hunter Thompson doesn’t help your case, Anglo Saxon. And Groucho Marxs was not friend of Whites either. Whose side are you on?
This is not a debate about “American exceptionalism”. This is about a French intellectual that preferred the Soviet Union to any Western country – that is insane. This is represents a mind so out of touch with reality that it can be dismissed without further consideration.
You don’t have to “endure” him, you simply can stop reading him. In any event, he doesn’t “hate” the U.S. but its government and the vacuous materialist ideology it promotes and has promoted over the last century.
I’m sorry, but stating that he prefers to live in the old Soviet Union rather than the US (or any Western nation) is simply foolishness. The continental intellectuals were always flirting with communism. They let their people down. Why would we indulge the losers of history?
“…he doesn’t hate the U.S but its government…”
Wrong, Sunshine.
He said in 1982: “Better to wear the helmet of a Red Army soldier than to live on a diet of hamburgers in Brooklyn.”
Does the U.S. government live on a diet of hamburgers in Brooklyn?
I can’t stand French intellectuals, apart from the Jewish ones like Derrida whose obscurantist prose I find adorable. As far as I’m concerned, if you can understand a philosopher, he sucks. Opaqueness and ambiguity are the doorways to Truth.
Why is Jason getting negative ccomments? I don’t come here to disconnect my brain or agree with everything. Basic research reveals Jason’s concerns to be valid.
In the comment section one gets treated to an overlarge extent by always the same rather arrogant and self-important characters. I don’t mind someone like JASON SPEAKS who reveals his own intellectual niveau with a infantile remark like HE SPECIALIZES IN STYLISED GIBBERISH. But to read the same sort of nonsense repeatedly as attachment to a single article is a bit hard to swallow. It discourages serious commentators and discredits the article itself, and in consequence TOO as such. I think comments should be limited to one, maximum two per person.
I think you will find that where ‘Jason Speaks’ makes 3 or more comments it is not repetition but as rejoinders to others who are attacking his comments. No holds barred discussion is good, it motivates people to come up with new arguments and sometimes people do rethink things after reading other people’s comments.
@ michael colhaze …
I have witnessed (and experienced) the same phenomenon at other blogs or comment sections. Maybe you have too. In fact, I can recall at least two far worse transgressions. Perhaps there will be a clinical name given to the ‘condition’ in the not too distant future.
I would agree with your basic premise, though I would recommend you modify the formula. Consider envisaging an arrangement where people visiting this website are rationed to a pre-determined number of comments that extend over a fixed time period.
Nothing is foolproof, unless you wish to spend the money. But, one could contemplate limiting the number of Root Comments for each Moniker to say 40 per month and total Replies to say 60 per month.
Those who accumulate unusually high “thumbs up” versus “thumbs down” rating ratios could be awarded ‘Platinum’ status which gives them access to an additional tranche of comments for the following month, before auto resetting again.
Come to think of it, this could be used as a revenue generator! TOO could charge a small fee for ‘Gold’ status, that would enable anyone to purchase the privilege of higher comment rates (but Gold status must remain less than Platinum status, but unlike Platinum can be maintained without interruption so long as the fee is paid on, say, a quarterly basis).
The only other alternative is to keep things as they are and simply sit tight and wait until the offending people eventually give up. Those filled with negativity do tend to engage in “comment campaigns” … often pushing single issues or shadowing one or two commenters as a stalker might in real life. Weird isn’t it?
These oddballs have a psychological urge to address some internal imbalance by vainly attempting to tilt the world until everything appears upright again to them (only). Not even a nutter can keep that kind of effort up for long, although I would concede we may have to wait a couple of months before certain characters currently posting verbosely here [we currently have three, I believe] eventually keel over and drop on the floor in exasperation, before curling up in a ball while screaming [aka Jason Shrieks] for daddy Rothschild or mummy Pelosi.
You have to laugh! Hey, this short video will put a BIG smile on your face:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfOlH4LOxFw&feature=related
I think Mr. Colhaze overreacts. Colhaze writes pseudonymously, so what’s the problem? Most of the criticism is intellectually honest and not ad hominems. Anyway, if Colhaze – using a nickname – can’t endure “friendly fire”, what will happen when/if he is attacked by “enemy forces”?
You should put your ideas to the people who run Facebook (and other Social Networking sites), as it appears you’re looking to recruit friends rather than contribute/learn anything factual. Those interested in the latter tend to know it’s always an unpleasant, bruising, experience, which probably goes a long way towards explaining the dearth of people making it to Higher Education in much earlier generations? These days, with so much desperation for narcissistic supply as a function of arrested development (dysgenesis) we have more educated people but falling standards everywhere (see this and PISA. It doesn’t bode well does it? It’s happening in the UK/EU and wider, seemingly everywhere that we’ve spread ‘freedom’, so endorsing michael colhaze’s behaviour here (if my general analysis is sound) really won’t help matters, any more than promoting the self-defeating rating system will.
That truth is not a function of consensus is an important lesson which our hordes of modern day narcissistic Libertarians urgently need to learn, but can’t, as it hurts too much, and like children, they can’t/won’t cope with that. Axis II Cluster B behaviour is thus incorrigible.
‘This’ referred to the ETS material on America’s Perfect Storm.
So Michael Colhaze, you think embracing cheerleaders for the old Soviet Union is the path forward for White Advocacy? For him to have made that remark in the early 80s, at the height of the cold war, at a time when the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at Europe and the US, is beyond the pale.
He has the right to say whatever he wants (this is America, not the old Soviet Union, after all), but I’d like to see him update his old tired failed Leftist ideology.
@ Michael Colhaze
“I think comments should be limited to one, maximum two per person.
How grotesquely authoritarian, fascistic, and Hitlerite to lay down the law in this way, especially as this diktat comes from a person of Germanic origin!
“Poster, thou shalt not post more than comment! Two at the most! Or else, off with your head, sirrah!”
This was the kind of bestial authoritarianism that made Adolf Htler and his murderous crew genocide six million Jews.
Congratulations, Colhaze. Nice to know the Germans haven’t changed much since Auschwitz. Leopards don’t change their spot, I’m told, nor Germans their innate desire to stamp all over people with their jackboots.
Consider, dictatorial prat: if each poster were limited to a maximum of two comments, it would mean that the MOST BORING posters on this site who had NOTHING TO SAY would be given equal rights and rations as the MOST INTERESTING AND DYNAMIC POSTERS who are BURSTING WITH IDEAS and whose posts are BRILLIANT and GRIPPING and of UNPARALLELED INTEREST!
To think that a dynamic and interesting poster like me should be limited to two wretched posts is positively insulting.
Next you will be suggesting that Jews should be limited to only ONE comment, provided it is under three words.
Actually, I have such a comment — and the second word is “off”.
Miriam, in previous threads you have talked about subjugating the White race for Jewish ends and silencing anyone who makes any sort of anti-semitic comment. You can barely remain consistent from thread to thread.
I truly believe you have a whole host of DSM related disorders, including sociopathic tendencies, and the just-removed Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which really, with people like you in existence, you have to wonder. You and your ilk were poster-children for Nazi Youth recruitment. But, troll away.
@ David Longley …
Your conceit has clearly gotten the better of you. You have started to sound more like a Preacher in a Sect than someone with valid and intelligent viewpoints to offer.
I am quite sure there is a growing number of TOO readers who have become quite sick and tired of you lecturing others multiple times every single day, in every TOO article posted, and in response to almost every other Comment posted … and often about the “bleedin’ obvious! I have been far more tolerant than most (giving you several “Thumbs Up”) of your awkward and hectoring style, but even my patience is limited.
I think you need to contemplate the thoughts of some others who have struggled with truth and its often thankless pursuit, far more vigorously than you ever will, and without feeling the need to sound so pompous and sanctimonious when doing so. Take heed of these:
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
~ Mohandas Gandhi
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.
~ Mohandas Gandhi
And this next quote especially applies to you, “David Longley” >>
Whenever you have truth it must be given with love, or the message and the messenger will be rejected.
~ Mohandas Gandhi
Sure – see China (read their Constitution, look at the GDP growth compared to te USA debt etc as I have suggested before), and think about how years of rendering the USSR the big bad bear just out to blow us all up whilst sending their people to the GULAG (which just means prison, and the USA actually does that more than they did) helped the likes of Goldman-Sachs and other Libertarian financial services/service sectors wrap millions of people at home and abroad in crippling debt which is proving very helpful in relieving them of what little is left of their public sector (see Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain (PIGS). That’s libertarianism, tha’s freedom, and that’s what you and others are championing in your comments whether you see it or not. Most won’t see it, and won’t like it, but I am being helpful. It’s tough love, akin to wanting a child to go through cold turkey. Give it some thought and look into what I wrote about intensional opacity :-)
We are all prone to intensional opacity – we silo think, it’s how our modular brains are made.
First, DSM-IV is still very much in use (DSM-V is not operational yet and just moves the NPD behaviours elsewhere, but your point is noted). Second, psychiatric disorders are not terms of abuse or insult, they reflect human diversity which surely needs to be better managed? For example, studying Jews can be done as study of a relatively homogeneous epidemiological group because of their past high endogamy. Other groups are observed to have higher frequencies of other phenotypes, e.g. CAGn repeats on the Androgen Receptor gene in Black-Americans and risk of prostate cancer. The same goes for intelligence and some psychiatric disorders (which are far more common than many understand, se earlier links).
As I have remarked many times now (seemingly to some people’s displeasure), the problem with many posts at this site (and elsewhere) is that they entirely miss the point and just amount to abusing/bullying other people(s). Miriam K just has her own way of highlighting this sadly all too common (narcissistic/Axis II) behaviour.
For an uplifting film from Bollywood (the Indians like a good, poignant, love story), see My Name is Khan (2010) and Jaane Tu… Ya Jaane Na (2008). Genelia D’Souza’s group is worth looking into too.
It’s quite odd that Mr. Colhaze singled me out for criticism for posting on this thread (presumably prompted by my exposing Alain DeBenoist as a supporter of the Soviet Union over the United States). If Mr. Colhaze feels that the Soviet Union was a superior system (or even equal) to the US, then he can be dismissed out of hand.
It is also bizarre that of all the known multiple posters on this site,such as Sevirus, who ran a fake pro-Nazi website and linked to it over 100 times, or any of the vicious posters who make comments against MacDonald, along with all the other known trolls, he picks me, an authentic poster, to single out.
In return, he receives praise from known trolls and from those openly hostile to this site like Miriam. It paints a strange picture indeed.
Sorry, with AN infantile remark.
Too much focus on capitalism, IMHO. He sounds like a French post-Marxist (correct me if I’m wrong). I’m sure DeBenoist has made some valuable contributions, even though his ISI web citation index could be better.
Criticizing Jewish “influence” is pointless if you’re not also going to criticize modernity itself. This is why I think Kevin MacDonald’s critique of Jews and “Judeo-Leftism” falls short. It remains within the system. We have to recognize that “the facts” are irrelevant. Our fellow whites are too steeped in the ideology of liberalism and modernity for that approach to work. Populist incitement isn’t enough.
So we go live with the Amish?
The problem for me with people that bash America is that they never specify what exactly they mean. Is it the concept of multi-cultural ism or is it just a specific ethnic group that they find annoying . Or is it jealousy of another British success story? Or perhaps they are just angry that America seems to be faltering – like in the movies when the god bleeds and they realize he is just a man. At least TOO says what it means and I find that most refreshing and helpful.
The problem for those Americans who are sensitive to criticism is that far too few understand just what the United States of America actually is.
It isn’t a country. The USA is officially a CORPORATION. It is also, an extension of the British Empire being run from the City of London. New York City does NOT belong to the USA. It is actually known (to those running the show) as the United Nation’s city, or the world’s city.
And it gets worse. All US Citizens represent commodities being traded on the NY Stock Exchange. If you are a US Citizen with a Birth Certificate then this can be easily checked. The number being listed on the NYSE is the same as the one printed on the bottom RH corner of the Birth Certificate. YouTube videos exist explaining how you can check what you are worth on the NYSE. Because you are being traded, then effectively you are a SLAVE.
Do you know what it means when you see, for example, Hillary (the Witch) Clinton speaking at a podium while propped up behind, as a backdrop, you can see a large Stars & Stripes edged with Gold braid? If you don’t yet know, then you are really behind the curve and need to wake the f*ck up.
Most of what you think is America is simply one giant illusion being propagated by Manhattan and Hollywood. The USA is in truth one giant military-industrial complex, set up to serve a cabal of International Banksters. Even your political capitol is situated on land that resides OUTSIDE the United States, and is thereby immune from federal taxes: Washington DC.
The saddest part of this problem is that it often takes an Englishman, like myself, to inform Americans of their current political plight. Then I get accused of being “anti-American” … whatever the hell that means. Maybe “anti-American” is a thought crime comparable to being anti-Semitic???
I would like to give deep and very sincere thanks to Tom Sunic for translating this article and presenting here in this forum. This is an introduction of the European New Right for me. Given the comments so far it would seem this American audience is not addressing the interesting and significant talking points that Alain DeBenoist presents.
Let us start with his proposal fourth Political theory. Given the three political movements of modernity, Liberalism, Socialism, Fascism , and what should be retained and rejected in each of them, DeBenoist gives us two choices for an emerging new political theory.
1. a synthesis of what was the best in the preceding ones.
2.Creation of a radically new doctrine.
There seems to be a third choice for a fourth political theory that DeBonoist is omiting-
3.A political theory which was proposed at the outset of the modern era but for one reason or another never gained a foothold to developed.
I site two great intellects which might help us in analyzing the problem within this context. The first being Oswald Spengler especially his first chapter of the Decline of the West on consciousness and the relationship between number and direction. So I propose at the heart of the political problem is the problem of mathematics and the creation of a new number-idea. And as superbly laid out by Spengler , the problem of a new-number idea is dependent on the particular religion that the mathematics is based on. The problem is with our metaphysics or should I say Meta-mathematics on which modernity rest. I hate to say it but we are dominated by a Jewish mathematics. Therefore perhaps, at the heart of this new 4th dimension political doctrine is the metaphysical switch from cultural relativity of liberalism to a mathematical relativity in which we see the modern absolute viewpoint of mathematics in the notion that everything whatever can be expressed in a mathematical formula . The historical problem could presents itself in the question why did we end up with the a modern mathematics based in Cartesian ideas as opposed to lets say a mathematics based in Giordano Bruno’s idea.
The second thinker who I think can help steer us in a direction for positive dialogue is the German thinker Hans Blumenberg, especially his “The Legitimacy of the Modern Age”. Amazing a quick google search found no reference with the European New right with Blumenberg.
Anyway I would be open to anyone is interested in corresponding with me on this perhaps new line in attempting to give some sort of intelligent response from the US to the thinkers of the European New Right.
Interesting thoughts, TF. Do you have any references on Cartesian vs. “Brunoic” mathematics? As for Blumenberg – his ethnic background was probably not entirely German.
Tom Fallon is right. Perhaps the inchoate forms of non-Euclidean mathematics can be superimposed on the hidden variables within the space-time continuum to reveal what Heisenberg was anticipating with his more obscure works. Neo-Pro-Capitalist non-market dynamical systems have the distinct advantage of certain liabilities, that while disadvantageous in the primary sense, overwhelm the long term with a kind of super-symmetry.
I feel like a continental philosopher!
Tom Fallon: Was very interested in the comments you made regarding the misalignment of Western societies concept of number and boundary. I too so think . However I become frightened when you mention Blumenberg. About which, perhaps we may discuss.
Perhaps we may correspond?
Insanity. I love this website but every now and then they post someone who is not worth printing so that I can wad up and throw it in the trash…..Please do better.
It sounds like de Benoist rejects biologically based perspectives.
Guillaume Faye on de Benoist’s anti Americanism:-
“What needs to be rejected is: the metaphysics of subjectivity, nationalism, Social Darwinism, racism, primitive anti-feminism and the cult of the leader, and of course, again, statism.”
Rejecting racism… what does he mean by this? Are we rejecting the fact that racial differences exist and have tremendous consequences? Are we rejecting the idea that European man has many positive racial traits? Race is the most important scientific idea that has been rejected by mainstream discourse since Nuremberg 1946 – and we need to reject it more?
Race realism is not racism, and racism, is not race realism.
Race realism rightly points out that there are empirical differences between ethnic/racial groups as groups or classes. This is a statistical fact and reflects differences in gene frequencies in groups as a function of assortive mating and gene barriers.
Racism is quite different and amounts to an illegal discrimination in favour of or against an individual or group (especially vis a vis access to public resources) on the basis of their ‘protected characteristics’, i.e, because of membership of a class without due consideration to someone’s abilities, needs or entitlements under the law. Across the EU racism is illegal, race relaism is not, and whether people like it or not, Eu citizens are subject to the law. This controls the behaviour of those in public office (i.e public sector employees) whose job it is to provide public services to all EU citizens regardless of race, sex, disability etc. Presumably it is much the same in the USA?
DeBenoist is trying to avoid criticism by repudiating ‘ Social Darwinism and racism but he is throwing the baby out with the bathwater if he denies that the validity of the concept of race is crucial for nationalism.
Nationalism needs the biological concept of race ( which is quite different from racism). Nationalism without biological perspectives is not nationalism.
Buy why mention Nuremberg?; the defendants were not hanged for trying to save the white race you know. I think those who keep harking back to Nazi Germany as the epitome of nationalism are just as wrong as DeBenoist is.
Right wing European “intellectuals” like this guy are all frauds, and intellectual dishonesty seems to be their key trait; like American politicians they babble on about “capitalism,” “war,” “socialism,” etc. all the while refusing to talk about what lies at the center of all human affairs, which is racial/group identity.
It is not possible to discuss political matters without discussing who is behind them. Without the ‘who,’ the ‘what’ is meaningless. “Capitalism,” “communism,” “fascism,” and the like are all meaningless terms if we don’t talk about who these systems of government are benefitting and/or oppressing. Otherwise there is no point in talking about them.
When European rightists talk about “nations,” they speak merely of land they’re standing on. For them, France and Germany exist only as lines on a map, or maybe on a few pieces of paper they call a consitution. There is no “who” to a nation; that is, there are no people behind the nation. The nation is just an idea that needs to be maintained.
Of course, this is not true. No one claims that today’s Italians are Romans simply because they inhabit the land that was once the Roman Empire. When the European people die out, Europe will die. The land will still be there, and maybe even the national names will go on, but they will be different countries ruled by different people.
This is why the European right is misguided; they ignore the Law of Identity, which is simple logic. The same way you can’t replace every single member of The Beatles and still call it The Beatles, you can’t replace the current European ethnic majority and replace it with a completely different ethnic majority. The European right think they can be nationalists while ignoring ethnicity, without realizing that nationalism is based on ethnicity.
They do indeed, and it is simple as you say, yet people are so notoriously bad at logic that we have turned to computers and actuarial technology in place of human psychological reasoning.
This point deserves far more attention than it tends to get even though it is blindingly obvious.
Any white man who disparages capitalism is preaching the impoverishment of his people.
You are a retard. Capitalism has not helped the white man, it has only hastened his demise. Furthermore, capitalism does not exist in the real word, nor does the free market. But keep clinging to your ideology.
@ John Bonaccorsi, Phila …
Reading between your lines, I would agree with you. Having said that, I fear you are one of many careless users of the term “capitalism”.
Meanwhile, John [February 1, 2011 - 5:29 pm] posts a hostile response because he has a quite different (and equally valid) definition for ‘capitalism’.
The United States of America has been giving Capitalism a bad name ever since the onset of the so-called “Guilded Age”, the period that followed its Civil War.
What we have right now is NOT capitalism … it is Vulture Capitalism. And it is this that will destroy the White Man (and more of Earth’s eco-systems … such as the dwindling Blue Tuna population in the Mediterranean Sea) if it is not killed off, and its main beneficiaries thrown into dungeons to rot.
http://www.hermes-press.com/vulture.htm
http://www.hermes-press.com/capitalism_afford.htm
http://www.politicalbull.net/vulture_capitalism_and_more_bank_failures.html
Interesting to read my fellow Englishman, Anglo-Saxon about what constitutes the USA. A country which has, just like the institution of the Catholic Church, seen its self confidence eroded since 1965. The coincidence of 1965 is extraordinary and that’s what I think it is, a coincidence. Which is refreshing given all the tiresome conspiracy theories one is forced to plough through on these sites.
We see this queer pathology in KM himself is so much as he is old enough to have seen both these disasters unfold: the unravelling of the Church and then of his country. The West is now staring into the abyss.
The issue of confidence is crucial. The author of “Civilization” – Lord Clark (his late son Alan was a right wing conservative parliamentarian) identified confidence as the key quality crucial to the survival of a peoples. The internet might be the start. In much the same way as the Irish monasteries saved the West in the dark ages (via documented manuscripts), the answers are all here on line but editing them is a nightmare. There is just too much information and I find listening to Kevin or reading his works over and over again far more inspiring than exposure to DeBenoist’s drivel.
Sorry to be a bore but can someone please persuade KM to do True Grit? I suspect it is a subversive assault on the USA and its traditions and needs to be exposed. Nobody is doing it at the moment.
Alain DeBenoist’s critique of fascism draws heavily from Nietzsche (with the exception of feminism).
BTW, I have always considered fascism an amalgamation of the philosophies of Nietzsche and Hegel – Nietzsche’s view of society (a natural aristocracy and a herd) and Hegel’s theory of the state (a God among men).
For me Modernity is a freckin Frankenstien monster. If we were to employ Debenoist plan A in ernest and start cherry picking what to retain and what to reject from liberalism, Socialism, and Facism we may end up with a Mel Brooks “Young Frankenstien” instead of a Mary Shelly
Frankenstien , but it would be a Frankestien none the less.
The retain and reject tactic may be useful to guide some of the more half witted people ( Chad J?) through the dicourse.
There won’t be anybody picking anything if the natural disasters continue ramping up. Say, if Yellowstone blows + San Andreas fault acts up + more ‘n’ more snowstorms esp in the NE of the US + hurricanes…
Thank you Knutsson for your kind and generous question.
First in regards to Blumenberg he was half Jewish, but he completely isolated himself from the tribe and everyone else it seems, except for his wife who evidently was a uncompromising gatekeeper . Blumenberg is a huge intellect whom hopefully is finally gaining his due here in the USA. They say what Thomas Kuhn was to the US, Blumenberg was to Germany. In my eyes he will prove to be much bigger than Kuhn.
Blumenberg is one reference for the comparision between Descarte and Bruno. Blumenberg actually inserts the Cusa- Bruno axis as the initiate of modernity. To make a long story short, Modernity losses its center from that point.
A good reference for this Cusa – Bruno launching point is of course Blumenberg and Cassier who Blumenberg follows ( The Individual and the C
“Blumenberg was half Jewish, but he completely isolated himself from the tribe and everyone else it seems”
Perhaps you’re right, but the same could be said about Spinoza. Nevertheless, Spinozistic philosophy is profoundly influenced by his ethno-religious background. To my knowledge Blumenberg has been studied intens(iv)ely the last few decades – at least in Europe.
Here is some info on the German Thinker,
Hans Blumenberg finished his university entrance exam in 1939 at the Katharineum zu LübeckKatharineumThe Katharineum zu Lübeck is a humanistic gymnasium founded 1531 in the Hanseatic city Lübeck, Germany. In 2006 the 475th anniversary of this Latin school was celebrated with several events…
, as the only student receiving the grade ‘Auszeichnung’ (‘Distinguished’). But, being labelled a “Half-Jew”, the Catholic Blumenberg was barred from continuing his studies at any regular institution of learning in Germany. Instead, between 1939 and 1941 he was to pursue his studies of philosophy at the theological Universities in PaderbornUniversity of PaderbornThe University of Paderborn in Paderborn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany was founded in 1972. 14,700 students were enrolled at the university as of October 2005….
and Frankfurt, where he was forced to leave towards the end of this period. Back in Lübeck he was enrolled in the workforce at the Drägerwerk AGDrägerThe Drägerwerk AG is a German company based in Lübeck which makes breathing and protection equipment, gas detection and analysis systems, and noninvasive patient monitoring technologies. Customers include hospitals, fire departments and diving companies…
. In 1944 Blumenberg was detained in a concentration camp, but was released after the intercession of Heinrich Dräger. At the end of the war he was kept hidden by the family of his future wife Ursula. Blumenberg greatly despised the years which he claimed had been stolen from him by the Nazis. His friend Odo Marquard reports that after the war, Blumenberg slept six times a week in order to make up for lost time. Consequently, the theme of limited time as a hurdle for scholasticism recurs frequently in Part 2 of The Legitimacy of the Modern Age. After 1945 Blumenberg continued his studies of philosophy, Germanistics and classical philology at the University of HamburgUniversity of HamburgThe University of Hamburg is a university in Hamburg, Germany. It was founded on 1 April 1919 by Wilhelm Stern and others. It grew out of the previous Allgemeines Vorlesungswesen and the Kolonialinstitut as well as the Akademisches Gymnasium. There are around 38,000 students as of the start of 2006…
, and graduated in 1947 with a dissertation on the origin of the ontology of the Middle Ages, at the University of KielUniversity of KielThe University of Kiel is a university in the city of Kiel, Germany. It was founded in 1665 as the Academia Holsatorum Chiloniensis by Christian Albert, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp and has approximately 23,000 students today…
. He received the postdoctoral habilitation in 1950, with a dissertation on ‘Ontological distance’, an inquiry into the crisis of Husserl’s phenomenology. His mentor during these years was Ludwig LandgrebeLudwig LandgrebeLudwig Landgrebe was an Austrian phenomenologist and Professor of philosophy. He is the grandfather of award-winning German actor Max Landgrebe.- Life :…
. During Blumenberg’s lifetime he was a member of the Senate of the German Research FoundationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftThe Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft is an important German research funding organization and the largest such organization in Europe. The DFG supports research in science, engineering, and the humanities through a large variety of grant programmes, prizes and by funding infrastructure…
, a professor at several universities in Germany and a joint founder of the research group “Poetics and Hermeneutics”.
“As far as I’m concerned, if you can understand a philosopher, he sucks. Opaqueness and ambiguity are the doorways to Truth.”
Yet again, Miriam K pulls our collective leg! You ARE a rather tart tart.
@ Gregor
“You ARE a rather tart tart.”
I don’t mind the adjective, but why the noun?
For your information, I am a young Jewish woman, age 29, of impeccable virtue. I dress conservatively and strive my utmost at all times not to evoke the fiery lust of the male sex, in accordance with strictures found in both Torah and Talmud.
Maimonides has much to say on proper female attire and deportment. I have read his recommendations to female virtue and, I think, have fully implemented all these into my lifestyle.
You will find, if you look around you, that most Jewish women are sexually pure to an extraordinary degree. This is part of our puritanical tradition. There are of course exceptions to this rule, notably among secular left-wing Jews. These Jews are an abomination even to me.
You must understand that I am a genuine Jew — not a “satirical spoof” as has been hurtfully suggested here — and that there is a whole section of Jewry I find personally repugnant.
I refer to the irreligious Jew. The deracinated, cosmopolitan atheist Jew. The Marxist-Freudian Jew.
Such Jews I hate. Does this make me “anti-Semitic”? A self-hater?
I’m not sure. I’m confused. My daddy was a left-wing Jew, my mom a right-wing Jew. Living at home was never easy. I was torn in different drections.
I am now searching for answers to my metaphysical and political problems. That’s why I am posting on this site. I hope to find spiritual enlightenment on the Occidental Observer.
So don’t knock me. I need your help.
The internet – where men are men and the ‘women’ are also men.
@ Someday
“The internet – where men are men and the ‘women’ are also men.”
Hmmm, as Alice in Wonderland once said, “curioser and curioser.”
If I remember correctly, wasn’t it YOU, Someday, who have been “outed” as a notorious ZIONIST TROLL?
Haven’t you also been fingered as a woman trying to pass yourself off as a man?
Are you not the character referred to on another thread as “Madam Someday”?
Amazing! And here you are, a transgendered poster yourself, a woman pretending to be a man, accusing your fellow Jew (i.e., me) of being a man masquerading as a woman!
Wonders will never cease.
Frankly, Someday, I think you are being disloyal to attack me in this way. We Jews should stick together.
As Ann Coulter said (about ‘Sex and the City’) “women don’t talk like that .” A fixation on the subject of sex is a dead giveaway that you are not female. Tell me Martiam has it been a long time since you last rock’n rolled ?
Self-centred people tend to talk about themselves from their own point of view rather than about the world from
other people’s points of view. Doing more of the latter than the former requires one to have taken a few knocks. It’s a developmental/educational thing.
Is that helpful? ;-)
“the atheist, deracinated jew”
Plenty of irreligious Jews, but clearly they are not de-racinated (Podhoretz? Pinker? Polansky?–really?). It’s bizarre to me that they can still function being such cynics–both the irreligious and the ‘devout.’
The New Right in Europe has struck the opening blows.
Against Democracy and Equality
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
Against Democracy and Equality
Tomislav Sunic
Peter Lang,
1990, 196 pp.,
$39.95
In America today, those who see the fundamental problems the nation faces live almost in an intellectual vacuum. This is because the United States does not even recognize its most dangerous enemies: racial and cultural dispossession, growing hatred of our European heritage, and the fatal loss of nerve that has permitted this to happen.
When public discourse touches on these subjects at all, it is to celebrate them as signs of a new, better America. Thus, for those who see the road to the new America as the road to oblivion, it is easy to think that they are alone, and that their country faces a unique horror that no one else ever imagined or thought about.
Of course, this is not true. Against Democracy and Equality by Tomislav Sunic not only traces the distinguished history of “revolutionary conservatism” but introduces a contemporary school of European writers who are struggling to find answers to the questions that, in America, are not yet being asked. As Professor Paul Gottfried writes in the preface to this little volume, Dr. Sunic has given us the first book-length introduction in English to the European New Right.
The very title suggests how boldly the New Right is prepared to defy the most cherished liberal assumptions. If this group of thinkers can be said to have one central tenet, it is that the essential nature of man lies not in equality but in inequality. Individuals, races, cultures, and nations are different and unequal; any attempt to treat them as equals is a form of tyranny.
Thus, the thinkers of the New Right are adamantly opposed to anything that imposes a universalistic equality. For them, Communism has been the most ruthless form of egalitarian totalitarianism but, in one of their most provocative insights, they see modern Western liberalism as a form of “soft” totalitarianism that is achieving its goals without the violence of concentration camps and secret police. In its ultimate form—which we can see developing in the United States—there is no need for violent repression because each man becomes his own censor and his own jail keeper.
The most prominent leaders of the European New Right are Frenchmen. Alain de Benoist is the best known figure, along with such men as Guillaume Faye, and Julien Freund. They have been prominent since the 1970s, and have played a central role in dislodging Marxism as the unacknowledged religion of European intellectuals. In America, where their ideas are even more of an anathema than in Europe, they are studiously ignored.
Against Democracy and Equality is still in print and can be ordered directly from Peter Lang, 62 West 45th Street, New York, NY 10036.
[American Renaissance, December, 1992]
The Book might be worth reading.
Look at me! I’m a French intellectual! Courtesy of the postmodern random generator.
Textual nationalism and neocultural objectivism
The characteristic theme of de Selby’s[1] model of the capitalist paradigm of discourse is the difference between sexual identity and class. Baudrillard’s essay on textual nationalism states that the media is elitist, given that art is distinct from narrativity.
If the capitalist paradigm of discourse holds, the works of Fellini are reminiscent of Pynchon. In a sense, the characteristic theme of la Tournier’s[2] analysis of Batailleist `powerful communication’ is a self-justifying totality.
Sartre uses the term ‘the capitalist paradigm of discourse’ to denote not structuralism as such, but neostructuralism.
Allah akbar. I think Benoist is a closeted muslim. The system he describes is an Islamic Republic. Turkey will be like what he describes within a generation. It probably will take 2 generations for Western Europe to be completely Islamic, hopefully Benoist can make it to 100 and see it.
Communitarianism
That’s something for the likes of AngloSaxon and others here who he believes he speaks for, i.e those who narcissistically won’t abide being told what’s wrong with their behaviour (i.e learning).
if you can bring yourselves to read the above rather than stamping one’s psychological feet in raging Oppositional defiance, be sure to consider this from 1981, which is pretty much what the highlighted section refers to (1000x the potency of morphine).
It’s generally good to stick with ‘the obvious’ and not to go ‘beyond the information given’, unless you crave the world of Hollywood or other entertainment portals for narcissistic supply.
The New Right? Probably Trots/anarchists. Whether they ‘know/see’ it or not (see Oedipus) is quite another matter.
If you look at history many scientific and political schools of thought first appeared in France (including common-sense philosophy from Buffier). Unfortunately modern French ‘thinkers’ seem to be playing an intellectual game with ‘meaning’ rather than trying to make their meaning clear.
Sam Francis thought the DeBenoist fraction of “Nouvelle Droite” was just giving ground under state pressure; they’re emphasizing pre Christian beliefs to distance themselves from from what the state really objects to: biological perspectives.
Yes.
It (‘meaning’) is best exorcised. See Quine’s Pursuit of Truth’ and ‘From Stimulus To Science’ Those who say otherwise are best not trusted, and tend to be anarchists. Alas, they are legion.
See ‘jahiliyya’ and what’s happening in Egypt too. ;-)
David, I think if you were aware of your difficulties in interacting with other humans you could become more effective in promoting your ideas. ( Maybe taking them where they will be welcomed). So ask yourself -do I have have:-
*gaze-monitoring deficits
* apparent deafness/insensitivity to voices
* deficit in sense of personal agency/episodic memory *literalness/inability to deceive
I think you have already demonstrated:-
* deficits in interpreting others’ intentions
* deficits in appreciating shared-attention/groups
* theory of mind deficit
* pathological single-mindedness
Further reading:
THE IMPRINTED BRAIN THEORY .
Thanks for the daft assessment. I take it from this that you are not a professional in this area. Radical/Evidential Behaviourists do not believe in mind, they think of it as largely a Jewish invention, ‘strictly for the birds’ as Quine said at Skinner’s retirment.
You should take my assessment as both helpful constructive criticism and as a cue for you to do some more research before posting again on this matter.
For the record I am being highly critical of much of the behaviour at this site in its readers’/contributors’ best interests. Most here are cluelessly in the grip of the very ideology which they claim to oppose, and that ideology is mentalism/cognitivism.
If this means ruffling a few feathers so be it, it’s the sine qua non for substantive behavioural change. :-)
Well i went from being right (‘yes’) to being ‘daft’ rather quickly there!
You’re right about a lot of people here being very
mentalistic but wrong about mentalism being an epistemological misunderstanding, it is inate. Edge has a nice article online THE IMPRINTED BRAIN THEORY which I think you ought to read.
You are wasting your time here David.
Your verbal behaviour changed, i.e. it’s a behavioural matter. They were two separate occasions. Do you not notice that your behaviours change over time and place?
You must try to discriminate more. You evidently have much to learn grasshopper, especially about the woolly nature of mentalism. Why do you think 80% of modrn psychologist are female?
Dude you should seriously research what Someday’s suggested and then visit a psychotherapist that specializes in interpersonal relationships. There is a lot that can be accomplished with therapy and medicines these days.
Did Beavis and Butt-Head become role models for American youth in the 90s? It doesn’t surprise me that Mike Judge went on to direct Idiocracy!
You appear to have learned nothing. I really hope the pair of you aren’t representative of Americans today, as if you are, it sadly corroborates this bleak picture.
Do you think high and low intelligence might be innate too?
I suggest you read this and the links, carefully. Discrimination is basic to what we call intelligent behaviour.
You really ought to familiarize yourself with Christopher Badcock’s Imprinted brain theory.
To answer your question – Read Badcock’s blog post ‘Are Conservatives Really Less Intelligent–or Just More Mentalistic’
I suspect I may know a bit more about brains than Christopher Badcock who’s a sociology reader. Why might that possibly be the case do you think?
Read the link I gave you above (carefully), and see if you can learn from instruction.
@ Someday
“As Ann Coulter said (about ‘Sex and the City’) “women don’t talk like that .” A fixation on the subject of sex is a dead giveaway that you are not female. Tell me Martiam has it been a long time since you last rock’n rolled?
Someday,
As you know, there’s no way of determining the sex of any poster with any certainty. On a political site such as this, one has no motive for playing “sex games” and assuming the role of the opposite sex. If one wished to do that, one would go on “Second Life” or some appropriate sex-orientated chatroom.
On a serious political forum such as this, one has to assume that a person who takes the name “John” is male, and that someone who takes the name “Barbara” is female.
To assume the opposite — that everyone with a male name here is female and that everyone with a female name here is male — is clearly absurd. There’s no mileage in it. Cui bono?
We must therefore assume that someone who takes the female name “Miriam” has to be female, unless we can provide evidence to the contrary.
However, if you think you can relate to me better by regarding me as a male, that’s fine with me. No problem.
If, as I suspect, you are female and heterosexual, then I can well understand why a you would prefer to regard me as a male. Maybe you’re lonely. Maybe you’re hoping we could get together some time?
If, on the other hand, you are a male and homosexual, then I can also understand why you should prefer to regard me as a male.
Unfortunately, Someday, I am not a male. Nor am I homosexual. So I am afraid I cannot cater to your homosexual fantasies (assuming you’re gay) by pretending to be a male when I am not.
The only way I could relate to you, Someday, is in a heterosexual way: as a woman would relate to a man.
Unfortunately, I have heard you described as a woman on this site: as “Madam Someday.”
So, what do you want of me? To assume a lesbian personality so as to relate to you in a lesbian way?
Sorry, dear Someday. I can’t do it! I’m just a normal heterosexual female, age 29, in search of Mr Right.
(Use the reply button to keep the theads together please.)
There you go again – more sex talk – it’s a dead giveaway.
@ Someday
A fixation on the subject of sex is a dead giveaway that you are not female.”
On the contrary, dear Someday, it is women who are far more obsessed with sex than men. Men adore sex too, but men have a wide variety of interests apart from sex.
You only have to look at women’s magazines (like Cosmopilitan) to see that sex is their ONLY subject. Who reads Harlequin Romances with their sex-obsessed themes? Not men, I assure you!
Your comment is plain stupid, Someday. It is women who have sex on the brain — far more than men do.
The only men who are truly sex-obsessed are those who are hooked on internet porn.
Our chaste dear Miriam K is sex-obsessed because age 29 is getting a little looooong in the tooth to still be looking for Mr. Right. She’s hearing the first faint peals of the death knell of her ovarian function.
YOUR comment, MK, is the stupid one. It is only *barren* women (fka “old maids”) like, say, you, who have sex on the brain.
Dear Barb,
Is this bitter animosity really necessary? Strangely enough, I remain untouched and imperturbable. If all women of 29 are meant to curl and die under your cruel strictures, what hope is there for women older than me?
I bet there are quite a few older women on this site — age 30 and up — who would hardly relish being described as “old in the tooth” and “barren”.
Do tell me, darling, how old are you? Are you attractive? Do you have a nice husband to caress your long, languorous limbs under silken sheets?
For your sake, I hope you do.
I can’t believe I am sticking up for a member of the Jewish race, but nevertheless I don’t think there is anything wrong with a woman of any age “looking for Mr. Right”. I know women in their 50s who still want the right man to come along. Really.
Whew! 65 comments and I’m weary at tilting at windmills– instead of dealing with trespassers at our borders, and other solutions in the REAL WORLD…
I came here looking for an intellectual guru, a spiritual mentor: Some enlightened soul who, seeing my perplexity and lostness, would lead me out of the labyrinth of error. I have found no such rescuer so far.
I was told: “These are Christians. You will receive compassion and kindness at their hands, for the love of Jesus inspires them at all times.”
Alas, it is not so! I have been treated like a whipped dog by these goyim standard-bearers for Jesus. Abuse and withering contempt, hatred and scorn, petty persecution — this is how they treat a desperate Jewish girl who falls on her knees and entreats them, “Help me, for I am lost in the wood of darkness!”
I will not curse them. I will hold my peace. I will wait in patience until my protector comes.
Miriam, whoever told you that “These are Christians. You will receive compassion and kindness at their hands, for the love of Jesus inspires them at all times.” has obviously never heard of the Reformation. Something was lost back then and the Church of Scotland drowned a couple of woman in the Solway Firth for some theological issue, the newly minted Anglican Church was a real bitch (get it?) to traditional Anglicans of the time and the same occurred across Europe as the newly righteous broke away from the ancient church. So as a WASP all I can say is don’t get your hopes up when it come to the modern followers of Jesus. I can’t recommend a specific church for you as they are all a bit off these days although you will find some wonderful people in each. On the internet you could try Michael Hoffman who not only functions at you own high level but seems to have a grasp of the situation http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/news.html There is also http://www.catholicbook.com/ which is a bit eclectic so you might find someone there or even old Henry at http://www.savethemales.ca/ But if you hang in it will all work out.
@ Alexander
The first kind word I’ve had. Thank you, kind sir. You may not be a Christian, but you have behaved like one.
“Miriam” is a useful troll. “She” chides readers for not treating her with proper Christian charity. Note the Saul Alinsky tactic of using your opponent’s standards against them. She assumes we are all Christian and then proceeds to generate guilt based on a perverse deviant of so-called Christian ethics that demands a person or group commit suicide to uphold their principles.
Needless to say, she does not practice nor believe in any of these codes of conduct, but merely attempts to use them against us. We can learn much from trolls like this about how to treat these attacks, because they are all variants of this method.
Perhaps one method of dealing with trolls, is not to engage them in fruitless debate, but to identify the particular fallacy or deception they are employing. While somewhat clever, their repertoire is actually quite limited and once understood, their game is over.
Genes are genes. If (as it appears from all available evidence, and it’s been linked to in this blog in the past to boot) operant behaviour is largely the expression of genes, isolating oneself from a group, like sitting in a closet, won’t make an iota of difference. For some reason, this point still has not sunk in for many of those who think they understand what’s been posted here. That is a puzzle. They appear to confuse what they think, with what actually is the case about the world. It’s like someone telling you they think 2+2=5 when you’re teaching them arithmetic – you hear what they are saying, you know that they really believe it true, but they just don’t get it when you correct them. Something is missing. This is classic behaviour of narcissists and it appears to be a) increasing and b) sadly incorrigible.
I wish there weren’t so many high-powered intellectuals on this site. I don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.
That asssessment won’t get you many votes of approval Miriam. Most here seem to appreciate being told that what they already think is correct, so one might well ask if they would not be just as well off talking quietly to themselves. That seems to be the best way to read the site’s voting system. This, sadly, is a self-destructive flaw in populist, dysgenic, Libertarian Liberal-Democracy, a flaw which, throughout history, has had many, including Hitler, jettison it (see Egypt) in their nation’s longer term best interests. In a deteriorating Liberal-Democracy, the people are prone to vote for their own demise unless they vote against their status quo, which requires a critical mass of intelligence :-(.
Jason Speaks @ 5:43 am
“Miriam” is a useful troll….We can learn much from trolls like this….Perhaps one method of dealing with trolls is not to engage them in fruitless debate…blah, blah, blah…”
Point 1: A Jew who posts on this site and admits up front that she is Jewish cannot possibly be described as a “troll”. She’s just an unpopular Jew whose comments are repugnant to most people on this site, including myself. However “Miriam” is a lively poster with a sense of humor. And she is never boring or tedious — which is more than be said for many other posters on this site who are wearisome in the extreme.
Point 2: A Zionist “troll”, by definition, is a sneaky little Jew who infiltrates this site masquerading as a White Nationalist. A bit like you and your pal “Someday”. He spends his time defending Jewish interests, as you and “Someday” do, by secretly promoting the Jewish line at all times and by trying to shut down debate and put limits on free speech. How? By knocking 9-11 “conspiracy theories”, for example, and vilifying the Protocols as a “forgery” — exactly as we can expect good Jews to do.
Point 3: I regard YOU and “Someday” as the REAL threats to this website — the two most obvious Zionist trolls who have identified as such not only by me but by several other posters. Miriam is no threat at all — she’s just a hoot. A literary spoof, in all probability.
Here is what Anglo Saxon, one of the most respected posters on this site, has to say about you and your fellow Zionist troll “Someday”:
“Yes …“Someday” and “Jason Speaks” are currently the two most obvious candidates for Hasbara membership [on this site].”
See here:
Anglo Saxon @ January 21, 2011 – 11:13 am
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/01/the-smell-of-money/#comments
Satisfied, troll?
There are certainly some very upset people both reading and posting here who are desperate to hide what they don’t like. They won’t necessarily be Jewish/Zionists though.
Miriam K @ February 2, 2011 – 5:14 am
@ Alexander
The first kind word I’ve had. Thank you, kind sir. You may not be a Christian, but you have behaved like one.
Rate: Thumb up 0 / Thumb down 2
Consider the mindless stupidity of giving that totally inoffensive comment of Miriam’s TWO thumbs down!
If imbeciles like the above are to form the backbone of White Nationalism, there’s no hope for the goyim.
Anonyma. What you say about jews and trolls is true enough but I think it was Omeara who said something like while it would be convenient if it was only the Jews that were the problem, sadly all this modernism crap is really a White thing.
Alexander,
I agree with you. I have left you a longer answer on the next thread. See here:
Anonyma
February 3, 2011 – 5:18 am
@ Alexander …
I am currently working on a book that, I hope, will help shine a bright light into those dark corners where “who we are, and who ‘they’ are” have long been hidden. Obviously, I will endeavour to keep you all posted when I (at last) reach my publication date.
That appears somewhat narcissistic. Will this be yet another contribution to the shady stream of self-published intellectual pornography which just draws on oter people’s work, i.e material dredged up from sources longt hidden through politically correct ‘thumbs downs’? Much of the ‘research’ coming out today is just rehashed material from earlier in the C20th, and what many boldly claim to be publishing anew is already out there, having been published by others in other disciplines, or at the population level by Government bodies from all over the world. Many are just financially exploiting other people’s ignorance/naivety. Are you one one those?
Good luck with your book.
Ad nauseam.
David old boy. I promise to plagiarize as many of your comments as I can and squeeze them into my 2,000 pages. Then I can leave you standing (alone) in awe of your narcism: of an intellectual, physical or otherwise nature.
More abuse. What’s narcissistic (and somewhat ridiculous) is posting here anonymously whilst grandiosly asserting that you are writing a book which will reveal all. You don’t say who you are, what you base what you have to write about upon, nor do you refer to the objective world allocentrically, instead you tacitly refer to your own private universe whilst expecting others to be interested. Why? This is what I’m highlighting as narcissistic/egocentric, and you should accept that as healthy constructive criticism I suggest. Meanwhile I’m telling you something factual (allocentric), and you can’t grasp that. Do you see the difference? One would expect an engineer to be able to.
I agree with some of whate DeBenoist says, but I don’t know how successful he could be in the world of politics. He’s probably too much of an intellectual/philosopher.
Justin: In a world beyond the present suicidal course set by Big Brother ie. Zionism, democracy, diversity, etc. He would be considered a wise elder and as such would surely be selected/drafted into high office, barring any revealations of pathology…which can sometimes be expertly concealed. This is why our future leaders should be, inasmuch as possible, superstition free, stable, and well regarded by those that KNOW them. jmo
Alain DeBonoist:
I apologize for my ignorance (school dropout) but you seem to be saying that we need a new system. If this is in fact the case I agree wholeheartedly. I have been studying mans tendancy to destroy himself for years, and have come to the conclusion that its all about the struggle for personal VALUE/WORTH (Young men go to war to “prove” their manhood, etc.) Nevermind that they have not a clue what the war is actually about, and that organized war is mostly un-natural ie. the individual soldier is not actually mad at the person he kills. None the less, war tends to serve the function, albeit in an artificial way to establish the us and them/self and other paradigm which is a fundamental need of the instinct. But as I said, organized political wars is an ARTIFICIAL way of “being” The natural manifestation of the individuals need for polarity is sex. (War of the sexes) This is the way God/Nature, etc. designed us. therefore the only system that will accomplish this is Natural Polarization. ie. a recognition of Natural Law. One of the most fundamental edicts of nature is that some will win and some will lose, therefore it is futile to try to set up some scheme in which everyone wins. By allowing technology to blur the natural, instinctive, and historic value systems of men and women ie. (men thinking they are better and women thinking they are better…Natural Polarization..colloquially “the war of the sexes”) We are Allowing our destiny to be controlled by machines, thus forcing our natural instincts into un-natural paths of Artificial wars, the worship of meaningless cliches such as “equality” “democracy” or “liberal” “conservative” etc.
Simply put, forcing men and women, black and white into a box labeled “equality” is not only un-natural, it is unhealthy to the long term health of all concerned.
The only system that might work imo is a world federation of Natural Polarist Nations,
Such a system would in effect be a manifestation of the inevitable struggles between peoples in a much more sporting and healthy way. For example:
the men would run the government with the approval of women (a male and female branch of government)
male and female, black and white, young and old, gay and staight, intelligent and people like me could each have a PLACE of dignity and respect. A place for everyone and everyone in their place.
The leaders would be selected/drafted by wise elders (Successful grandmothers and grandfathers, thus taking the money and fast talk out of politics)
Small communities would still vote according to the Posse Comitatus principle
Arms-makers would be defunded thus taking away the # 1 reason for war, and individuals would settle their differences…whenever practical, in the ring. Eyeball to eyeball.
Anyway, thats about as far as I have got in my thinking and I am sure there are others with better (more feasable) plans.
But I know this, Technology and false Gods… (anything that opposes Natural Law) will be the death of not just white people, but ALL people.
PS; I meant to say UNCONTROLLED technology (technology in the hands of fools and charletons) will be the death of us.
Hello:
I find all the articles where ever in the political spectrum they come from worthy of attention.The comments are also all worthy of being read, some deserving of more intellectual attention than others, of course, but generally the site is a real alchemical cauldron of ideas . Each contribution contributing to the ever transforming brew.
I see/feel sometimes that people who write the articles/comments sometimes forget that the fire that heats the cauldron is the same for all. All of us have realized (in less or greater awareness) the unrelenting oppression of the TPTB promulgated by the most obvious arch villains (puppets, shills, barkers what have you) is a given in our present day experiencing . It is the fire of race identification.
For myself personally,I have come to see that identification as an inherent DNA triggered response . First, it is , and one can assail this premise of mine probably ad infinitum, a fear of being annihilated …my whole “bloodline” ceasing to exist. Thus, all the collective experiencing of myself, my own family, my parents, their parents back and back gone because I am Caucasian. I believe such heritage is worth something in the whole scheme of things, yet it is a transitory fear of loss.Why? Because I am ONE of many, and given the physics of this existing, one is but a drop of nourishment in the whole scheme. Yet, it is of ABSOLUTE worth as are all the other “drops”. It is amalgamation of the one by one drops that makes the sea called Caucasian. So I am not afraid of the Caucasian race disappearing.It is the fear of absolute control over it that assails my consciousness.
My DNA triggered response to this part of my fear is to read the information in this site and many others. By process of accumulated “files”, I have an abundance of fuel to feed the fire mentioned above., and sometimes, let others use it until they have become “self-reliant” in this regard. In doing so, I defy and render impotent the arch villains and their psychopathic plots of containment and annihilation. Simplistic and naive you say, perhaps. However, in my own experiencing, it is a viable operating system and IS working.. a manifestation of a fundamental law of the universal experiencing: LIKE ATTRACTS LIKE.
Thanks for allowing my rant (if you have read this far) into your experiencing.
Enjoy yourselves today
Dozt:
I agree that like attracts like…socially. and where ever men meet they tend to gravitate toward those most like themselves…If they are free to do so. That said, once they have lost that freedom of association (forced integration) they have prima facie become subservient to whatever people
/power that forced this un-natural way of being upon them. Thus, the women of said people will, as instinct requires tend to go with the more powerful entity. in other words SEXUALLY speaking, opposites attract. This is a fact that can be seen working when humans are forced to deny their sexual differences in favor of so-called gender “equality” women do not want to have sex with an equal..they want a man. If their preferred man capitulates, they will accept that one to whom he capitulated, no matter the race, political persuasion,religion, etc.
IMO like attracts like socially, but sexually opposites attract. jmo.
PS. Having sex with an “equal” is, it seems to me, why we have so much homosexuality today, (I don’t buy that homosexuality is a natural, normal behaviour and that their numbers have always been this high)
I think the opposite is true, making people act/be “equal” CAUSES homosexuality by virtue of the fact that people will inevitably seek one they percieve as opposite for a mate.
Feb. 3, 2011
Jimmy Carter being sued for “defamation of Israel” this is not a joke:
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/03/jimmy-carter-sued-for-5-million-for-criticism-of-israel/
Excerpt:
In a move that calls back to the attempt by Texas cattlemen to sue Oprah Winfrey for “defamation of beef.” an Israeli lawyer has filed a class-action lawsuit against former President Jimmy Carter, seeking $5 million in damages because his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” allegedly defamed Israel.
Now, can you understand what I am going through?
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367
What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
I seem to have lost some material so here goes again. Most of the comments here are not related to the original article. How come? Narcissisim?
DeBenoist dismisses liberalism, socialism and fascism very neatly. Too neatly. He seems to think that the WN of the future will appear without spectacular social upheavel, etc. Thus his dismissal of most of fascism’s institutions which were more or less necessary for wartime/State of Emergency, seems pretty strange. There will be no WN without Struggle and probably a lot of violence. Possibly, Whites will awaken from their thrall on Universalism, and elections and rough times will unfold and open to a WN future without war. Maybe.
But the Masculine Virtues of Fascism May be needed to defeat Liberalism. That being the case, many historically fascist institutions will manifest. Peacetime is not Wartime. And we are facing War, not Peace. Next time you need a cop, call a hippie White Nationalist.
Later I will address some fascist institutions that are worthwhile in wartime and in peacetime.
Joe Webb
Joe:
IMO there will be no WN period (with or without violence) until/unless people recognize Natural Law as a manifestation of Gods will and stop worshiping false Gods such as “democracy” “equality” “freedom” etc.
All three of these terms are entirely subjective in nature and open to interpretation…the North Koreans think they are free and in fact, have and will fight to the death to defend their definition of “freedom”
The fact is: The following three terms actually mean something: (Group, Place, Power)
Equality, democracy, and freedom are meaningless political cliches…PC code talk…etc. everyting else is “Evil speak” as described in the book “Nineteen Eighty-Four”
IMO the reason Facism failed and communism will fail is the former was TOO disrespectful of the rest of humanity and the latter is not respectful eneugh of needs of all humans for a place of their own
Someday,
I mentioned the Nuremberg Trials because that is generally when the West, as a whole, began viewing racism, nationalism, etc as something pathological and “un-Western.” The end of WW2 marked the shift in acceptable values. We are living in the shadow of Nuremberg.
I don’t think that Nuremberg was a watershed in the pathologizing of white nationalism, the die was cast long before WW2. see KM’s ‘Part II: Henry Ford and the Jewish Question’ :-
I stopped reading at this line:
“What needs to be rejected [from 'fascism'] is: the metaphysics of subjectivity, nationalism, Social Darwinism, racism, primitive anti-feminism and the cult of the leader, and of course, again, statism.”
Mr. Benoist clearly does not have a thorough understanding of National Socialism as it was expounded by Hitler and Goebbels, nor of the operation and workings of the National Socialist state, nor of the true nature of National Socialist society.
National Socialism was working just fine in Germany before war was forced on the Reich by the usual suspects.
Our intention should not be to mimic or recreate the Reich as it existed in the 30′s and 40′s. However, the National Socialist state must act as the bud for the blossoming of the new “fourth ideology” to which Mr. Benoist refers. In addition to its virtues, we have to examine and learn from the Reich’s flaws and weaknesses, as well as the flaws and weaknesses among its leadership.
I am saddened when I imagine how differently the world of today would be had there been no Second World War, or if Germany and its allies had won. The degenerate modern world that we face today is a direct result of the collapse of the National Socialist Reich in 1945!
David Longley’s comment: “That truth is not a function of consensus is an important lesson which our hordes of modern day narcissistic Libertarians urgently need to learn, but can’t, as it hurts too much, and like children, they can’t/won’t cope with that. Axis II Cluster B behaviour is thus incorrigible.”
Mr. Longley, too much information packed into too small a paragraph… heh heh heh
I know nothing about “Axis II Cluster B behaviour” nor am I interested in learning more than the largest brush strokes about it. However, your assertion “that the truth is not a function of consensus” stands stark, true and tall above the arguments used to shut you down in the early comments I have read.
Though, in my opinion, it isn’t just “narcissistic Libertarians” who need to acknowledge that essential fact, “but can’t”.
Then there’s the troubling fact some commenters here are supporting restrictions on certain people’s right to comment without limits. They are showing us all the scrawny, scaly neck of Authoritarianism that always lies behind the pomp and ceremony, bread and circuses, smoke and mirrors and myths and Monsters that make up modern America.
(Is it obvious I’m more suspicious of some of my supposed allies than I am of those who regularly challenge my misconceptions and prejudices?)
Post encyclopedias for all I care, Mr. Longley. As long as you continue to respectfully instruct and/or challenge someone, anyone.
And that goes for anyone else who may have an honest opinion or a Fact to share. Why should anyone filled with good intentions be edited or restricted simply to assuage the tender feelings of those who aren’t confident enough in their own identities, knowledge base or ideology to allow their critics (or anyone else) the freedom to express themselves in any way they choose?
Remember what Mr. Longley told us?
“Truth is not a function of consensus”.
The problem, as you rightly suggest is that this is the Amercian Way, and it’s why the Amercian Dream is now dying I suggest. See these two from ETS together.
The first, accounts I suggest, for why their promised White Paper (which was to offer solutions to the problems they spelled out in the second link back in early 2007), never materialised.
Most people here won’t get it. ETS themselves reported in 2007 that most people they surveyed didn’t get it. Watch the video. Even most bright people still don’t get it, it’s that radical. Some of us have been warning about this for a long time. It is not obvious.