White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:28 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:Note to self:

Diversity+Proximity=War
Tribalism+Proximity=War
"War is the health of the State", said Randolph Bourne who I believe understood the topic rather well.

The modern state is not served by any tribal sentiment beyond some light, unreal form of nationalism as that would counter the primal goals of a state in terms of being an actor on a global stage. This leads to the natural and logical friction between various forms of tribalism and nationalism versus expanding federalism and globalism.

While it's tempting to support the birth of the supra-state, which would need multiculturalism, mixing of identities and diversity as its life blood, it's important to understand the levels of control and violence connected with those kind of super-structures. Once that principle is understood, a world order based on mutually assured destruction and local prolonged regime change missions with all the increasing, raw violence erupting at the urban level around the world can also become way better understood.

All the above would need a lot more fleshing out of course. But I think this line of reasoning is unavoidable. And assuming one arrives at the conclusion in a similar way, there's simply no reasonable future conceivable without going beyond the concepts of states and supra-states. The identity wars between tribal and global ideologies is something that is sentimentally very much invested in by so many, also because any nationalist sentiment would flip as easily between tribe and globalist state without actual reason to do so, that real change here cannot be envisioned before the blinders would come off first.

As for any post-state situation, a lot could be written and thought about. There are, I believe, a few possibilities.

Tenver-
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:24 am

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Tenver- » Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:21 pm

Please do not consider your superiority a function of the color of your skin or your own deeds in this world.

The rich and etablished needs to stay together to keep the mass of poor people on the other side, so they can take advantage of them and stay rich. This is how nature works.

Who will over time be eliminated from society and who will grow in society, depends on the degree of social relevance you have in your society. Not on skin color, not on what traces of "race" you have in you.

The individual matters nothing in world, neither does a single generation.

Based on this, it is clear that Europe as well as other rich places in the world needs to quarantine the poor so as not to allow the social structure within their society to be disrupted while allowing the picking of useful people.

Over time, the skin color will likely be mixed. Again, to consider it merely a matter of "race" seems an ancient proposal.

The strong can only stay strong by having a weak "force" to make pawns of. Therefore, if one eliminates the poor from the world, one does in the same swoop eliminate the rich. Therefore, it is not in the interest of the rich to eliminate the poor - only to keep the poor as they are, poor and hungry (and thus willing to work). This does not matter if their skin or "race" is one or the other.

So in sum, what matters much more than skin and race for the future of Europe (and the West, as it is referred to in the thread) is not the danger of mixing skin colors/races, but the danger of letting poor people in on a powerful, social structure, no matter whether they are people from the outside OR people from the inside. Yes, in the future there may even be a stricter internal eugenics in terms of allowing people to breed etc., deporting people because they are not deemed worthy etc. Perhaps, even a high form of "moral killing", that is eliminating the bad products of society, of the sake of the future society (the ruling class/caste). These things are not likely to be based on skin color, but some form of social value, whatever that is (what you would normally call "social class" etc.).

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by jupiviv » Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:18 pm

Ah, a new member whose first post is in *this* thread. Surely he has much wisdom to share with us...let us find out!
Tenver- wrote:The rich and etablished needs to stay together to keep the mass of poor people on the other side, so they can take advantage of them and stay rich. This is how nature works.
I see the merit in your argument. Nature does work that way because it is natural, but is nature absolute? Call me an idealist, but I think a better way lies in creating a society where both the rich and the poor exist and get involved in internal and external conflicts due to countless causes most of which have nothing to do with their relationship with each other. In fact, this seems to have been the norm throughout human history. Surely tradition has some value, even when it defies nature?
Who will over time be eliminated from society and who will grow in society, depends on the degree of social relevance you have in your society. Not on skin color, not on what traces of "race" you have in you.
Yes, and those who have social relevance within society must stay together to ensure that their social relevance does end up causing their survival.
The individual matters nothing in world, neither does a single generation.
Well put. Only the solar system matters. Constellations have *some* value, but the Milky Way can frankly go fuck itself. Those with orbital relevance should ensure that those without it are kept irrelevant but nonetheless alive, since wiping out the latter would spell doom for the former as well. Like it or not, that's how nature works.
So in sum, what matters much more than skin and race for the future of Europe (and the West, as it is referred to in the thread) is not the danger of mixing skin colors/races, but the danger of letting poor people in on a powerful, social structure, no matter whether they are people from the outside OR people from the inside. Yes, in the future there may even be a stricter internal eugenics in terms of allowing people to breed etc., deporting people because they are not deemed worthy etc. Perhaps, even a high form of "moral killing", that is eliminating the bad products of society, of the sake of the future society (the ruling class/caste). These things are not likely to be based on skin color, but some form of social value, whatever that is (what you would normally call "social class" etc.).
Discrimination based on skin colour is both immoral and stupid. It is the baddest of the bad-bad ideas still extant in western society along with sexism. I predict that in the future ruling class men who discriminate against ruling class women shall be subjected to a painless procedure of castration in public, in order to promote and encourage the social value of ruling class gender equality. I also predict that ruling class women will play a major role in suppressing revolts, due to their ability as women to convince the men of the oppressed classes (who will be the vast majority of active dissenters) that their poverty, genetic inadequacy and adherence to sexist ideas of male superiority are all inextricably linked, thus devastating their morale and resigning them to their respective fates.

I know this all might sound a little but controversial to others, but me and Tenver- can write about things like eugenics and moral killing in an equanimous style and that means that we are enlightened, which in turn means we are right.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:41 am

I have a great admiration for Red Ice Radio. Here is a discourse which I find interesting for a number of reasons. The message I think is absolutely critical for whites wherever they may be located. It is strange to me that I have come to see things in this way and I still don't know what to make of it. But I keep returning to it. It is imperative to dig down into cultural identity, genetic identity, spiritual identity, and religious identity and pull out of it again that which can really be said to be 'ours'.

I admire that she identifies the alphabet-soup of sexual orientations as 'perversions' (LGTB) and this is my thought as well. It is absolutely imperative to become an active agent of a counter-current in regard to these perversions of thought that are insisted upon and which tool of enforcement is shaming and blaming.
Jupi wrote:Why do you always focus on cultural rather than familial dysfunction, with solutions coming in the form of going back to vaguely defined cultural roots rather than traditional family structure? Even in your critique of myself and other misled young minds, the emphasis seems to be on cultural conflict/disconnect rather than bad parenting/genes. One does wonder.
I do not think that the cultural roots that I would define are at all 'vague', quite the opposite. But keep in mind that if I define 'identity' as a necessary project --- and I mean quite exclusively White identity, European identity and an exclusionary decisiveness which will deliberately unsettle those who cannot make this identification --- and one that will necessarily involve the will. Therefor it seems to me that not only must one make efforts to reach out via rhetorical speech (as in Lana's YouTube vid) and influence on that level, one has to follow it up with the structure in ideas that can support the will. But the will to 'identify' and the will to turn against what operates against it is something unique. Once the will becomes active in relation to the identity-project I would define, and once the intellectual base has been established/reestablished, a great deal of power will be generated. That power is undeniably frightening. It is not without ramifications.

I think you have made mention of something that is very vital, I mean in relation to a European and pan-European identity project. The family and how it is viewed and understood. Obviously, one has to bring into focus what has operated against 'the family'. I do not see this as a simple topic by any means. But you will have to understand as well that my experience is completely American. I can give you a sense where I have gleaned some of my present ideas about how social (and family) break-down has occurred by mentioning E Michael Jones. There are two areas of relevance and one is the destruction of the ethnic neighborhood through top-down social engineering (in the aftermath of the Second War) and the other is the manipulation of culture through the controlled manipulation of desire: Libido Dominandi.

As it pertains to 'Europe' and Europeans in their far-flung diaspora it is crucial that people 'come back into themselves' (what I term 'coming back into the body'). As one does that one will necessarily have to make very many different definitions. Because the turn is rational, intellectual, cutting, far-seeing, and involved in meta-political and meta-spiritual notions. Along with that are the offensive definitions against all that keeps one from this 'return to the body': the return to the self, the return to power and to the claim of what is valuable and important.

I think that what has been unleashed (if you will permit the term) against pan-European culture has been a deliberate psychological undermining project. I think Lana alludes to it nicely. If such a 'project' is real, it is quite obvious that it has been aimed at the destablilization of the family, and related to that are many other factors such as Marxian feminism, the inculcation of sexual perversion and license, and numerous other factors. How do you see it? And what is going on in your domain of concern? (And what is you name BTW?)
______________________

Ortega y Gasset wrote:
  • "Professional noisemakers of every class will always prefer the anarchy of intoxication of the mystics to the clear and ordered intelligence of the priests, that is, of the Church. I regret at not being able to join them in this preference either. I am prevented by a matter of truthfulness. It is this: I think that any theology transmits to us much more of God, greater insights and ideas about divinity, than the combined ecstasies of all the mystics; because, instead of approaching the ecstatic skeptically, we must take the mystic at his word, accept what he brings us from his transcendental immersions, and then see if what he offers us is worth while. The truth is that, after we accompany him on his sublime voyage, what he succeeds in communicating to us is a thing of little consequence. I think that the European soul is approaching a new experience of God and new inquiries into that most important of all realities. I doubt very much, however, if the enrichment of our ideas about divine matters will emerge from the mystic's subterranean roads rather than from the luminous paths of discursive thought. Theology---not ecstasy!"
The cultural renewal, as I see things, has to involve a review of the early history of Europe and of Catholicism/Christianity. The interesting thing about Lana and her husband (Red Ice Radio) is that they have both been quite on the pagan side of things and perhaps still are. But as they are growing and developing they seem to recognize that the definition of Christian categories is essential. Even on Counter-Currents (Greg Johnson's project) where Johnson himself is anti-Christian largely, and certainly antisemitic openly, many of his readers are Christian and Catholic but attempting to define a platform that will, inevitably, define a reclaiming project within America itself. (It is not a forum exactly but the daily posts allow for comments and I have gleaned this from reading the comments.)

A strong Catholic identity, when Catholicism is practiced, is intimately and profoundly connected to strengthening the family and also protecting the members of the family. Since I am very interested in the developing 'identity' movements in Europe now (and to a limited extent in America) my attention turns to theological definitions. Theology is entirely a European category of concern obviously!

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:11 am

The idea of some European and pan-European identity remains to me always a bit of a hi-jack and full of self-contradictions.

We have for example one more recent distinct, actual and current Europeanism (see Habermas & Derrida) where it would be the secularization, statism, some socialist leaning free-market skepticism and "welfarism" forming all the obvious hallmarks. Economically we have here at the center the Scandinavian and Rhine models.

But this is still in many ways the opposite from the various "identity" projects and yet as "accomplishment" invoked in part just the same inside the various identity campaigns. That's why it's confusing and not just to me. I think it's too easy to trot out these terms as self-evident.

What is more often used for the various "pan-European restoration projects" are references to the Carolingian Empire (itself an attempted resurrection of revival of the Western Roman Empire), the administrative Holy Roman empire or Habsburg houses and of course the Latin Church as institute and seat of the 16h century schism with the birth of Protestantism which fueled especially the Europeanism as described earlier above, confusingly enough.

Here then the problem with the terms emerges: European identity becomes quickly "whatever you want to make it mean". To include for example the Latin Church would mean to exclude the "Protestant" era industrialization period and current secular models of freedom and tolerance. To exclude this, it forces one to embrace older empirical, often more administrative constructs around the various bloodlines.

Also people living inside Europe have generally a bit more trouble thinking in terms of any European identity. They are really more focused on national models, also in the "New Right". At best nations in clumps of two or three. As the last century with the largest civil wars on one continent ever seen on this planet should demonstrate: there is no actual meaningful European identity. Well, aside from the various post-war projects.

We could still invoke, as some do:Judeo-Christian ethics, which might have become mythologized to some degree and my favorite topic: the political bondage called Atlanticism.

Atlanticism looks to me like an actual identity and mythology project as direct result of the aftermath of the Great Wars on the European continent. It's this project I'd prefer to discuss more closely. But interestingly enough it's the various nationalistic "New Right" movements which have been so far without exception highly critical of NATO and the bonds with the United States. And it's that very conflict which interests me a lot. It seems that for the sake of identity the nation-state is being elevated, as a multi-polar model against a more unifying pan-continent, pan-nation identity, in present or past.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by jupiviv » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:17 am

Santiago Odo wrote:I do not think that the cultural roots that I would define are at all 'vague', quite the opposite. But keep in mind that if I define 'identity' as a necessary project --- and I mean quite exclusively White identity, European identity and an exclusionary decisiveness which will deliberately unsettle those who cannot make this identification --- and one that will necessarily involve the will.
"White identity, European identity" is indeed pretty vague. The reason it has gained prominence recently is due to outrage over irresponsible immigration policies, but a single issue cannot create a paradigm. The only known pan-European cultural entity is thr EU, and even there the "culture" is not some noumenal "root" but a very recent state of affairs heavily connected to historical-material conditions.

It is also unrelated to perceptions about family. The nuclear family is a by-product of the industrial age. For most of human history, the extended family was the norm pretty much everywhere. It has no special connection to Europe.

But even disregarding that, you haven't answered my question. Culture is an ever-changing abstraction which if anything adapts to the needs and desires of the family unit. Functional families don't pop out when the surrounding culture is changed from A to B after clearing out all the hidden evil forces at work. So again, why all this effort put into these cultural fantasies about both yourself and others, when the alternative is so much more accessible, tangible and homely? If you truly wanted to return to your roots, you wouldn't even be *here*. You'd be educating your son, fucking your wife, playing chess with your dad or getting nagged by your mom.

PS - I saw about 5 minutes of one of those videos, and it seems they are pretty standard alt-right-inclined conservative agitprop. Have a wild guess at the difference in the probability of your wank fodder's husband getting stabbed by a Muslim, and him getting divorce raped by her if/when she finds a better (higher earning/less cucky) man.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:37 pm

It is true that 'white identity' and 'whiteness' is hard to define when put under pressure. Yet it can be done. But I do not see the roots of European culture as being vague, and that is what you asked about. I think you are very wrong if you attempt to assert that Europe does not have 'roots'. I am not talking about 'pan-European entities' but rather the sources which have fed European culture and which are still very much there, recoverable. These are consitent and identifiable though at the level of national identity, or perhaps one can say the use of that material, there is difference and distinction.

The 'Migrant Crisis', from my POV, is hard to assess and I am chary to do so unless I were able to go myself and see what is going on. But my impression is that there is moral confusion in Europe among Europeans as to how to relate to this influx (or invasion). Therefor, the 'crisis' seems to reveal more the crisis within Europeans and I suspect this is because of the efforts to weaken and subvert strong self-identity, strong policy of self-protection. However, I am aware that there are perceptual wars and ideological wars going on and that I have to rely on what I can gather from the opinions of others about these issues. It seems wise to me to apply 'media studies' caution to the heated opinions one receives. So, in relation to all these hot questions my position is to remain undecided. But I do admit to being moved --- and I notice the nostalgic content in it --- by the sense of something valuable crumbling. And I think that is a sentiment that one can notice functioning widely.

You asked why I do not focus on the family or disfunction in the family. I do not have a specific answer because it is not a specific concern of mine. I would certainly say that I think the family, the nuclear and the extended family, has certainly come under pressure and the effects have not been good. It is true that the extended familiy is a world-wide social norm.

I do not see culture as an 'abstraction'. Perhaps you can describe why you would use those terms? I remember that you said that culture is 'banal' and I am certain that I disagree with you. The rest of your statement in your second-to-last paragraph I do not understand. The best I could say is that if the family ---extended and nuclear --- is weakened it is certainly not a good sign. It will have bad effects.

I think I understand why you might call identity projects based in 'whiteness' 'white identity' or Europeanness to be 'fantasy-projects' and I do not hold that view against you. I would imagine that the idea of such a project would be somewhat threatening to you given your own cultural location. Your position is fairly common and not just among those who come from a different racial stock. It is common among many Europeans. But that is really the issue: fostering that identity. To foster it, to make it strong and effective requires a fairly radical revisionism. I say this from my own experience. Because I see the 'project' of 'identity' and empowerment as one of education and exchange of perspective I choose to put my energy there.

I think you are wrong about E Michael Jones. His perspective is not precisely 'Alt-Right' and though he is conservative in certain senses some of his ideas about the intervention of intelligence agencies in social engineering projects does not fit the standard mould. And that is why I find him interesting. You make snap decisions when you shouldn't and your resentment tinges those snap judgments. What is more radical about E Michael Jones is his Catholicism as the base of his view of American events. I do agree that there is something like 'agitprop' floating around out there (though I would not use that imprecise term) but E Michael Jones does not fall in that category.

But Lana and her videos, those are different. They are rhetorical constructs beyond any doubt. Because I like her and admire her cockiness, which has a youthful even immature aspect, I pay attention to her and their project: it is a husband and wife team that runs Red Ice. I see them as developing and maturing rapidy and I think they represent a new voice that will become better known and more widely circulated.

Your PS paragraph is unintelligible to me.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:59 pm

Diebert wrote:Here then the problem with the terms emerges: European identity becomes quickly "whatever you want to make it mean"
With emphasis on 'making' as willing, insisting, creating: a creative choice if in the best of all possible worlds.

Yet that is an important aspect of the issue. First, I do not disagree with you about the difficulty of establishing and defining a European identity (and I have not been in Europe for many years and I live in S. America). I think 'White identity' is similarly difficult. But that is exactly what is being attempted. And if one recognizes in that a specific 'will', and if it is will that determines 'what one means', then the project can be seen as developing the will to make the definition. Jupikins used the term 'fantasy project' and I would not shy away from what that terms means. Fantasy and idealism can function together. True, to say 'fantasy project' is to say in fact unreal fantasy (or destructive hallucination). And I think it is clear that there is a dangerous aspect to what is developing in the 'identity movement'. It is unstable in certain manifestations. And then there is of course the antisemitic factor which is undeniably present and the focus on race and racialism.

But lets turn it into a question: 'What do I want to make it mean?' (What does anyone want to make things mean...) That is a good question. Any project or plan I might develop will be nothing less that a 'wanting' and I must have defined the meaning that I desire to want. A great deal hinges in this, as I have come to see things. You start by defining the meanings and then decide what you desire to want.

But I think it is fair to point out, in any case to suggest, that there is a great deal that rears up to oppose 'wanting' and 'defining meanings' of the sort that would foster and fuel 'identity' as I am defining it, or as it is being defined. And isn't this counter-wanting, this opposition, similarly random? It had itself to be determined by some 'wanting' and the working of meanings. I am not sure if I am making myself clear. The social standard of 'normalcy' in our present stands opposed to the specificity of 'white identity' and will toss up many different obstructing arguments. To come to the definition requires jumping inner hurdles as well. It is not easy. There is a will to defeat that identity and it is strong indeed. And in that sense *they* are imposing a specific will (whatever they want to mean). I. Think you yourself would find it quite impossible to state openly, for example:
  • I am a white Eurocentric and I am commited to this as a spiritual, philsophical, religious and cultural project. Oppose me and I will destroy you.
I have a feeling that if the 'identity' that I feel attracted to (and I do admit to this) becomes more common and more empowered that it will happen, rather quickly, that people throw off the imposed restraints that Bowden speaks of: the undercutting of self-identity, the deliberate weaking of assertiveness. The surrender of will before others or before sentimental abstractions.

But to make the definition requires an antagonist, and this is problematic for obvious reasons.

At best I can only say that as I understand it, and the degree that I spiritually share a link to it, this 'identity project' is just developing, is immature and not fully thought-through.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:25 pm

One interesting aspect of the developing project of 'Identitarianism' of this white and European sort is that it is very new and very fresh as an idea. To define a 'counter-current' to the present establishment is a big part of its self-definition. But too there are numerous 'definitions' that move around inside of it. One of the senses I have had about it, and this is one of the senses I had when I looked into more hard-core antisemitism of the European, Canadian and American skinhead variety, is simply that it is reaction of the most basic sort. But it does not always understand what it is reacting to. I see it therefor as a reaction 'of the body'. It is arising within the political body and among disparate people in different regions and countries.

'Atlanticism' because it is tied to an American-directed political propaganda effort would certainly not fly very well in most Alt-Right or Nouvelle Droite circles. That would be the stuff of standard conservatism or cuckservatism as it has been called. My understanding is that among those who are developing counter-narratives in Europe that there is a certain suspicion of the Americanopolis. And because there is such a flurry of revisionist history and the sending-up of counter-narratives to the WW2 aftermath, Atlanticism of that sort could not get off the ground.

Again and though it is unquestionably problematic, I do not see the definition that you suggested of 'Europeanism' as quite hitting the mark, at least in terms of what seems to be developing. I think that the reason why this is so is because the European is frightened of thinking in more stark racialist terms. And perhaps with good reasons. Yet I can also see that in the aftermath of WW2 there seems to have been a concerted effort --- psychological, propagandistic --- to attack such identity based in race and to associate such identification with nazism. My experience in merely presenting the arguments of the identitarian right and the racialist right on the forum I recently mentioned immediately brought forth a violence of argumentation against any possibility of establishing race as a valid category. For these people, I noticed, they come forward militantly with an array of arguments, soaked in guilt and blame, that denies that a white race even exists. Basically, they work as hard as they can to to undermine and to disestablish any identity founded within that. Shame, ridicule, mocking, and comparison to a Nazi is the tool that they use, and it is effective to a definite extent.

According to Guillaume Faye --- an interesting intellect but odd for various reasons --- it will take a crisis of some extent in Europe to precipitate the conditions for a harsher European identity to form. So, his vision requires a crisis.

In America itself the problem is definitely difficult. The notion of 'Americanism' is so tied up with postwar propaganda narratives, and the 'racial blending project' so advanced and so established in most people's minds that to imagine a reversal, or second-thoughts, and then imagining the validation of re-segregation even of a 'lite' variety, is nearly inconceivable. But it is not at all impossible. My own view begins with an untenable premise. It is that the 'white race' and the 'black race' are fundamentally incompatable. Yet I did not form this because of 'malice' or race-hatred. I came to it more as an intellectual grasp of (what I think is) reality. And my understanding certainly extends from my grasp of the American Civil War and the destruction of the South: a proto-enterprise which has come to define the American (Yankee) North. Yet what is intensely problematic in arriving at this negative view of the hot-headed but cooly-calculating (and highly competent) Northerner is that this definition must necessarily turn against the very concept of 'Americanism' and thus of the Americanopolis. And such a position immediately leads one into all manner of different 'revisionisms'. (And that is why E Michael Jones' work is in my view highly relevant).

So, I would tend to agree that the 'ra-ra' attitude about 'accomplishment' --- European or American, colonial and post-colonial --- is a fraught territory. If I am to celebrate Europe, the European races, or whiteness, what exactly am I crowing about? That is why, in my own case, I keep returning, with some discomfort, to Bowden's rhetorical implorations. (The full speech, given to an American audience, is here. And I find it quite interesting that Bowden refers to himself as a 'mediumistic speaker' who, according to him, does not know what he is going to say until just a second before the word arrives.)

I have another, I think interesting but yet problematic, observation about Latino culture and the culture of Meso-America which is, undeniably, 'conquering' or at least infiltrating America. Part of my own position of developing intolerance is based in this. There were individuals in American government immediately after the 2nd war who warned about the inadvisability of allowing immigration from Mesoamerica. The argument being racialist in essence, Yankee fundamentally I suppose, that Mesoamericans would corrupt American institutions and dilute the culture responsible for constructing America. Years ago this argument would have appalled me. Now, after living for a length of time in Latin America --- Mexico, Venezuela, Panama, Colombia --- I can say with an intellectual commitment that 'these people' (to speak in such general term) must be seen and understood as a danger to be avoided. In an ideal world they must not ever be allowed to overrun America and their presence in America must be controlled and if possible reversed. On what basis do I make this (outrageous) assertion? Too long to go into but, as it happens, it reduces to racialist questions. (The Southern Cone however, largely white and pan-European, can be looked at differently). But the mongrelization of culture --- any culture --- must absolutely be avoided. In this I firmly recognize the sound reasoning of racialist argument. But when these ideas solidified in me, and I think they are founded on sound intellectualization and less on sentiment and emotion, I saw that it is indeed necessary to make racialist distinctions, to take 'race & culture' into consideration, and that to do so I would have to turn radically against the common current of ideas.

It is, of course, what results from 'taking the Red Pill'. It leads directly to a radical revisionist project not only within one's own self but in respect to one's perception and one's identifications (definitions) in the world.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:33 am

I have been going back over this thread. I find it quite interesting.
Santiago Odo wrote (about 'a wise man'): "The conversation does not begin nor does it end with AWM. His concerns are valid, or can be articulated in valid and coherent terms. That he relies in tropes and pre-fabricated talking-points does not change that."
Diebert writes: "He doesn't need any defending or spokesmen. One might just as well be concerned with robots replacing humans. Or the internet reducing the brain's capacity to deal with knowledge. There are always statistics and examples of this or that actually happening to some extent. The real issue is about truth value: wisdom as having its own category and goal. What if some credible social theory would be devised arguing for the idea that wisdom could only prosper in really dark, stupid, mentally diseased surroundings? That it works as rarity, as contrast? That it only develops amongst danger, on the brink of extinctions?

"Before getting worried about race, about health, about continuation or even spreading the word, one has to first understand the circumstances of wisdom, of genius arriving in the first place. And that hasn't even been established yet! We all just gamble on "perhaps this" and "likely that". In that context, any theory on which culture, race or society should be supported to strive for, becomes way more problematic to entertain as it always will show to lean on various ideological assumptions already."
_________________

Such an interesting phrasing: "The real issue is about truth value: wisdom as having its own category and goal."

Wisdom does not have its own 'category' and wisdom does not have its own 'goal'. You have given entity to 'wisdom'. Next you will tell me that 'wisdom' has stopped off for a manicure and a haircut!

I think it is with locutions like these, above, that you reveal yourself as largely 'mealy-mouthed'. Fundamentally, this is why I am suspicious of your philosophy, which you yourself continually refer to, and your method of carrying on philosophy. You seem to be the dead European, the dead who will not die. Just lie down and let death take you, Diebert!

You have no power, apparently, to clarify or to decide. You turn endlessly inside yourself in a vast echo-chamber. Any decisiveness that enters in is 'echoed' out of existence...

That's 'philosophy' for you, according to definition.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:14 am

Santiago Odo wrote:
Diebert wrote:Here then the problem with the terms emerges: European identity becomes quickly "whatever you want to make it mean"
With emphasis on 'making' as willing, insisting, creating: a creative choice if in the best of all possible worlds. ,Yet that is an important aspect of the issue. First, I do not disagree with you about the difficulty of establishing and defining a European identity (..) I think 'White identity' is similarly difficult. But that is exactly what is being attempted.
Part of that might also have to include arguing against other reasonable descriptions as form of falsification. For example, one can easily construct a narrative about relative secularization (or secular relativizing?), all the protestant influences and a more practical ethical identity as main causes of the Western industrialization, formation of large corporations and organizational advances beyond anything we've seen in history.

Of course you want, need, desire this link to more ancient roots. Despite all the obvious causal links at work, maintaining there has to be a direct dependency or "condition" at work becomes all too quickly speculation and perhaps a form of mythologising? To me it sounds almost as attempt to "leave the body" -- the body being what is happening right now -- and instead digging up ancestral graves. Perhaps some kind of necrophiliac impulse?
And if one recognizes in that a specific 'will', and if it is will that determines 'what one means', then the project can be seen as developing the will to make the definition.
The topic could shift back to earlier discussions we had. Or for example to Alfred Rosenberg's "Wesen", perhaps as well the Völkisch movement, even the vril energy. No wonder the Nazi cloud hangs over this! Or one could dance with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche again but that shows it to be also a possible time piece which should be studied in context and not simply re-applied elsewhere.
There is a will to defeat that identity and it is strong indeed. And in that sense *they* are imposing a specific will (whatever they want to mean)
There's for sure a causality to that: any construct will create forces moving against it. Time itself if nothing else: eroding forces, shifting grounds, a precessing horizon and the always changing climate. But if you mean some form of culture wars, sure! Clearly groups within modern culture derive meaning ("connect") from some universal, global idea and sentiment. A will towards fluidity? But even targeting such enemy ("they") will be doomed from the start since a target is not readily definable. This is where the culture war breaks down. And also the communication probably, as "letters between enemies", when the targets have become so fragmented and virtualized.
I. Think you yourself would find it quite impossible to state openly, for example:
  • I am a white Eurocentric and I am commited to this as a spiritual, philsophical, religious and cultural project. Oppose me and I will destroy you.
Well, announcing the possibility of destroying the other will invite a strong reaction for sure. It's asking for it really, not because of content but because of implied high levels of aggression. The rest will not get much reaction although in Europe the word "Eurocentric" will be generally understood completely opposite than you mean it. As for "white", yes, claiming commitment to a skin color does sound confusing. To me it doesn't seem like a useful or meaningful term. If a culture wants to define itself, re-invent itself, name itself again, using a color code does not look like the way to go.
At best I can only say that as I understand it, and the degree that I spiritually share a link to it, this 'identity project' is just developing, is immature and not fully thought-through.
That state of development and immaturity might be significant in itself and not just a function of a lack of time. To me it's as well an interesting project but from the existential point of view. To exist is to identity, self and other, or I & object, a thing and its context, a world as background to a will: "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung". Instead of looking at history, I try to see where it forms now, every moment, as the heart beat of mind.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:27 am

Santiago Odo wrote:Wisdom does not have its own 'category' and wisdom does not have its own 'goal'. You have given entity to 'wisdom'.
You can declare about wisdom whatever you wish! The point however was more about the suggested link between genius and (racial) genetics. To even start such conversation, not only genetics and ethnicity have to be properly understood (and AWM didn't) but one has to be sure about the proper context, the meaning and the purpose of having or desiring any "genius" or "wisdom" in the first place. So this was an attempt to call for a proper foundation to the discussion.
You have no power, apparently, to clarify or to decide. You turn endlessly inside yourself in a vast echo-chamber. Any decisiveness that enters in is 'echoed' out of existence...
You are really looking for a fight of some kind? One day I'm power crazy, next day I don't have any. Then I'm sounding too "certain" about everything, making too many blanket statements of fact, then I'm not deciding. It seems to me you just don't know what you want and are digging and digging for something to tell you that, to inform you, to provide you some strength? Dream on.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by jupiviv » Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:06 am

Alex wrote:I do not see culture as an 'abstraction'.
Yes, as Diebert has pointed out, it is a more a series of passionate claims based (putatively) on a profound desire or need.

On the other hand, you haven't stopped with the claims, but went on to describe the respective ethics and paths of personal and social development which are likely to arise from the various approaches to and interpretations of the truth of those claims. If imagination is the first principle of fantasy, then your definition of culture may be called an abstraction.

Which brings me back to the question of why you prefer to expend all that mental effort for a *claim* about a cultural substrate binding humans together, instead of for the widely-accepted *fact* of a genetic substrate binding humans together. Surely the family is *objectively* more basic, tangible and accessible, qua "root" than any definition of culture?

So far, your response has been to repeat the reason for asking the question:
I do not have a specific answer because it is not a specific concern of mine.
I think I understand why you might call identity projects based in 'whiteness' 'white identity' or Europeanness to be 'fantasy-projects' and I do not hold that view against you. I would imagine that the idea of such a project would be somewhat threatening to you given your own cultural location.
Why threatening? It's not like I have to stop using/valuing European culture if Europeans use/value it.
But Lana and her videos, those are different. They are rhetorical constructs beyond any doubt. Because I like her and admire her cockiness, which has a youthful even immature aspect, I pay attention to her and their project: it is a husband and wife team that runs Red Ice. I see them as developing and maturing rapidy and I think they represent a new voice that will become better known and more widely circulated.
Yeah, like I implied before, when Lana takes her husband for all he is worth after meeting a man who can actually provide for her entitled ass, then starts wearing the latter's beliefs along with her new shoes, the Muslim hordes will be the least of his worries.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:05 pm

Diebert wrote:You can declare about wisdom whatever you wish! The point however was more about the suggested link between genius and (racial) genetics. To even start such conversation, not only genetics and ethnicity have to be properly understood (and AWM didn't) but one has to be sure about the proper context, the meaning and the purpose of having or desiring any "genius" or "wisdom" in the first place. So this was an attempt to call for a proper foundation to the discussion.
You are soooo tedious, Diebert!
You are really looking for a fight of some kind? One day I'm power crazy, next day I don't have any. Then I'm sounding too "certain" about everything, making too many blanket statements of fact, then I'm not deciding. It seems to me you just don't know what you want and are digging and digging for something to tell you that, to inform you, to provide you some strength? Dream on.
Actually, what I am 'looking for' I have already found, by and large. My conclusions are as I have been expressing them and they have to do with a long chain of careful analysis and a great deal or reading and study. You are interesting to me (I mean, the person called Diebert) because of how you fit into a general intellectual atmosphere in our present. You are very much a part of it and with all your utterances you explain its metaphysics. And that is largely how I approach and understand the illustrious founders and the environment they created with its specific thrusts. Is it wrong to have taken *you* and *them* seriously enough to take their challenge and to conclude that neither *you* nor *they* are really serious at all? Well, 'serious' is not quite the word, and yet it is only seriousness that would allow someone to get to a real core, an actionable core and union between idea and activity. You, Diebert, have built an identity around endless spinning. You go spinning like a spider and you will go on just like this until the end of time! Your philosophical position --- existential philosophy you call it --- is an enormous elaboration of your neurosis.

Desire to fight? One always desires antagonism and an antagonist, that is true. They are useful if used properly. The reason to identify some of your own absurdities --- your meddling in the flow of conversations and your preening over the forum like an old hen is genuinely obnoxious, this I admit, and a temptation you should never have been given --- but what is most notable, for me, in you is that you represent an end. You arean ending, not a beginning. That is what I call death. Nothing creative nor meaningful will come from you and this is because of the choices you have made and the ones that you do make at every turn. Your discourse is evidence of that. So, what I notice is that this is what you choose! This is what you want.

The relevance for me personally stems from selfish or rather personal concerns: to extract out of this every ounce that I can get, and to attempt to understand the relationship between the dead end you define and the dead ends that occur in people in the exterior, surrounding world. That is the challenge that I see manifest here. To poke, to press, to ask for more --- surely this cannot be wrong? But you can go no further. This is it Diebert. This is where you have come to an end. In some dimly lit part of yourself I think you are aware of this but you could never speak of any of this publically. Too much weak & tear on the self-importance, eh?

'Proper foundation to the discussion' is an interesting diebertian line! But this turns back to some of the sense I have gotten about you and your methods: you go no where. Come back here in a year or ten (or 50) and it will simply be a more voluminous post-count with the same endless spinning. "The meaning and the purpose of having or desiring any 'genius' or 'wisdom' in the first place" --- what a precious line! You have no idea what you are talking about. And that is because, Dear Diebert, you have entered into a dead-end.

And this ties-in to the next larger context: the 'philosophy' and the choices of those who put this little world into motion. It is not irrelevant in the context of what has occurred here recently and what is going on *outside*.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:38 pm

Diebert wrote:Well, announcing the possibility of destroying the other will invite a strong reaction for sure. It's asking for it really, not because of content but because of implied high levels of aggression. The rest will not get much reaction although in Europe the word "Eurocentric" will be generally understood completely opposite than you mean it. As for "white", yes, claiming commitment to a skin color does sound confusing. To me it doesn't seem like a useful or meaningful term. If a culture wants to define itself, re-invent itself, name itself again, using a color code does not look like the way to go.
In my view, right now, today, it is the 'announcement' that is required and necessary. But this does take some explication. It has to do with power. How power is claimed. I suggest that in respect to the post-WW2 White European that he has fallen into different forms and manifestations of personal powerlessness. His identity is not his own. Meaning, other people have lines of interest by which they assert themselves into it. This has been allowed. I would use as an example 'the brown end of the bromance' and his entire presence within, as I say, Western categories. What is he doing here? In fact, he has no business here. I only mean this to illustrate that all manner of different people --- from the brown world of course, assert themselves into defining and controlling what is 'white identity' and 'European identity'. These are topics of world-conversation! The 'debate' is taken up by people who should it seems to me focus on their own little worlds.

What I have noticed is that any turn of the conversation back to the question and the issue of 'identity' and power and self-definition immediately provokes an intense reaction. Sirens go off. The guilt-squad scrambles. In many environments the police will be called, metaphorically and also actually. Why is that? What I take from this is that 'asserting' and 'announcing' (as you have termed it) is essential. I do not mean street violence though, I am speaking of the inner platform of solidity and certainty. But prior to being able to do that one must have organized the material inside oneself: not an easy feat! That is where AWM has a great deal of work to do (IMHO). Yet what I said then still seems to me a fair and necessary statement: his position can be worked and improved and I hope that it will be. But in comparison Dan's (the one who banned him) and yours too these represent dead-ends. You are powerless men. You are coopted, feminized men whose masculinity is a charade. Sorry, but this is the truth. No one of you has any real sense of what masculinity can be and I dare say should be.

So, in my view I see the new movement in ideas as having much to do with masculine assertiveness ... and one of those levels must begin with a thorough reclaiming of the right and the will to establish identity, to insist on it. Therefor the statement that I made, and which you would never be able to say yourself (because you are completely coopted Diebert!) is actually the beginning of everything necessary.

I think you are very wrong about the general 'Europe' you speak of. Many of the people that I pay attention to are acting out of positions that have to do with claiming and reclaiming 'identity' as I attempt to explain it. They do not come across like mealy-mouthed pussies nor like the 'brown end of the bromance' who tags along.

I admit that the sole designation 'white' is problematic. But it is largely problematic because of the way those opposed to Europe employ it. 'Whiteness' for example, 'whiteness studies'. For all that the definition is resisted and ridiculed, it only seems to be made more meaningful. But I think that part of identity-claiming and self-empowerment must work hard to see that it is a group of different things that are being claimed and reclaimed. It is not skin color precisely and yet this is some part of it. How to define it? How to describe it?

That is precisely the challenge. And yet when the inner position is reached that knows what it is, and why it is, those who can now oppose that will fall back.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by jupiviv » Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:42 am

Santiago Odo wrote:This has been allowed. I would use as an example 'the brown end of the bromance' and his entire presence within, as I say, Western categories. What is he doing here? In fact, he has no business here. I only mean this to illustrate that all manner of different people --- from the brown world of course, assert themselves into defining and controlling what is 'white identity' and 'European identity'.
Bruh...is that how you view our relationship? Creampie + mutton keema? Remember that you're a part of this menage a brois as well, i.e., the ornery gimp, which completes a vision I cannot indulge at the moment since supper beckons.

But seriously, what are some examples of brown people defining or controlling white identity? In mainstream western/white culture that is, not a uni campus or bathhouse. And to ask my initial question again, what exactly is white identity, and why is it so much more important than family, which by its very definition *implies* identity?

Should I even bother pointing out how idiotic and self-entitled your question about my relevance here is? It's like a bum demanding a say in the affairs of a company whose office he squats outside of.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:37 am

Bon Appétit!
Jupi wrote:But seriously, what are some examples of brown people defining or controlling white identity? In mainstream western/white culture that is, not a uni campus or bathhouse. And to ask my initial question again, what exactly is white identity, and why is it so much more important than family, which by its very definition *implies* identity?
My understanding runs like this, tell me what you think: In the aftermath of the Second World War and the war-propaganda narratives that were put into motion, the notion of 'whiteness' and of 'white culture' and any definition which had even a smidgen of the sense of 'superior' or 'better' was vilified. The guilt complex that Germany suffered --- was made to feel --- was (as I begin to understand things better) unreally intense. I wonder if at any time in history there has been such an event of the internalization of guilt? I see this as having seeped out of purely German concerns and 'infected' Europe generally. A sort of degeneration, an internal worm that eats away internally at the core substance.

I have come at least to entertain though I cannot say to accept 100% that there was a deliberate psychological movement to attack and undermine this 'whiteness' and all the definitions which were said to be those that defined Nazism. That is, the entire view or construct of 'superiority' (cultural, social, scientific, technological but also religious). The 'anthropology' (self-view, self-definition, self-unerstanding) that allowed for the European to see and understand himself as better or more advanced (this requires elaborate description and it is not simple) was, if I understand correctly, decimated by the European's own terrible choice to allow these wars to occur.

But no matter how it happened, something dramatic happened. Is still hapening. I personally have come to imagine it possible that Europe may unravel and disintegrate --- slowly and over time --- but that it might not be able to recover (as I would define recovery). Something in it is coming undone. Something has to come back together. Something has to be recovered. And this is not easy.

The idea that I am working with is, it is fair to say, largely a sense that I have gained from Jonathan Bowden. It is nicely condensed in a 13 minute video that I have posted a few times. It has to do with 'the European grammar of self-intolerance'. This is beyond any doubt a form of ailment. It is a 'sickness unto death' in its own right. It is deeply psychological.

So when I say that 'others' have a line of interest into the question and the issue of 'white identity' (European identity) I refer, firstly, to all sorts of different processes that have occurred and are occurring and which culminate, now, in our present in what could be described as 'self-hatred' or 'self-intolerance'. Recently some videos surfaced from Evergreen College where 'whiteness' was described as an 'evil', as a malignancy. You can find dozens and hundreds of examples. Its the talk of the day really.

Here is a video that is an over-the-top representation --- a clear example --- of what I am referring to. Who cares about this man? Who cares what he thinks or doesn't think? I certainly do not care. All my definitions will turn against him and his presence even in opining. Does that make sense? He should be immediately repatriated. (!) Radical, I know.

When I say 'asserting definitions' and 'controlling the definitions' this is what I mean. My impression is that 1) the essence of the problem is internal and psychological to Europeans and pan-Europeans and the crucial question is how to overcome it and how to recover personal power, and 2) because of this core weakness in Europeans they themselves invite all others, and any others, to insert themselves and use guilt-mechanisms, because of course they understand very well the nature of the problem: European weakness, a masculine collapse, and the lack of a proper and healtyh self-definition. What I notice happening, though perhaps I am wrong or mistaken, is that there are the first glimmerings of a substantial turn against these psychological inflictions and their use. I see this as completely essential and very relevant.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by jupiviv » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:53 am

Alex wrote:My understanding runs like this, tell me what you think: In the aftermath of the Second World War and the war-propaganda narratives that were put into motion, the notion of 'whiteness' and of 'white culture' and any definition which had even a smidgen of the sense of 'superior' or 'better' was vilified.
Both before and after the Second World War, being "white" - at least in the sense that the Germans understood that term - wasn't relevant to the survival individuals and nations. This is a very broad topic, and I'm not currently inclined to discuss it, especially with you. All I'll say is that interpreting history in the way that you and other race realists/white-osophers do is the mark of a confused and desperate mind. The same can be said for any such preemptive "seeking".

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:50 am

I would not disregard or shove aside your idea that all of this (these concerns or definitions) could have a relationship to confusion and desperation. In any case all that would have to be addressed at one point or another.

I do not disregard confusion as a genuine state of affairs. That is, being confused, suffering confusion, not understanding, not knowing which way to turn, not having enough experience to understand how to arrive at the best (or better) outcomes. Confusion is therefor the starting point, and very much so for Occidental man (if you will permit me to put it in somewhat epic term).

Confusion is the order of the day, the general state, the condition of the mind for many many people, and I would say especially those who seem to have a coherent rap. Confusion is not something to be ashamed of. It is something to interrogate and, through knowledge and research and conversation, to overcome.

Desperation is a similar state of mind, or state of the soul, or condition of consciousness. Having spent now a couple of years in a fairly solid endeavour of researching the Right, the Alt-Right and the Nouvelle Droite, I take 'desperation' as a given, and again as a starting point, as the place where the conversation and the self-interrogation must begin.

Confusion and desperation have come about for specific reasons. They are *outcomes* of many different events, factors, choices and forces, visible and understood, invisible and hidden.

As I have come to understand the project of 'renovation' it is large indeed and difficult indeed. Again, I say that our good friends David Dan and Kevin saw a light in a certain sense, had an epiphany. They were inspired to act in relation to 'confusion' and 'desperation' (if we all were to be honest). And so these questions are good ones. In fact the most important ones.

But you particularly, and of course 'people like you', have a very skewed and solipsistic sense of what this project is and what it requires. You, Jupi, render yourself irrelevant and more or less a snide nag. But that's it! Once you have revealed that you have no depth at all, and no relationship at all to the important questions, you simply deflate.

What do you think?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:17 am

Santiago Odo wrote: Your philosophical position --- existential philosophy you call it --- is an enormous elaboration of your neurosis.
The funny thing of a statement like that, besides any hint of irony lurking in there perhaps, would be how meaningless it is, no matter if taken as truth or spin. In effect it's inconsequential whichever way anyone would spin that. Or could you tell us perhaps what the consequence of that statement would be if assumed or agreed upon? Already your usage of "neuroses", an outdated term revolving around a state of emotional distress and unconscious conflict, which I've explained a zillion times as the human condition of suffering and ignorance, the whole damn topic of the forum! And still you bring it on like that? How dim are you?
to extract out of this every ounce that I can get, and to attempt to understand the relationship between the dead end you define and the dead ends that occur in people in the exterior, surrounding world.
You want to gain while the forum is all about losing something we do not actually have in the first place. That's why you're an odd duck here in the way you keep hanging about, as if deep down you do want to understand your own mystery of what you're (not)!

Here's a bit of understanding for you to consider: you are dead wrong in your sense of any "dead end" in me or any "exterior" people. You should give up that particular self-serving view. It's false. It's self-deception, something which makes perhaps you comfortable in your opposition, not unlike John. Which is interesting to think about.

But I suggest to not constipate another thread with all these musings about me or this forum. It's way more interesting to get to the topic and show how you are wrong about your history, your understanding of Europe and perhaps also your view on the New Right. Okay that last thing has not been taken apart yet. But there's so much pure idiocy in many of the "identity movements" and nationalist uprisings, that it really should be considered as a truly intellectual "dead-end". But this can be explored of course as I'm undecided on the development as a whole. And like you I did find some interesting elements, only not in the majority of it.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:04 am

So to continue again with a more interesting topic: the actual topic of this thread ;)
I suggest that in respect to the post-WW2 White European that he has fallen into different forms and manifestations of personal powerlessness. His identity is not his own. Meaning, other people have lines of interest by which they assert themselves into it.
But lets first establish if there's something like this "White European" as an actual entity. Already I explained why there's no actual "European" before the Great Wars. For now I'll ignore the color code because I haven't seen the case being made yet of being relevant in a scientific, biological sense. What's left is the powerlessness of the modern, post-war human. Which is a concept I can work with but we have to look at alternative views on the same topic. As well the topic of "freedom" is related as well just like the rise of individualism and the various liberation movements. This is not just "whiteness" or some continental effect. Perhaps it's a weird pendulum swing after the trauma at the center of a continent in flames?
This has been allowed. I would use as an example 'the brown end of the bromance' and his entire presence within, as I say, Western categories. What is he doing here? In fact, he has no business here.
Everyone came from somewhere at some point, ethnically. The Turks, the Ottomans and the Moors have a central place in European history. The details of local history can be illuminating, like the large first waves of immigration into the Netherlands: Turks and Moroccans, as result of invitations from the Dutch, simply because we needed the labor. Then there are the various colonial elements, like Suriname and Indonesia, which have a long, rich historical explanation on why we have large communities of those here (without any issues I must add). It's just one example how simplistic, blank statements just do not fit historical realities. They can become lie. And yet there's indeed a problem with the ideology underlying SJW, anti-racism and multi-culturism. But the origination of that might be a whole different story which I'll try to explore later if there are any takers.
What I have noticed is that any turn of the conversation back to the question and the issue of 'identity' and power and self-definition immediately provokes an intense reaction. Sirens go off. The guilt-squad scrambles. In many environments the police will be called, metaphorically and also actually. Why is that?
It's really more close to religious sentiment here which you are facing. But what you "noticed" might have been circumstantial. And it's pretty prevalent in certain (social) media but I don't consider that to reflect the common view of people with or without education.
What I take from this is that 'asserting' and 'announcing' (as you have termed it) is essential. I do not mean street violence though, I am speaking of the inner platform of solidity and certainty. But prior to being able to do that one must have organized the material inside oneself: not an easy feat!
Here we agree but my research points in a different direction: that people desire to assert and announce in reaction to certain horizons shifting, "earthquakes of meaning". Something is sought and craved not because it would be actually lost but because a need is felt in these particular times. Do you understand this difference in perspective?
That is where AWM has a great deal of work to do (IMHO). Yet what I said then still seems to me a fair and necessary statement: his position can be worked and improved and I hope that it will be.
Well I read his Facebook page and know his background, town, dead-end job, hobbies and interactions. Believe me, it's really mediocre pretense. He demonstrates the possible truth of my analysis (that he needs strong language and position in his uncertain dead-end situation and region) and less that of yours, as having some actual potential for movement.
But in comparison Dan's (the one who banned him) and yours too these represent dead-ends. You are powerless men. You are coopted, feminized men whose masculinity is a charade. Sorry, but this is the truth. No one of you has any real sense of what masculinity can be and I dare say should be.
Fair enough as you seem to be looking for some channeled aggression, libido, some creative overflowing in language, skill, humor and "brothers in arms" sentiment. Or whatever your feel masculinity is exactly. Beats me!
Therefor the statement that I made, and which you would never be able to say yourself (because you are completely coopted Diebert!) is actually the beginning of everything necessary.
No I sliced your statement open and showed you the guts and its dysfunction and shortcoming. And why it would not work and why it would cause the reactions but not for the reasons you claim. In other words I owned you and dominated. Still you want to be the "man". For that, at a forum, you need to come with more quality, more depth and more capacity. And not with hair pulling, screaming, demands for rights and acknowledgment or "wanting to be heard" kind of assertions.
I think you are very wrong about the general 'Europe' you speak of.
You think but I know as core European, a tall blond Teutonic knight and having pointed you to all relevant definitions of it.
For all that the definition is resisted and ridiculed, it only seems to be made more meaningful.
Yes thanks for demonstrating and summarizing the "Backfire Effect" again to everyone.
It is not skin color precisely and yet this is some part of it. How to define it? How to describe it?
I'm all ears but it's time to give some more substance and not "just asking questions"(JAQ-ing off).

Here's a start: "light skin is a naturally occurring human skin color, which has little eumelanin pigmentation and which has been adapted to environments of low UV radiation. There is a correlation between the geographic distribution of UV radiation and the distribution of skin pigmentation around the world". Would this, location, geography and such have any relevance to developments? You know, a "larger body", a well, a context for actual human bodies, both simple and complex, to function in? Location, location?

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:13 am

'Neurotic' more in the popular sense of the word. I call you a 'spider' but I do not mean you really have 8 legs!

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:00 am

Diebert wrote:But lets first establish if there's something like this "White European" as an actual entity. Already I explained why there's no actual "European" before the Great Wars. For now I'll ignore the color code because I haven't seen the case being made yet of being relevant in a scientific, biological sense. What's left is the powerlessness of the modern, post-war human. Which is a concept I can work with but we have to look at alternative views on the same topic. As well the topic of "freedom" is related as well just like the rise of individualism and the various liberation movements. This is not just "whiteness" or some continental effect. Perhaps it's a weird pendulum swing after the trauma at the center of a continent in flames?
It would not seem to matter that 'Europe' and 'European identification' came to the fore during the 20th century. In fact it did. And when it did, it attempted to establish definitions and ways of speaking and referring to it that could be communicated.

The 'color code' however had been in existence for a good long time and I would suggest that whatever this 'color code' is is part of a European anthropology: a way of defining different races and groups of people. My own researches have indicated that the core of 'white identity' in this anthropological sense is quite intimately tied to Christian definitions. My understanding is that it originated in that (largely). As I understand it these definitions --- metaphysical definitions really --- go back to the Middle Ages and to 'The Great Chain of Being'. That is, a hierarchical vision and view of life within this domain where spirit meets matter. In that vision of Reality the highest level that a man can attain to within his mortal frame is the sort of communion offered by Grace from the transcendent figure of Christ. The idea operates in many different ways in many different levels. From social structure, through intellectualism, to politics, to rights. The Medieval and late-Medieval man saw himself as specially privelaged because of his unique relationship to the 'truly salvific' and notably as distinct from the 'people of the Earth' in their demonic relationship to inferior powers & potencies.

It seems to me that if you really wanted to push on the 'color code' idea --- and you really should as should we all --- you would have to reinvestigate and in a certain very real sense reinvigorate just this sort of 'anthropology'. One reason is because 'modernism' (in its oh so many different forms) seeks to destroy hierarchical definitions. These efforts stem out of Seventeenth century shifts and changes in viewpoint and idea (metaphysics). Again, in the Middle Ages (the Olde Metaphysics) the world was conceived very differently and the notion of hierarchy --- superior and inferior --- was far more marked. And Christian metaphysics had so marked man's perceptual schemes that he could not look at the world without applying hierarchies of perception.

This is why I would say that if we are to consider extremist positions, or vanguardist positions --- and I here include that of our Glorious Founders and stress that they are (were) both extremist and vanguardist! --- we would have to consider 'radical definitions' and also the recovery of radical definitions that touch how we perceive reality, how we define ourselves in reality, how we conceive ourselves, how we define where we are and where we are going.

Therefor: a definion of 'whiteness' and the recovery of European White Identity is, according to my own developing views, a significant project which is metaphysical in its core premises, revisionist insofar as it turns back toward former metaphysics to draw out useful definitions, and I would also say that it is (or must be) 'religious' because a true metaphysics is in essence a religious or 'existential' platform.

This is why I defliberately choose to put forward extremist notions and also to attempt to make definitions that touch on vanguardism. This is where the meta-political enters in. If culture is 'downstream' from meta-politics (and from metaphysics) we need to rise up to a point above The Present with all its *outcomes* in skewed liberalism and revision everything. This can certainly be done. Again: this is what Kevin David and Dan had put in motion! This is precisely what they were trying to do. They were responding to the 'upstream', to the metaphysical. And they did, sort of, make propositions that turned against the 'political outcomes' of the present: the flowy feminine, the feminist really, and many other things. Unfortunately they seem to have gotten entranced and trapped within Taoist and Buddhist conventions, and these have so achingly little to do with European categories that, as is obvious, they rendered themselves neutred. Riding around on a bicycle to collect the State's welfare check and assuming the role of Guru to the benighted masses quite simply resulted in a dead-end. There you have my take in a nutshell!

We are not talking about the 'modernist post-war human', Diebert! In any case I am not. But I think that your insistence on that term and essentially that way of seeing things, is telling. In this sense, from the sound of it, you are fairly well coopted into rather typical liberal notions. And you are Dutch and this is telling in certain senses. It would be hard indeed for you to become an active vanguariste within the ideological constraints of present Dutch society (it seems to me). What interests me --- as one who desires to link to vanguardism --- are those people and groups who are developing local ideologies which are direcly focused on self-identity and self-preservation. The 'Identitarian Movement as in the Nouvelle Droite, Generation Identitaire, Bloc Identitaire, etc.

Now, these people are doing very interesting work on many different levels, and one of those levels is within 'recovery' at a fundamental or a core level: religious identification. They study Julius Evole, Rene Guenon, Savitri Devi but then also Augustine and Aquinas. They turn back to the older metaphysics. It simply has to be done. In my own case I came into this conception through Richard Weaver and when I was studying the American Civil War. Weaver's basic position within philosophy --- his conservatism --- is founded in recovery of the 'upstream'. The distortions of the present, according to him, rise out of nominalism. In my own case, as I went into it, and I have our Beloved Founders to thank in numerous senses for their emphasis on 'causation', but I began to see that the issue that *we* face and that I face are in essence metaphysical. Logically, the question becomes: What metaphysical base am I founded on and what metaphysical base is the necessary one to be founded on. In short: How do I define myself within this platform of existence? That question leads itno the sort of definitions that in my view the New Right is exploring. As I have said it leads 'back to the body' (and I notice that you actually started a very important thread on just that topic, Diebert! I have not had time to explore it but I imagine that you have a great deal to say and that you will post volumes there!) 'Back to the body', as I see it, means 'back to the body of European identity'.

In order to go back --- to get back --- to the European body in the sense that I mean, means confronting all definitions that operate against it, and this means, substantially, an entire idea-current that involves both nominalism currents as well as Marxian currents (and thus 'the Frankfurt School'). But as I underdstand things it means a revisionism of whatever it is that Hitler and German Socialism and Fascism mean and also meant. I do not mean a reconstitution of Nazism or Nazi militarism but I do mean the cultural and the metaphysical definitions that form the base of strong self-identity and empowerment. From the look of it, this involves revisionism of those 2 wars and certainly the Second War. It seems to require turning against the architeconics of the post-war construct which also seems to be deconstruction and dismanteling of military propaganda narratives. These got 'weaponized' by certain psychological definitions and these penetrated very deeply into 'the European soul' if you will permit that turn of phrase. I think it is accurate. This is, now, the flaming sword that holds people back from 'return to the body' of European identity. And this is why, as one example, the Bowden talk that I often refer to has tremendous significance, that is if I am not deceiving myself (or we are not deceiving ourselves).

When I speak of that which operates against European identity, and when that topic is fully broached, it seems to lead into numerous difficult and contentions areas-of-definition. Obviously the Frankfurt School is a code-word at times for Jewish influence. But it is simply a given that --- really rather extremely and notably --- the 'JQ' has come to the fore. It has become apparent to me that the reconstitution of 'identity' is as much a project of creative construction as it is one of locating and labeling what operates against it. And when that labeling turns to political and social definitions it certainly gets contentious --- highly so. (And this brings me back to a certain amazement at Dan and David's discourses and their thorough enmeshment with the liberal structures: those that produce their welfare checks I might add! The dogs rarely bites the hand that feeds it, eh!)

I suggest that your paragraph, above, as well as your post, is an expression of your own weakness as a European. Or to put it another way in relation to this 'project of definitions'. You are not really asking the right questions because you have established yourself in irrelevant 'spinning' predicates. You will go round and round until the end of time and arrive no-where. Thus you have wound up on GF as the MC of the 'inner spinning' and you elevate this as if it represents some level of accomplishment.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:32 am

Santiago wrote:Therefor the statement that I made, and which you would never be able to say yourself (because you are completely coopted Diebert!) is actually the beginning of everything necessary.
Diebert wrote:No I sliced your statement open and showed you the guts and its dysfunction and shortcoming. And why it would not work and why it would cause the reactions but not for the reasons you claim. In other words I owned you and dominated. Still you want to be the "man". For that, at a forum, you need to come with more quality, more depth and more capacity. And not with hair pulling, screaming, demands for rights and acknowledgment or "wanting to be heard" kind of assertions.
No no no no no. But I would hope that you would pay attention to the term 'sliced open'. Because I will suggest that this indicates where and how you yourself are linked to structures which undermine, weaken, 'cut down', 'cut open', and which are (to extend my metaphor) 'acidic' to Europe and to our very selves. That is you Diebert. You are 'acidic' in this sense. But this is and has been my point! We all have gotten coopted into definition projects which work, substantially, against ourselves and our own interests. That is why we need to 'get out from under' these impositions. We need to define again, to redefine, and to work very hard to define solidarity of purpose.

You have expressed also the perverse ego-based idea that you 'own and dominate' through the strength of your personality. Your personality is tied up with your *philosophy* and your spider-like philosophical activity: weaving a little domain of personal power that you oversee. Thus, to elect you as moderator 'went to your head'. The bannings, the PM harangues, teaming up with 'the brown ends of the bromance' in wee political shenanigans toward a forum fiefdom. Diebert, it is time to come clean! (Or I will have to have you banned...) ;-)

You have done no such 'owning' nor 'dominating' except in a fantasy-rehearsal. I am speaking about things that totally transcend personal agreement or disagreement. It is not at all that I want to be 'the man' as I want to stress that it is imperative to come to proper definitions of the masculine and also 'masculine activities'. I am definitely saying, this I repeat, that as I see things the masculine definitions worked with on GF over time, by you and by numerous here, are completely inadequate. And this is an idea that can be --- has been --- developed at some length.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by jupiviv » Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:51 am

Santiago Odo wrote:Confusion is the order of the day, the general state, the condition of the mind for many many people, and I would say especially those who seem to have a coherent rap. Confusion is not something to be ashamed of. It is something to interrogate and, through knowledge and research and conversation, to overcome.

Desperation is a similar state of mind, or state of the soul, or condition of consciousness. Having spent now a couple of years in a fairly solid endeavour of researching the Right, the Alt-Right and the Nouvelle Droite, I take 'desperation' as a given, and again as a starting point, as the place where the conversation and the self-interrogation must begin.
I agree. Now, ask yourself if *you* have interrogated the causes of your personal confusion, desperation and so on. From what I see, not at all! You have rather exacerbated your own confusion and desperation by means of the aforementioned "preemptive seeking". Since I didn't explain what I meant by that I'll do so now. You exist in a duplicitous state of *imagining* yourself seeking a massive, brilliant "something", e.g.:

Therefor: a definion of 'whiteness' and the recovery of European White Identity is, according to my own developing views, a significant project which is metaphysical in its core premises, revisionist insofar as it turns back toward former metaphysics to draw out useful definitions, and I would also say that it is (or must be) 'religious' because a true metaphysics is in essence a religious or 'existential' platform.

...and *actually* seeking something which is very mundane but nevertheless lacking in your life.

The imagined seeking (for nothing in particular) preempts fears of the actual seeking (for a specific thing/s) failing, becoming irrelevant etc., because it can mean whatever you like and go wherever you want to go. Also, it never fails to give you another try should the actual seeking meet with actual failure. It's an RPG you are playing with yourself.

In the end, however, (you + seeking)/(world + dog) + a buck = cup of coffee.

Post Reply