White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

You are surely entitled to your opinion, Jupes. I am fairly sure that you do not understand what is being talked about or referred to (and which must be separated from my own person as the one who asserts it).

Additionally, none of it concerns you in any sense at all. Look to who and what you are and to your own context for your identity and your relevance. You insert yourself into categories of concern to which you have no relationship at all except one of pretense.

In this sense you illustrate what I wrote about earlier: 'you' have to be thrown off, guided to the door, dismissed. Your imposition of definitions are not wanted. Does that make sense to you? That you feel you can insert yourself, and that you do, and that you are allowed, is part of the problem.

Stick to your own culture, your household deities and to Bangalore, my friend!
You I'll never leave
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by jupiviv »

Santiago Odo wrote:You are surely entitled to your opinion, Jupes. I am fairly sure that you do not understand what is being talked about or referred to (and which must be separated from my own person as the one who asserts it).
I understand it on its own terms quite well, which is precisely why I'm tying it back to you.
Additionally, none of it concerns you in any sense at all. Look to who and what you are and to your own context for your identity and your relevance. You insert yourself into categories of concern to which you have no relationship at all except one of pretense.

In this sense you illustrate what I wrote about earlier: 'you' have to be thrown off, guided to the door, dismissed. Your imposition of definitions are not wanted. Does that make sense to you? That you feel you can insert yourself, and that you do, and that you are allowed, is part of the problem.
Or, in other words: You have no right to judge or talk about women because you're a maaaaan!

This isn't even rhetoric anymore. It's the behaviour of a spoilt girl who thinks she farts pixie dust. Except, who's your daddy? Hell, if you can convince the sahibs who run this forum to kick me out, I'll disappear without a word. In fact, that would impress me so much, I shall send $1000 to an account/charity of your choice.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Santiago Odo wrote:Stick to your own culture, your household deities and to Bangalore, my friend!
jupiviv wrote:This isn't even rhetoric anymore. It's the behaviour of a spoilt girl who thinks she farts pixie dust. Except, who's your daddy? Hell, if you can convince the sahibs who run this forum to kick me out, I'll disappear without a word. In fact, that would impress me so much, I shall send $1000 to an account/charity of your choice.
It's amazing how Spoiled Girl keeps finding the discourse getting him punished, rejected or banned from places. This time he struck pure gold! Old half-decayed racist theories and flirtations with revised Nazi theories do the trick! Forever victim, forever outcast. The biggest punishment and frustration must then be to not eject such depraved being but welcome him and validate all the effort to create some kind of counter-philosophy, as peeing against the wind in every circumstance. Cute boyish.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

Live dangerously, that's my motto ...
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Santiago Odo wrote: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.
It does matter as the new nationalistic Right has clearly turned against the project of European identification, this whole "Brussels" project. And there's no other European project to compete with it. There's no intellectual background to anything related to this "Europe" in your mind. We could speak of course about certain civilizational theories or social-economical or cultural entities instead: Christendom, modernity, capitalism etc. One first needs some body to develop social theory, after all.
The 'color code' however had been in existence for a good long time
Not really, not in any serious intellectual sense. And the few directions there are certainly can be named "dead ends" when trying to tie anything to "non-Semitic heterosexuals of European descent". Every time we'd try, it seems some stale 19th-century racial taxonomy popping up again and again.
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.
And the core of all Christian defining is still a non-white Middle Eastern, Semitic, rather "dark" messianic figure :-)

I've heard the saying: "White People Have No Culture". Or perhaps it's a confusing mixture of oddest recombinations and monstrous hybrids. White culture is perhaps non-distinct by nature, like a blend? All colors flowing into one --which is the nature of white as achromatic (non-)color-- a color without hue. It's surely the main reason feminization has been made possible and this is described elsewhere. It's interesting to me that "Nouvelle Droite" are specifically hostile to those cultures where women have a more traditional placing and hold this against them. Don't you find that interesting? I think it points to a very crucial point of what your "whiteness" might signify: a woman centric, cunt-driven, fantasy fairy folk mostly from the realized post-utopia "America" and European shadow lands, resisting the "white" ideological universalism by referring to a national mythology and yet, ironically, invoking "white" identity, the very thing they try to resist in the deeper meaning of the word.
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.
Certainly hierarchy and organizing power has been key in all great civilizational developments. As for your attribution of the powers of "saving grace", that seems really more like retrofitting of stuff. If there's no such thing as "Grace", a transcendent ("mystical") figure of Christ or "salfici" relations as cause -- we'd be back at square one.

In the end this is not even philosophy. What you are doing is seeking certain "strong" ideas, wrap yourself inside those and start propagandizing them online as some "good apostle". Perhaps more like a St. Paul type? Like him, being first the most active in prosecution of the "Qrstians", then turning into a more extreme, advanced Qrstian, taking into the ultimate consequences when projected purely on the social-critical aspects and so become even more driven to chase down all the inner daemons projected on the outer world. You seem to even need it as some ritual repetition, as a mantra, to prevent you seeing that you arrived at the end but instead seeing the end in others, forums, cultures etc. It's nearly poetic emulation!
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).
Hierarchical definitions of that kind simply might have expiry dates on them. They can only survive by adapting, morphing into slightly or even radically different notions, even when holding some of the same names for a while. Well, Alex, I hate to bring you the bad tidings but this is the truth which you keep resisting.
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.
There's already a good word for it: wisdom. Where wisdom has prospered, civilizations sprung up around it. Or perhaps the other way around as well. But the cause of wisdom is not traceable to any diet, genetic disposition (the evolutionarily time-scale is just not suited for it) specific secret system or alignments of planets. Although that last idea cannot be excluded.
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.
Sure. But it's the call for wisdom, philosophy and clearheadedness. Or perhaps also a call to dream, to find the "right" illusion to have things set in motion? In any case, it all operates at greater depth and it might not need any "assistance" considering the limited role and capacity of one human being and his imagination.
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.
The Identitarian Movement is "ideologically situated between the Front National, the Nouvelle Droite and Neonazism" but I don't think it's defining feature is focus on self-identity and self-preservation. Simply because I think that is always the case. Only when identities come under pressure, some resistance is erected, "enshrined" as movement, as protest and full of reactionary sentiment. This in turn become like a wave of energy which can be tapped into by some and steered. Basically all the hallmarks of religious wars which all wars are technically, if the vision of "state" is seen as modern religion.

In other words, all of these movements become part of a process which might oppose the very thing they naively strive for.

Interesting, I notice some Marxists complain that "many have given up and begun reaching out to other oppressed groups in an attempt to build a social base, and a stand-in proletariat". Which would signify a shift from earlier attempt to liberate economical classes, fighting racial or gender inequalities. Just when it's all close to getting realized and embodies: a new struggle is suddenly found. Now liberation itself becomes a goal. Forming a movement becomes the goal. Organize colorful protests and parades on TV becomes a goal. Fighting a vague "corrupt" and unreliable government becomes a goal. There's a theme here! One of the spectacle and the vision as ruling forces in a post-modern societies. Only simulating the flags of liberation but wholly empty on the inside. No ideas fueling it. This is the problem with identity politics, being it SWJ or the fight for white. Bankruptcy of the mind, forced to live on the surface of form!
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'.
You have little sense yet of what I mean with "body". And that mythological "European identity" of yours is turning out to be a red herring. Can we put it to rest with together with all the "white" fishing expeditions? Whatever you're looking for, it's not related to any singly continent, overly simplified over-revised history books or skin pigmentation. So why keep using those words? Wisdom requires intelligence and respect for the hierarchy of facts, to assign probability to them to the degree that is warranted. In that way, wisdom is a body which needs to grow in all of us.
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.
You would do well to study fascism in more depth and read also some of the standard works. You'll see that the desire and "fascination" with "self-identity and empowerment" was in these case, like with Nazism, mainly a contemporary, reactionary notion in response to a failing damaged identity. So more like a reaction rising inside a sick body, in a failing society. There was nothing healthy about the Nazi party arising in Germany: it mainly craved to be strong and created as such a perverted system to steamroll its way forward. But it was essentially suicidal at the core -- which includes, if critical energy levels are available, becoming homicidal at industrial, mechanistic scales. Therefore the core mistake must have been also fundamental: in Germany the hierarchy, the organizing, the belief, the existential panic: all of this went way out of control, trying to prevent the inevitable: the collapse of spirit. But the German spirit is not dead yet, it was allowed to be reborn as European, currently as laborious, industrialized woman.

One can now imagine why Nietzsche wished he wrote his books in another language.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

Diebert wrote:It does matter as the new nationalistic Right has clearly turned against the project of European identification, this whole "Brussels" project. And there's no other European project to compete with it.
One would have to spend a good deal of time in exploring --- and defining fairly --- just what this nascent Right has 'turned against' and what it is 'turning toward'. But I notice that with your first shot you have made your own position clear. All the rest of what you write flows out of this, but also flows back to this initial statement.

True, it seems to be turning against a model which, at one level or another, it senses is not in its best interests. And as a result, I have gathered, it turns back into itself and asks that as a question: "What is in my own best interests?" And that is a fair question and a good question. In my view this is where the essence of the question lies. It is the Question and the group of questions that must be asked. And this has been my impression to date of the writings and discourses of the New Right that I have exposed myself to. It is all good material and it is being developed by good people insofar as they are thoughtful, reflective, concerned and serious intellectually.

(And as I have stated a few times I think that your own role within serious, reflective and important philosophy can and should be questioned. You make great claims about yourself, your philosophy and your method, and you hold up this *philosophy* as a valuable attainment, a very real end, but when you are poked & prodded (IMO) I think one notices some deficiencies. These have little to do with your quality as a person and more to do with your depth. My view, as you know, is that you are constrained and trapped and I think that what you reveal and the way you reveal it, reveals very clearly *where you are*).

I would also accept that there is no complete, existent, defined Identity Posture in any substantial form around which to rally. But that has been my point: it will have to be constructed. It is in a process of being constructed. Now, what I notice in what you write is the degree that you stand in opposition to such 'construction'. You are making some positively-declared 'factual' statements in what you write, but when you step back from it, it is largely a good deal of fog in which sharp rhetoric and sentimentalism are employed rather typically. And you do what typical 'hyper-liberals' do --- all the time! --- you make it plain that to work in the direction of a sane, self-preserving, ethical and moral platform on which to establish and to construct an identity posture will be seen and described as Nazism.

I see this, I think, for what it is. On one hand it is legitimate historical memory about events that were tragic and horrible for Europe and ones not to be repeated at all cost. But seen from another angle you yourself seem --- again if one steps well back and simply attempts fair definitions --- to have embodied the internal posture of powerlessness. Again (and as I said) you cannot make any positive, bold, declarative statement that would contribute to establishing the defensive ideology and platform. In this sense you, Diebert, act out your role as neutered European. Too weak, too indecisive, too wrapped up in your *philosophical spinning* and your rhetorical sentimentalism to be able to make positive contributions and, moreover, to take any stance that involves a commitment. But I will certainly grant you that it is wise to be very cautious and circumspect when considering these new nationalistic movements and the attendant ideology.
Not really, not in any serious intellectual sense...
But what you are saying is that within the domain and on the platform of liberalism and liberal intellectualism the sort of definitions which I am attempting to point the light at --- without positing any immediate movement toward their realisation mind you --- do not appear to you to be 'serious'. Put another way, you imagine, you understand, that no such definitions are possible. But again this turns back to your own methods and choices in respect to 'philosophy': a sort of edifice (I have called it a neurotic construct) that you oversee, supervise and patrol like a giant Spider-Matron. The other aspect of this underhanded visual is of the Spider Mother with enormous fluffy breasts who takes unto herself her various 'philosophical childrens' and nurses them up. Mother Spider is nice and polite and very Dutch until you cross here and then, my Heavens! she can become a little bit nasty. But all sadism and maliciousness aside I would suggest, very politely in fact, that your methods, the material you work with, and your conclusions can be and need to be examined more closely.

That is the whole point, isn't it? To challenge and to be challenged?
I've heard the saying: "White People Have No Culture". Or perhaps it's a confusing mixture of oddest recombinations and monstrous blends. White culture is perhaps non-distinct by nature, like a blend? All colours flowing into one -- which is the nature of white as achromatic (non-)colour -- a colour without hue. It's surely the reason feminisation has been possible and this is described elsewhere. It's interesting to me that "Nouvelle Droite" are the most hostile to those cultures where woman have more traditional placing and hold it against them. Don't you find that interesting? I think it points to a very crucial point of what your "whiteness" might signify: a woman centric, cunt-driven, fantasy fairy folk mostly from the realised post-utopia "America" and European shadow lands, resisting the "white" ideological universalism by referring to a national mythology and yet, ironically, invoking "white" identity, the very thing they try to resist in a deeper meaning of the word. In other words: idiocy.
This is a most marvellous paragraph! I suggest to you, again as politely as is possible, that there is very little (real) idea that is expressed here but a great deal of rhetoric and sentiment. My view is that it is precisely this which, in this case at least, best defines your *position* insofar as you have one. It is a sticky ground or perhaps I should say it is a web composed of sticky filaments of thought. It is a trap though, Diebert, and one that you would do well to extricate yourself from. Who and what are you fighting against here?

I like this line: "...a woman-centric, cunt-driven, fantasy fairy-folk mostly from the realised post-utopia "America" and European shadow lands" but I added some hyphens because it establishes a better rhythm. I could sort of guess at what you are talking about here and I suppose it would fit into other elements of your *discourse* I imagine yet it's all to tangled for my purposes.
Certainly hierarchy and organising power has been key in all great civilisational developments. As for you attribution of the powers of the "saving grace", that seems really more like retrofitting of stuff. If there's no such thing as "Grace", a transcendent ("mystical") figure of Christ or "salfici" relations as cause -- we'd be back at square one.
In the end this is not even philosophy. What you are doing is seeking certain "strong" ideas, wrap yourself inside those and start propagandising them online as some "good apostle". Perhaps more like a St. Paul type? Like him, being first the most active in prosecution of the "Qrstians", then turning into a more extreme, advanced Qrstian, taking into the ultimate consequences when projected purely on the social-critical aspects and so become even more driven to chase down all the inner daemons projected on the outer world. You seem to even need it as some ritual repetition, as a mantra, to prevent you seeing that you arrived at the end but instead of seeing the end in others, forums, cultures etc. It's nearly poetic!
The observations that I made --- about an antique and a former European metaphysics --- were certainly not *philosophic* in the modern sense that you mean. But that was sort of my point: these ideas did function at one time and they determined a great deal. The Great Chain of Being was not an intellectual description it was what one felt to be true at a basic level. True, they were supplanted (or better put they are in a process of being supplanted) by modern, liberal intellectual ideas and constructs, and it is exactly this area that needs to be better understood, in my view, so to be able to better grasp Our Present. (It is not 'retrofitting' though to understand how the Medieval mind understood Christ though, nor Grace: it was a fundamental category of perception).

There is indeed 'no such thing' as Grace for Diebert van Rhijn, now that much is true. And that is where one would have to focus attention. That is, to further investigate how he has routed out of those categories the meaning required for them to have life and meaning. I suggest that, there, in that poking, we will likely encounter some of the 'truths' that better define this Diebert and illuminate, too, his *philosophy*. The point is that you, Diebert, are firmly grounded in specific liberal definitions --- you call this 'sound philosophy' --- but I suggest that they are merely choices, not necessarily the revelation of truths.

This paragraph, though knotty, has some interesting elements relevant to *things*:
  • Perhaps more like a St. Paul type? Like him, being first the most active in prosecution of the "Qrstians", then turning into a more extreme, advanced Qrstian, taking into the ultimate consequences when projected purely on the social-critical aspects and so become even more driven to chase down all the inner daemons projected on the outer world. You seem to even need it as some ritual repetition, as a mantra, to prevent you seeing that you arrived at the end but instead of seeing the end in others, forums, cultures etc. It's nearly poetic!
I appreciate this effort to set up some similes and to exploit but I would take issue at a few points. Earlier on my core opposition is that, I felt, the QRStian definitions operated, fundamentally, as 'acid'. Because the idea was dissolution of self. Therefor, they were persecuted (or 'tormented' as Anna once said) largely for this reason. I still am very much of that opinion. Therefor the 'persecution' has not stopped, but it has taken more pointed form. My stand is now against a larger construct, a larger 'metaphysics' if you will, that I see as operating at a macro-level. If I am turning into a 'more extreme, more advanced QRStian' it is because I have related to them seriously at least at a basic level and taken serious the self-imposed challenge of getting more clear about what a large and important social-spiritual project should really be about, and what it must entail.

The other part about 'becoming an activist' and an evangelist, though I register that you desire to employ this as mockery and ridicule (and it is admirable to a degree!) I would suggest, again, that there is little more important to be serious about. St Paul and the Early Christians surely put themselves on the line. I mean, if you really want to attempt to work that angle I suppose I could go along with it!

And beyond any question, yes, I certainly do *need* to continue to work in these areas, to push forward into them, to communicate what I can of what I see and what I have learned, about what is important.
There's already a good word for it: wisdom. Where wisdom has prospered, civilisations sprung up around it. Or perhaps the other way around as well. But the cause of wisdom is not traceable to any diet, genetic disposition (the evolutionarily time-scale is just not suited for it) specific secret system or alignments of planets. Although that last idea cannot be excluded.
And it will not be excluded.

But Diebertian mother-milk is said to be chock-full of all the nutriments necessary for growing wisdom-babes! To nuzzle at that nozzle is surely a Grace all unto itself, wouldn't you say?

You are a quacking duck! ;-)
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

Diebert wrote:You would do well to study fascism in more depth and read also some of the standard works. You'll see that the desire and "fascination" with "self-identity and empowerment" was in these case, like with Nazism, mainly a contemporary, reactionary notion in response to a failing damaged identity. So more like a reaction rising inside a sick body, in a failing society. There was nothing healthy about the Nazi party arising in Germany: it mainly craved to be strong and created as such a perverted system to steamroll its way forward. But it was essentially suicidal at the core -- which includes, if critical energy levels are available, becoming homicidal at industrial, mechanistic scales. Therefore the core mistake must have been also fundamental: in Germany the hierarchy, the organizing, the belief, the existential panic: all of this went way out of control, trying to prevent the inevitable: the collapse of spirit. But the German spirit is not dead yet, it was allowed to be reborn as European, currently as laborious, industrialized woman.
Can you suggest a reading list? Which standard works? I thank you for proffering your breast, Mother Dearest, and for explaining to me what I will *see* in advance of the reading! It is always helpful to be guided along by a matron-like figure who has clearly mastered the topic. I am worried though. With such voluminous fore-cargo you may at some point topple over!

I start from the premise that I will not get from you what I need to know about that era and those events. I start from the premise that you will repeat constructs that have been cobbled together for different reasons and which were given a certain function and utility and which, of course, have been used in constructing the post-war liberal Europe. I start from the premise that you will not explain, clarify and enlighten, but that you will muddle, confuse and misdirect.

But please don't make the mistake of assuming that I think this postwar liberalism is bad necessarily. I do think it fair to say that European liberalism can be critiqued and also 'corrected' and I think that we now see a new form: hyper-liberalism. Hyper-Liberalism requires a whole and lengthy definition but it is also wedded to certain trends of 'postmodernism'.

When I speak of going back over, or revisiting, or of having to psychologically or spiritually reprocesses WW2 and these devastating events in no sense at all do I desire to resurrect nazism or even fascism. Please notice that this is where you are taking what I have written (and what others write on this topic). As I said earlier, it is inevitable that you will push things over into these zones of definition because they can function in place of any argument. The mere mention of these things will scare most people away.

It is true that I see the pan-European world as under assault. But what I mean by that and why I think that (and why this is thought among certain circles) requires a good deal of careful, sober explication. It can be done. And it can be done in upright, coherant and also ethical and moral terms. If it is not those --- if it is not ethical and moral --- it cannot be defined nor defended.

If you can speak of a 'sick body' and an 'ailing society' I assume that you consider such things as real. And if you consider them real then I will assume that you consider that as with an ailment or sickness there is a cure. This is a positive step. Because --- to bring this back to this forum and its original definitions --- society is in a state of sickness and this needs to be seen and defined. In essence this is what interests me. And as I make efforts to define that 'illness' I have also come to see that sometimes the 'cure' is more of the illness. I suppose that you would agree with this, at least it is implied more or less in what you have written above.

I simply state that I have become aware that some of the philosophers and theorists of the Nouvelle Droite (et cetera) have begun to write about hyper-liberalism as a manifestation of an illness. And a serious illness that must be addressed, understood, sorted though, confronted --- treated. In my own case, as you well know, I am moved to consider a specific facet of Bowden's analysis as shedding light on this 'illness'. The message is conveyed in part of a speech that I have linked to numbers of times. The implications point to a general recovery of 'self'. There are perhaps many ways to put it but this is the general way I'd refer to it.

To recover that 'self' and to address either the reality that this self is in danger, or the feeling that it is, is a relevant project and a fair topic of conversation. However, when one goes into it, when one atttempts to elaborate it, when one attempts a defensive posture and defensive tactics, one is immediately assaulted by exponents of hyper-liberalism. It therefor appears plain that many different forces and energies are rallied against this retrun to self or return to self-definition and power in the sense that I define it. Hyper-liberalism has become an acid that eats away, quite specifically, at white or European identity and power. It tends to empower 'the other' and to villify itself. In that it seems to me that it shows what the 'disease' and the 'illness' is, or at least that it exists.

The influence of Marxianism and structuralism --- the use of certain postmodern *philosophies* such as you give voice to and which inform you basically --- must be seen and confronted. This is not at all an easy feat. Why? Because of the way that people's identities, in our present and as 'metaphysical constructs', are so wrapped up in guilt and self-blame that the mere mention of strong identity, and the assertion of Identity in the sense I refer to, is terrifying to them. They recoil away from it because of the weight of guilt and blame. Therefor, I simply note that it is there, there precisely, that work needs to be done. That is, a psychological confrontation with 'the flaming sword' that stands in the way.

I do not think I have said anything mean-spirited, nor racist, nor cruel, nor even violent. But what I do notice is that upon mention of these things and their necessity that what is said is twisted and interpreted to be something else. You have done this Diebert. You have shown how it is done and why it is done! You just do it with a bit more (excruciating) panache.

The strongest *fascistic* documents that I have read so far have been Houston Chamberlain and then Hans F. G. Gunther's 'The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans'. This latter is actually a remarkable book, a remarkable presentation of ideas.
  • "My concern is to identify Indo-European religion at its most perfect and characteristic form, and in its richest and purest assertion --- that completely spontaneous expression of the spirit in which primary Indo-European nature expresses itself with the greatest degree of purity".
One of the most important ideas I got from Gunther is that of the ideal of man becoming a co-operator and co-creator with his god --- and god defined as a brother --- and a move away from the notion of a man serving god as his slave. This became very important to me in so many different senses. The idea of solidarity, community, self-definition, but also of specific values and accomplishment-aims.

It looks like we will be going into all of this and much much more as things move along. How happy your should be!

(I still am hoping to see your expositions in the wonderfully titled thread you began up there in the 'enlightened' section of the forum. 'Return to the Body, Substance and Meaning' --- that is something I might have come up with you plagiarist! Still, I am desirous to know when you will you be posting there again?)
You I'll never leave
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I've heard the saying: "White People Have No Culture". Or perhaps it's a confusing mixture of oddest recombinations and monstrous hybrids. White culture is perhaps non-distinct by nature, like a blend? All colors flowing into one --which is the nature of white as achromatic (non-)color-- a color without hue. It's surely the main reason feminization has been made possible and this is described elsewhere. It's interesting to me that "Nouvelle Droite" are specifically hostile to those cultures where women have a more traditional placing and hold this against them. Don't you find that interesting? I think it points to a very crucial point of what your "whiteness" might signify: a woman centric, cunt-driven, fantasy fairy folk mostly from the realized post-utopia "America" and European shadow lands, resisting the "white" ideological universalism by referring to a national mythology and yet, ironically, invoking "white" identity, the very thing they try to resist in the deeper meaning of the word.
Alex and the alt-right folk ignore a very obvious historical fact - cultural similarity is not cultural identity. If it were, large parts of Europe and my own subcontinent would have united under various cultural banners since about the 5th/6th c. BC. And that would have happened irregardless of economic, political and expansionist factors. Nation/empire building always boiled down to the right mix of luck/circumstance, manpower and social cohesion/will. It was never about anschluss.

Not that cultural similarity never lead to diplomatic affinity. It did when radically dissimilar cultures posed a threat (manufactured or otherwise). But in general it lead to the very opposite of affinity. Proximity breeds contempt when it comes to culture. The *only* social structure which has historically remained intact as a source of belonging/identity against all the ravages of time is the extended family and, by extension, the tribe/clan. But that is apparently not one of Alex's "specific concerns" (which he apparently has).

In a way the alt right does belong, as you seem to adumbrate above, entirely to the period of unprecedented political harmony amongst ethnic and cultural cousins which they inhabit. Whether they know it or not, their goal is to *preserve* the western BAU (business as usual) in a decentralized form/disguise. Trump has demonstrated this almost perfectly - no real change, but instead a constant reshuffling of stated priorities followed by retrofitting of same to cherished virtues/saving graces which are no longer relevant. Like the global simulation of reflation via asset inflation carried out by the same central banks that did the same thing under Obama being hailed as "Jobs are starting to roar!"

The SJWs actually *share* this goal with the alt right, but they merely wish to drive it to its conclusion, i.e., *only* change within the framework of the current BAU (itself built around ideas of infinite change and growth for their own sake). Forget outdated models of identity/prosperity! The recent Game of Thrones season expresses this almost unnervingly perfectly. Dragon girl comes to invade evil queen and sits around being assertive, strong and independent. Then evil queen's brother/lover takes out dragon girl's allies. Then snow boy meets dragon girl and they fall in love. Hopefully the next episode will be about all three riding each other *and* the dragons simultaneously. Also, a eunuch has sex. It's like Wagner fucked Jennifer Pritzker.

There is a Roman analogy here. The alt right as the old Roman and Hellenic assertion and reassertion under Diocletian and the Apostate respectively. The SJWs as Christianity (the religion of women and slaves) creeping into Roman society and bureaucracy like "a scourge sent on man by the author of all evil" (- Gibbon). Both these tendencies occurred within a context that was itself losing relevance and power, and both are probably different ways of coping with a nameless anxiety about that same loss. The Roman SJWs ultimately won and lived on as the skeleton of the old BAU. Using this skeleton, the German foederati of the western empire established their own BAU.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

Jupi wrote:Alex and the alt-right folk ignore a very obvious historical fact - cultural similarity is not cultural identity. If it were, large parts of Europe and my own subcontinent would have united under various cultural banners since about the 5th/6th c. BC. And that would have happened irregardless of economic, political and expansionist factors. Nation/empire building always boiled down to the right mix of luck/circumstance, manpower and social cohesion/will. It was never about anschluss.
Just by starting on that note you've started badly. I think you should know better: there is no one Alt-Right and certainly no singular Nouvelle Droite. And I am not affiliated with either though I am definitely interested in the ideas that stand behind them. In fact the Alt-Right and the Nouvelle Droite (terms used for convenience) have an assortement of different perspectives and ideas which cannot be subsumed under one label.

Still I notice that you recognize 'unity' as a possibility and only seem to note that various things stand in the way of it. That is a positive step. It is quite possible that whatever the Nouvelle Droite represents (I will stick with this general term for convenience) may fizzle and fail, this must be taken into consideration. But on what basis the opposition to it? I suggest that your grasp of its position is shallow. And again, why would any of this be of concern to you? And what could you be expected to understand? This is the reason I suggest that you stick with your own cultural and state issues and problems. Your opinion, to me anyway, has no weight at all.

Over a couple of years I have examined in fair depth the concerns of the Alt-Right and the Nouvelle Droite. I certainly have more immediate understanding of the American side of the equation and yet it is the European side that is theoretically more rich. I focus on concerns because that best expresses that it does have to do with people who are genuinely concerned about what is going on in their world. And because I have even more background with the concerns of the SJWs and more or less came out of Berkeley (my parent's context) I know that they too have concerns. I certainly would not and do not dismiss them.
In a way the alt right does belong, as you seem to adumbrate above, entirely to the period of unprecedented political harmony amongst ethnic and cultural cousins which they inhabit. Whether they know it or not, their goal is to *preserve* the western BAU (business as usual) in a decentralized form/disguise.
Again, there are numerous 'Alt-Rights' and an array of different and divergent ideas so your generalisation cannot work very well right from the start. And what you conclude from it is questionable. However, based on what I have read and exposed myself to they do function out of an idealism which is also frustration and a sense of incompleteness, of having missed out on something, or of losing something, or the sense of seeing something fade away. But that would be the case, and certainly is the case, in any social situation that would produce a reform-movement. There is a whole range of things that people are reacting to.

In the US, based on my own experience, one of the major underlying issues is obviously that of race and demographics. The sense of seeing one's country 'invaded' (as they might say), or transformed (as is more truthful and realist), and the loss of the unity of cultural affiliation and the solidity that existed previously. And there is a nostalgic element. But I would imagine that were this conversation to progress neither of you would demonstrate any concern for that concern. Yet it is real. And it will take more definite form and become more real, more present, more affecting as time passes. Many different movements are just beginning to form in our present and many shifts are occurring in many different people --- I am one example --- who previously held different visions, perspectives and idealisms. There are hundreds of thousands of us --- maybe millions --- just in the anglophone world.

The point, at this time, is to articulate a vision to them that resonates with something true and real within their concerns. It will have ramifications and I think interesting and also powerful ones.

Finally, we are not in ancient pre-modern Europe and definitely not in the Indian subcontinent! A huge amount of work is being done in the anglophone world (and it has nothing to do with your personal feelings about Alex) as well as in many nations in Europe. I would suggest it is better and more important to actually see what is happening rather than to so acutely judge it as 'bad', as you-plural seem to.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote: Whether they know it or not, their goal is to *preserve* the western BAU (business as usual) in a decentralized form/disguise. Trump has demonstrated this almost perfectly - no real change, but instead a constant reshuffling of stated priorities followed by retrofitting of same to cherished virtues/saving graces which are no longer relevant. Like the global simulation of reflation via asset inflation carried out by the same central banks that did the same thing under Obama being hailed as "Jobs are starting to roar!"
Indeed. The most interesting feature being "simulation". And lets face it, Trump is a perfect simulator: in nearly all ways not a conservative while representing conservatives, in nearly all ways not a peace maker while dismissing war and so on. But that way he's just demonstrating perfectly the virtualization of the whole system, as a show man.

Philosophically I'd think more about the Society of the Spectacle (Guy Debord) with as visual contemporary example: the "spectacle of the revolution" as performed in how many sick countries now? In the same way we have the "spectacle of regime change" without any regime really changing but in name, against staggering costs of course. Then we have now the "spectacle of change" in American politics, which both Obama and Trump have used heavily as branding.

These notions are key to understand the developments with the SJW as well as with Trump supporters and "new right". The key is to first establish simple facts: SJW is not about justice or truth of any kind, most Trump supporters don't really support or respect Trump at all but hate the rest just way more and the "new right" is not actually conservative: they are embracing the display of revolution and change (a once lefty thing) against a completely frozen and aimless "progressive" movement.
The recent Game of Thrones season expresses this almost unnervingly perfectly.
So you are a fan, secretly worshiping "hot blooded" narcissus Emilia Clarke like every other cold heart of course. What can be hoped is that the analogy will be taken to its destructive, bloody end: riding the dragon, the wielding of absolute naked power, will warp every rider of the Beast into absolute madness. Like Icarus and his wings.
The Roman SJWs ultimately won and lived on as the skeleton of the old BAU. Using this skeleton, the German foederati of the western empire established their own BAU.
Empires are its own class, its own species. Perhaps living things. And the remaining spectacle of empire lost, the "whale bones", have indeed been proven of great use throughout history.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

Diebert wrote:So you are a fan, secretly worshiping "hot blooded" narcissus Emilia Clarke like every other cold heart of course. What can be hoped is that the analogy will be taken to its destructive, bloody end: riding the dragon, the wielding of absolute naked power, will warp every rider of the Beast into absolute madness. Like Icarus and his wings.
Oh Boy, now I know I am in postmodern territory. I have also gained more insight into a certain mutual embrace and nursing symbiosis as it might be called. Are your teeth as sharp as your tongues? Ouch!
You I'll never leave
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by JohnJAu »

The recent Game of Thrones season expresses this almost unnervingly perfectly.
(Warning! "Youtube Illuminati styled" conspiracy theory time)
It's my estimation that a huge portion at least of mainstream media/movies/tv/music is intentional propaganda designed to push certain themes for certain agendas.

It seems to me these themes are present at least every two minutes and not by coincidence.

The themes are:
- LGBTQ
-Emasculation of men
- Women are the better sex. Wiser, kinder, more loving, more rational, and they are oppressed/defying the patriarchy. Strong and independent. Also princesses.
-Men are mostly ugly rapists, murderers, pedophiles. The only men which are good looking and are not evil are the ones that sacrifice for women.
-Criminals are non-human scum, doing evil to them is not wrong.
- The military and police are absolutely necessary heroes, without them you'll be raped/murdered/eaten alive by zombies.
-'Strangers' are not to be trusted or spoken to.
-Without regulatory government everything will descend into chaos.
- Religion bashing in many various forms. Such as that religious men are pedophiles.
- Poor people are scum.
-Sexual license is good.
-Taking extreme emotional offense to any criticism is rational/normal.
- You should end relationships if the slightest thing goes wrong.
- Anyone speaking out against the government is a crazy conspiracy theorist.
-It's impossible to get away with breaking the law.
- Children must be lied to and only taught/shown fantasy, to tell a child about harsh realities is evil.
- All groups outside the regulated norm are cults.
- Surveillance is necessary to stop terrorism and protect you.
-Government/intelligence/agency secrecy is super cool and necessary.
- Nothing can be done to end crime and there is no better solution than caging people en mass.
-All other forms of government/economic structures are nightmares. Changes in government/education are nearly impossible and take many years to attempt, they are dangerous.
-You should not marry unless you are head over heels in love and have found the perfect man.
- Children are to be worshipped, they are so intelligent and wise and all our focus must be on them whenever they are around.
-Reading is nerdy and a waste of time.
-You only live once.
-Vanity is good.
- Scientific materialism is without a doubt the only philosophical viewpoint that makes sense.
-Animals are worth more than humans. Humans must be killed if they harm a pet.
- You can save thousands of lives by donating $20 to charity and therefore need not care since poverty thus must be solved, but doing so is pointless because the charity companies take 95% of it. (Therefore nothing can be done.)
-The justice system/economic system is extremely fair. You have lots of rights when it comes to a court of law and are innocent until proven guilty.
-Talking about any of these harsh realities is 'being negative' and must be avoided.

And so on and so on. Legit, turn on a tv and open a check list, you'll be ticking that thing constantly almost no matter what mainstream media you put on.
I'm happy to run through a random episode of a show if you like and you'll notice that every scene heavily enforces these themes. I highly doubt it's a coincidence, it is not my confirmation bias, it is not simply a result of real life themes/people's desires of what they want to see/outrage media/or events being reflected in the media, take an in depth and fresh look before assuming all that. It's very easy to assume that and it makes sense, until you look closer year after year and so broadly.

I'm surprised you guys haven't caught on. I mean, I'm not certain, but I'd say it's "likely" Hollywood/TV/Movies are intentional propaganda/brainwashing machines.

The themes are definitely there, there's no question about that, I'm only uncertain that its a 'conspiracy' (that those themes are purposefully included in nearly all content for certain agendas, which I've pretty much listed before).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Lets not make too much of fantasy books and TV series. Obviously they're going to reflect in great detail the time and culture in which they are made and consumed. All media is like that. There are whole academic fields dedicated to decoding the obvious and all less obvious symbols in movies, commercials and news. Reflections which are then used again by some producers and writers as to insert more irony and meta. However not much of that in GoT, which is mostly a "spectacular" TV drama anyhow.
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by JohnJAu »

It still manages to get most of it in there though. I picked an episode at random and flicked through it, every scene one or many of these themes were there.

And I stated the theory is that it's beyond reflections of real life or coincidence and about the possibility of socio-engineering via control of the mass media. At this point these themes are of course already so common that one wouldn't blink an eye and they are indeed taken and re-used. You'd have to look into it/listen to the people that believe this theory to see the overwhelming evidence which leads one to think it's likely and not just a result of confirmation bias.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

JohnJAu wrote:And I stated the theory is that it's beyond reflections of real life or coincidence and about the possibility of socio-engineering via control of the mass media. At this point these themes are of course already so common that one wouldn't blink an eye and they are indeed taken and re-used. You'd have to look into it/listen to the people that believe this theory to see the overwhelming evidence which leads one to think it's likely and not just a result of confirmation bias.
The presence of the evidence itself is not debated. Look, I've always liked to watch a selected bunch of movies and series, preferably something thought provoking and I never did mind "world building" or immersive entertainment, although it rarely peaks my interest these days. OF course the whole medium is mainly a visual message, a story told through pictures, being it set pieces, facial expressions, voices or scenery in some sort of logical sequence. That's what I mean with "making too much of it". If Jesus would tell a story about a flock of sheep, would you start complaining about how it would display contemporary issues with shepherds and depict them morally this or that? It seems besides the point. The backdrop is just contemporary, set pieces designed to be understood and related to by the audience.

In any case, a series like Game of Thrones is all about production value, graphic but still highly manufactured display of violence or nudity and the tendency of many of its characters to die gruesomely. And yes, I do think you deployed quite some confirmation bias. From what I've seen from it would suggest this series is opposite to many of the items of your list:

- Women are generally depicted as more ruthless, scheming and cruel than any men
- Governments and military are one big nest of corruption and depraved morality
- Power corrupts, forcing one to sacrifice many if not just your own family downright
- Families are deeply dysfunctional, full of secrets or at least defining your own actions more than you'd like
- The world is full of depraved cravings and many people only hold a little show of decency for the outside world
- Death, destruction and hopelessness are the backdrop to some expected disaster coming soon
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

Diebert wrote:That's what I mean with "making too much of it". If Jesus would tell a story about a flock of sheep, would you start complaining about how it would display contemporary issues with shepherds and depict them morally this or that? It seems besides the point. The backdrop is just contemporary, set pieces designed to be understood and related to by the audience.
Postmodernist Richard Rorty wrote:To say that we should drop the idea of truth as out there waiting to be discovered is not to say that we have discovered that, out there, there is no truth. It is to say that our purposes would be served best by ceasing to see truth as a deep matter, as a topic of philosophical interest, or ‘true’ as a term which repays ‘analysis.’ ‘The nature of truth’ is an unprofitable topic, resembling in this respect ‘the nature of man’ and ‘the nature of God’
The postmodern trap is that it leads to an internal state in which one is caught in a sticky web and cannot make decisions. It is an effect of the doctrine of relativism I suppose. If one's own self is so wrapped up in the *spectacle* to the degree that one imbibes the material but yet has no position on a solid ground from which to critique it, or even to denounce and decimate it, I would suggest that this is evidence of being in a conceptual trap. Essentially, I suggest, this is postmodernism in its worser aspect. A conceptual goop-land where nothing can be decided and one is simply moving along with he current, incapable of real *steering*, but capable of acute analysis (or 'renderings' is perhaps the word) of the phenomena in the contingent flow.

If one is so inclined, one can develop an extraordinary *width* of analysis and an unending commentary on the mutating world, but one will show oneself incapable of making hard choices based in specific declarations of value. If one then elevates what appears to be an elaborate (I have used the word 'neurotic') commentary merely on the flow of phenomena into a *philosophy* or a discourse which is represented as having *value* and *meaning*, but which in fact is not and could be described fairly as a 'sticky web' or as constructions which are mere evidence of being lost and indecisive (I have used the term *devastated*), one is according to my view committing the sin of postmodernism. Looked at in a certain way, with a certain bias it is true, I would suggest that this is a feminisation of thought and certainly of *philosophy* but to be more precise a sort of 'collapse' within the decisive self.

I would like to suggest that it is not only our own Philosophical Matron who suffers from this ailment, from this outcome, but that we all have various sorts of links to it which we need to become aware of. We need to challenge ourselves to take issue with our own 'goopy stickiness' and our tendency to articulate entire edifices we deem to be philosophical but which, on closer analysis, are failures of philosophy or, to put it another way, celebrations of lostness within postmodern mazes.

With this in mind, and since the topic of this thread does have to do with developing right-leaning movements which are examining/reexamining the reactionary writings of the interwar period (1920-1930s), and are deeply critical of what they understand to be full flung debauchery (a collapse into the sensual and the voluptuous where higher ideation is sacrificed), it would seem to me that a critical position in respect to GoT would be normal and necessary: required. Yet to articulate the position that John brought out (even if it is somewhat crude and simplified) requires a base within solid value-definitions. And yet the question is: Who can define them? Who has the will to define them?

One has to find that will. One has to invent it in a certain sense. One has to cobble it together. It is as if the 'self' has become effeminate and *melted* and cannot fully constitute itself in solid form. It is the victim then of the 'flowey'. It is indecisive intellect or perhaps one could say contaminated intellect. In such a situation ---- in a Heraclitian sense --- the state of things in such a present calls forth a reaction, a decisive, shocking reaction. I suggest that this is what many people are groping for in their 'confusion' and their 'desperation'. (In relation to the Nouvelle Droite and the Alt-Right for instance).

I further suggest that the *original project* defined at GF had this as its intention. It had to have insofar as it determined that it would focus on the most important things. It defined 'becoming decisive' as the essence, and the responsibility, of masculinity. I do not mean to say that everything feminine, sensual-in-essence and big-breasted should be pushed out of the picture. But if we are going to be attracted to a giant postmodern teat and if we are going to gnaw at it like hungry babes I think we should at least see it for what it is. If we desire to live within that *web of concerns* and establish, quite literally, our very housing in that, I think we should do this as a conscious choice not as something that merely happens or that is accepted as a normal state of affairs. In no sense is it 'normal'. It has come about as a result of specific and concrete choices.

Since one of the delightful, underhanded, and deliciously devious accusations used so often on this forum is that of 'feminisation', and since obviously I have made many references to the Queen of the Forum with her thick, nourishing mother-milk, I suppose I am on-point in playing the sardonic game.

But if there were a revolution in the palace (as it were) who has the weight and the necessary size to be seated on the Throne of Philosophical Wisdom-Guidance? Will Commander Solway come back and accept the crown & sceptor? David? Beer-soaked Dan? The Little Brown Hindu stained orange with Cheetos and turmeric paste?

These are questions we must deeply think-through in the coming weeks and months!
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

The background that Hicks develops to understand the postmodern swamp and its surrender to meaningful meaninglessness (that is what I said Diebert) and surrender of reasoned grounding in idea, is worthwhile. I suggest that to understand Our Present, and to understand ourselves, and to understand what we face and what we must absolutely overcome, we need to understand how we wound up in the postmodern swamp. Once we have done this we will then need to begin to name, one by one, solid values that we believe in and can rationally define and explain. We must become decisive and we must resist the far-left domination of concerns, warped by emotionalism and sentimentalism, and effectively begin to overturn them. We will have to deliberately veer back toward rational solidities even when that pertains to the domain of metaphysics, which is in the intangible realm (no easy feat).

In this sense I suggest that we can say, fairly, that the disease of the present and many or most of the symptoms that we notice in this present, and of which we too share (we are also symptoms) can be accurately described as postmodern disease. In any case, it seems to be true that when people evince 'confusion' and 'desperation' they are psychologically reacting to their sense that they are diseased, that disease has fallen on them, that they are trapped and constrained by it: devastated by it. And in relation to it what are they able to do? What can they decide?
Stephan RC Hicks wrote:From the postmodern anti-realist metaphysics and anti-reason epistemology, the postmodern social consequences follow almost directly. Once we set aside reality and reason, what are we left with to go on? We can, as the conservatives would prefer, simply turn to our group’s traditions and follow them. Or we can, as the post-modernists will prefer, turn to our feelings and follow them. If we then ask what our core feelings are, we connect with the answers from the past century’s dominant theories of human nature.

From Kierkegaard and Heidegger, we learn that our emotional core is a deep sense of dread and guilt. From Marx, we feel a deep sense of alienation, victimisation, and rage. From Nietzsche, we discover a deep need for power. From Freud, we uncover the urgings of dark and aggressive sexuality. Rage, power, guilt, lust, and dread constitute the centre of the postmodern emotional universe. Postmodernists split over whether those core feelings are determined biologically or socially, with the social version running as the strong favourite. In either case, however, individuals are not in control of their feelings: their identities are a product of their group memberships, whether economic, sexual, or racial. Since the shaping economic, sexual, or racial experiences or developments vary from group to group, differing groups have no common experiential framework.

With no objective standard by which to mediate their different perspectives and feelings, and with no appeal to reason possible, group balkanisation and conflict must necessarily result. Nasty political correctness as a tactic then makes perfect sense. Having rejected reason, we will not expect ourselves or others to behave reasonably. Having put our passions to the fore, we will act and react more crudely and range-of-the-moment. Having lost our sense of ourselves as individuals, we will seek our identities in our groups. Having little in common with different groups, we will see them as competitive enemies. Having abandoned recourse to rational and neutral standards, violent competition will seem practical. And having abandoned peaceful conflict resolution, prudence will dictate that only the most ruthless will survive.

Postmodernist reactions to the prospects of a brutal post-modern social world then fall into three main categories, depending on whether Foucault’s, Derrida’s, or Rorty’s variant is given primacy. Foucault, following Nietzsche more closely in having reduced knowledge to an expression of social power, urges us to play the brutal power politics game—though contrary to Nietzsche he urges that we play it on behalf of the traditionally disempowered. Derrida, having followed Heidegger more closely and purified him, deconstructs language and retreats into it as a vehicle of aesthetic play, insulating himself from the fray. Rorty, having abandoned objectivity, hopes that we will seek “inter-subjective agreement” among the “members of our own tribe,” and, feeling loyal to his American left-liberal roots, requests that we be nice to each other while doing so. The postmodern options, in short, are to plunge into the fray, or withdraw and insulate oneself from it, or try to ameliorate its excesses. Postmodernism is thus the end result of the Counter-Enlightenment inaugurated by Kantian epistemology.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Philosophically I'd think more about the Society of the Spectacle (Guy Debord) with as visual contemporary example: the "spectacle of the revolution" as performed in how many sick countries now? In the same way we have the "spectacle of regime change" without any regime really changing but in name, against staggering costs of course. Then we have now the "spectacle of change" in American politics, which both Obama and Trump have used heavily as branding.
I read "Society of the Spectacle" around the time I joined this forum, when I was still in my conservative-antifeminist axis-leaning phase. It certainly helped me wriggle out of that philosophical morass. That combined with the convoluted, abstract, aphoristic style makes it one of my favourites. Debord seems to share some insights about the nature of time with Weininger, i.e., the "intelligible ego" as time and the desire to destroy or distort time as criminality.

The only problem I have with him is the usual socialist tendency to see spontaneously originating class hierarchy and power everywhere. The Spectacle is ultimately nothing more than humanity's rationalisation of its fungus-like interaction with the surplus energy it has stumbled into in the form of fossil fuels. Debt accumulation isn't a problem if the cheap and dense energy sources which provide reasons to go into debt to begin with continue to become cheaper and denser.
These notions are key to understand the developments with the SJW as well as with Trump supporters and "new right". The key is to first establish simple facts: SJW is not about justice or truth of any kind, most Trump supporters don't really support or respect Trump at all but hate the rest just way more and the "new right" is not actually conservative: they are embracing the display of revolution and change (a once lefty thing) against a completely frozen and aimless "progressive" movement.
Like all revolutionaries/revisionists, the alt rightists are artifacts, not agents, of change.
The recent Game of Thrones season expresses this almost unnervingly perfectly.
So you are a fan, secretly worshiping "hot blooded" narcissus Emilia Clarke like every other cold heart of course. What can be hoped is that the analogy will be taken to its destructive, bloody end: riding the dragon, the wielding of absolute naked power, will warp every rider of the Beast into absolute madness. Like Icarus and his wings.
Dragon girl's titties awaken a mighty dragon behind my fly, but I'm not exactly a fan. In fact I have no idea wtf is going on most of the time with the character development/minor plot lines, but that's part of the fun!

Anyway, the show does express the heterogeneous spirit of our age in a way, i.e., frantic heaping of all values and ideas together without judgment until they collapse under their own weight and lead to a cathartic surrender to whatever is left.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Alex, you're such a bad writer when you get excited! All over the place, constantly side-tracked, pretty boring overall, low on intellectual basics and way too voluminous as if you want to win by just blowing up more and more balloons and in the process making everyone give up, providing a victory which must feel really hollow.

So please forgive me to just pick a few little things out of the heap which at least might be on topic and relevant. It might be still too much though looking back now again to the length of my post.
When I speak of going back over, or revisiting, or of having to psychologically or spiritually reprocesses WW2 and these devastating events in no sense at all do I desire to resurrect nazism or even fascism.
Of course not! You're just needlessly playing with those ideas and endless wondering, questioning and pondering. All I do is point to where it might lead if or when you'd be really serious about it, that is: like a "man"-- and walk the roads intellectually you so flirtatiously desire to tread upon. For me personally no topic is off the table. Even the idea that populations might have to be filtered or culled on some criteria, segregation or even extermination.... yes, even that but I usually dismiss these ideas because there's simply just no proper judgement unless we give some elite the ultimate power to decide or compute the rules. Such theory should then be tested and proven to a very high degree because a mistake here would open the door to some kind of potential suicidal policy on an industrial scale. What world wars of course are: war on that scale becomes another beast altogether: industries of a drive to extermination. That's a deeper, darker topic though.
. It can be done. And it can be done in upright, coherant and also ethical and moral terms. If it is not those --- if it is not ethical and moral --- it cannot be defined nor defended.
You mean relative, shifting, betraying terms. It's a form of reasoning which doesn't show in my view much common sense or broader life experience. But I do admire the highly idealistic, "noble" pretense somewhere in there.
If you can speak of a 'sick body' and an 'ailing society' I assume that you consider such things as real. And if you consider them real then I will assume that you consider that as with an ailment or sickness there is a cure.
It's the thinking of a cure which as well demonstrated the sickness in the cases I mentioned: societies under pressure being it economically, ideologically and indeed about identity. But just as well about "old age" or resistance against change itself. The sickness is here then only the longing to restore something which is not even correctly conceived in the first place, being often an incorrect interpretation of what has been.
society is in a state of sickness and this needs to be seen and defined. In essence this is what interests me.
The human condition: always some suffering, always some hope, always some vision. Society then as the crystallization of all that. If that needs a "cure" would be a way more radical question than you might realize at the moment.
I simply state that I have become aware that some of the philosophers and theorists of the Nouvelle Droite (et cetera) have begun to write about hyper-liberalism as a manifestation of an illness. And a serious illness that must be addressed, understood, sorted though, confronted --- treated. In my own case, as you well know, I am moved to consider a specific facet of Bowden's analysis as shedding light on this 'illness'. The message is conveyed in part of a speech that I have linked to numbers of times. The implications point to a general recovery of 'self'. There are perhaps many ways to put it but this is the general way I'd refer to it.
Your message is understood, don't worry! But it's also being questioned and beyond all the jousting or slights, we shouldn't see it as impossibility to exchange actual thoughts on the topic. But with that I don't mean just re-iteration and re-conveying the same things over and over. And sometimes it looks that way to me. Don't you feel understood the first time perhaps?

It's understood you are proposing and supporting the idea of a "general recovery of self". This is somewhat problematic from a pragmatic point of view, as topic, since it's this forum and its overall Buddhist, existentialist and even "post analytic" approach which seems so alien to what you are suggesting here. That's why I often have asked why you're even trying this here, the least compatible environment you could have ever conceived. Apart from the synergy you have felt with the "radical" opposition to the commonality and average ignorance of the modern society. And yet the commonalities seem rather imaginary. As I tried to explain, for "you" and many functioning inside the alternative "Right" their opposition only serves as means to erect some kind of artifice. It's a means to an end. And then we end up with sentimental ends and the reasoning and theorizing just as means, all interchangeable and often self-contradicting, despite all the parts I do value with individual cases or writings. But the larger movement this is being dragged into, that is something I really do challenge as essentially being non-intellectual and irrational leaning, this in comparison with just leaning "post-analytic".
Hyper-liberalism has become an acid that eats away, quite specifically, at white or European identity and power. It tends to empower 'the other' and to villify itself. In that it seems to me that it shows what the 'disease' and the 'illness' is, or at least that it exists.
But there's a very good case to be made, and I'm making it step by step, that terms as "white" and "European" are some of the extremest examples of that very acid that you are tracing! But this needs to be explained step by step, I suppose, if you're willing to at least work with this inside a conversation.
The influence of Marxianism and structuralism --- the use of certain postmodern *philosophies* such as you give voice to and which inform you basically --- must be seen and confronted.
To be honest, you're not qualified to say this at all. You miss simply the needed intellectual background to understand what these terms mean which you're using here. Certainly they don't belong in one sentence! It's a typical "white" trade to blend everything together and blame the world for doing the same, the "hypocrisy" factor of Western thought illustrated again! But I'm not going to discuss postmodern, post-structure or post-analysis with you at this stage. And it's not even my main center of ideas -- you're just guessing that since you cannot withstand putting a label on it to oppose!
The strongest *fascistic* documents that I have read so far have been Houston Chamberlain and then Hans F. G. Gunther's 'The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans'. This latter is actually a remarkable book, a remarkable presentation of ideas.
I'm not really interested in the possibility of you being fascist or not. You misunderstood! It' s just that I want you to understand fascism better but not as something to condemn or distance yourself from. A philosopher is not interested in moral games.
(I still am hoping to see your expositions in the wonderfully titled thread you began up there in the 'enlightened' section of the forum. 'Return to the Body, Substance and Meaning' --- that is something I might have come up with you plagiarist! Still, I am desirous to know when you will you be posting there again?)
That's really your thread of course and you know it :-) But your silly rebellious streak dares me to keep dividing your threads up in smaller pieces. Sorry to disappoint you but I only cut it out of "my" Trump thread because that one has a certain purpose which needs certain clinical actions to maintain that intent.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Philosophically I'd think more about the Society of the Spectacle (Guy Debord) with as visual contemporary example: the "spectacle of the revolution" as performed in how many sick countries now? In the same way we have the "spectacle of regime change" without any regime really changing but in name, against staggering costs of course. Then we have now the "spectacle of change" in American politics, which both Obama and Trump have used heavily as branding.
I read "Society of the Spectacle" around the time I joined this forum, when I was still in my conservative-antifeminist axis-leaning phase. It certainly helped me wriggle out of that philosophical morass. That combined with the convoluted, abstract, aphoristic style makes it one of my favorites. Debord seems to share some insights about the nature of time with Weininger, i.e., the "intelligible ego" as time and the desire to destroy or distort time as criminality.
Yeah, I brought that name to the forum in 2011 which was probably also when I bought it, likely found as reference through Baudrillard (which I was reading at the time but moved on a bit since then, if even possible). Normally I just took a few aphorisms at the time. It's really a stand-alone, "situational" booklet and author that way. It can provoke or spark of other thoughts, which I see as a hallmark of good writing (and not its truth value per se).
Like all revolutionaries/revisionists, the alt rightists are artifacts, not agents, of change.
Change itself might have become the artificial here, the ritual to invoke to keep things the same. Who said that again: " "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change." A contra-revolutionary idea at least in name.
Anyway, the show does express the heterogeneous spirit of our age in a way, i.e., frantic heaping of all values and ideas together without judgment until they collapse under their own weight and lead to a cathartic surrender to whatever is left.
Nice. The author probably had that in mind when coming up with "Winter". Or perhaps not: Snow White is coming!
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by JohnJAu »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: - Women are generally depicted as more ruthless, scheming and cruel than any men
- Governments and military are one big nest of corruption and depraved morality
- Power corrupts, forcing one to sacrifice many if not just your own family downright
- Families are deeply dysfunctional, full of secrets or at least defining your own actions more than you'd like
- The world is full of depraved cravings and many people only hold a little show of decency for the outside world
- Death, destruction and hopelessness are the backdrop to some expected disaster coming soon
-Yet still desirable and lovable and even good simultaneously. That's always been one of the themes. I did not list them all. (While overcoming the oppression of men).
- Haven't been paying attention. Governments and military are completely necessary to stave off the hordes of disgusting filthy psychopathic religious fanatics/poor people. Even large scale bombs are necessary. Running theme throughout the whole show.
- The betrayals here are seen as good, evil being easily justified is one of the themes, it must be justified publicly of course since justifying evil is necessary for most law enforcement. Example: Beloved Tyrion was right to murder, it was a good thing.
-Families are deeply dysfunctional...trying to prove my point here? They indeed are reinforcing that families are deeply dysfunctional and separation/betrayal/hate between them is normal and justified.
-Depraved cravings are portrayed as sexy and even romantic. Eunuch/incest love, so adorable.
- By this point all anyone wants to see is death, you seem to be out of touch with reality, perhaps you are the sheltered one, have you gotten around much, because there's no such thing as a young female in the west that isn't absolutely obsessed with true crime and horror nowadays along with having mental illness and depression. There seems to have been dramatic changes since world war 2 and the release of television. Obviously there is correlation, but I'm also definitely implying the possibility of intentional causation.

This is not present in one episode, or one show, but in nearly every mainstream show, movie, and news media, steadily progressing throughout the history of television programming.

You are wrong to think it is confirmation bias and simply over analyzing what isn't there. You really believe after the successful use of propaganda in wars etc that technology such as the TV in every home wouldn't be utilized for the same purpose? Look into it further with fresh eyes, this isn't only based on what's seen in the media, it isn't just the hundreds of seasons of pro-police series, nor the million 'suspicious' to say the least directions that have been taken, there is also plenty of literal evidence, everything from looking at the owners of media industries, political ties and leanings, to admissions from intelligence agencies of their role in manipulation and socio-engineering. Everything from psyops to censorship to faked social media presence on a large scale. It's common knowledge really, manipulating "hearts and minds" of populations is part of intelligence agency curriculum even.

I think, you either haven't listened enough to the people who are supporting this viewpoint and seen enough presentation of it, which is overwhelmingly convincing, not to mention all the political events which portray evidence of large scale deception, or you are in some denial of the huge role the media plays in shaping psychology. Perhaps you still have some romantic views about the world, who knows, I think the most likely answer is that you've always ignored the propagators of such views deeming them too disorganized to be worthy of attention, that sounds like you, no offense intended, it's perfectly reasonable to make that assumption. In reality the evidence has been there since the beginning and it has progressed consistently to prove the point.

And what is your entire argument against it all? "They're just giving people what they want to see for ratings". Somehow you deny it's even a possibility? Surely you can see that is the true bias.

Anyway, the topic is too broad to demonstrate really, there's weeks of information to sort through to develop any kind of rational conclusion or estimation considering the scale of the view so I'll end that here and don't have the time, but the theory is really only about intention and how it comes about, the result is still the same, all the themes are there, all the evils enforced by law, all the statistical trends, these all exist beyond debate.
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Glostik91 »

I've been speed reading this thread with an app I got on my phone, and I thought I'd share a couple thoughts.

I live in the USA, and here I've noticed it is the left who prefer to identify themselves according to race/class/culture, and it is the right who prefer to identify themselves according to nationality/citizenship/religion. For example, as the evolution of 'whiteness' evolved from superior race (positive leader) to oppressive race (negative leader), the South (which for dozens of decades was strongly left of center) gradually began to vote for republicans instead of democrats. Another example, the left call Trump a racist because he wants to build a wall. This indictment is purely natural for someone who prefers to identify according to race and class. Whereas Trump and the right prefer to identify according to nationality and citizenship. In this way Trump and his supporters see calls of racism concerning a national border wall to be unreasonable.

I don't want to get too involved in this thread, but this is something interesting I have noticed.
a gutter rat looking at stars
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo »

I will answer the questions as they have been put to me.
____________________________

Santiago, what is 'postmodernism' and why are you focusing on it now?

To understand this forum, I have discovered, one must isolate the topic and the fact of 'postmodernism'. I would go so far as to say that the forum exists, has come into being, because of the conditions produced by postmodernism.

Postmodernism is, I think, a condition of the mind. It can be seen as an 'affliction' and it can also be seen as a willed state. I would say, for the purposes of the definition I would accent, that it represents a *mire* that one finds oneself in and out of which one cannot extricate oneself. And because one is trapped so to speak in it one chooses and one wills to become comfortable in it, to make a home in it, and to defend that home as if one defends 'intellectual territory'.

What exactly has 'led' to postmodernism?

Essentially a fantastic and overlording confusion about how to define existence, how to describe it, and how to understand oneself within existence and being. These are trends in thinking that have dominated Occidental categories for hundreds of years now. Essentially, it has come to pass that *people* no longer have conceptual anchors and they have no idea how to *locate* themselves and no way to describe, coherently, who and what they are, where they are, what any of it means, and what they should do. It is, I think, a 'metaphysical condition'.

What is the relation of Kevin, Dan and David to this 'postmodern condition'?

I am glad you asked such a directed question! But of course a good deal more would have to be said about postmodernism and the twists and turns in thought and philosophy --- in theology as well --- that have produced it *as condition*. I think it is fairly clear, perhaps inarguable, that K, D & D 'had a vision' as it were as to the nature of the postmodern condition. Essentially, they understood their own ensconcement within that condition and, like someone struggling against the mire of quicksand, attempted to define a 'way out'. Their strategy or 'map' if you will was piecemeal largely. They used to always say that it was 'reasoned' but I suggest that it was more felt. That is, they well understood the feeling of being mired and the *reason* was understood to be the tool of extraction.

But you seem to imply that *reason* is not adequate as a tool to extract from a postmodern condition? Why?

I don't think I would put it in quite those black & white terms. But I would say that, looking back over Occidental intellectual history, it is quite precisely this 'reason' which is the tool (among different tools available to a man) which is precisely what has gotten *mired* and, in a significant sense, brought reason into the mire. I guess one could describe postmodernism as a psychological affliction --- it must of course have a relationship to the psyche --- but it is primarily a condition of the mind. But there lies the contradiction: the mind is a significant element in a larger soul-structure and dominates. But I don't want to veer too far away from the notion that postmodernism has come about because of 'thinking problems', problems that arose because of lack of anchor and bearing, and the destruction of metaphysical *agreements*.

You use metaphors often to describe this 'postmodern condition'. Can you explain those metaphors?

Well, 'mire' is a good one. I have referred to Delicious Diebert as a 'spider' who lords it over an intricate web in which he has his housing, his existence. Pushing the metaphor I might describe his relationship to postmodernism --- that is postmodernism as affliction, as condition --- to that of an intellectual creature, a Spider, who has channeled all his life-energy into the construction of a massive, labyrintian web-structure which defines and explaines 'meaningful meaninglessness'. Any 'fly' which comes into the web, and the web appears spacious and extensive and represents *freedom of movement* and even *solution* (to the problem of 'mire') is tricked by this extensiveness. That is to say it is the extensiveness, the well-balanced prose, the *reasonableness* of the propositions, the responses, that seduce the fly into thinking this represents a place to live, a place to exist and to grow.

But wait, why are you talking about Diebert? I thought the topic was the forum, Kevin, Dan and David?

Well, I might describe it with a sort of fable. Long ago in the Sensei's hut the Sensei would hold court and give instruction to the befuddled masses, boys mostly, young men who were truly in the 'postmodern condition' and suffering tremendously as a result. The Sensei developed his discourse, codified it in many senses, and packaged it you might say in a form that attracted a certain number of young disciples ...

Like Ryan, like Jupiviv?

Well sure. But there were many others too. But something notable happened. In the upper window sill a tiny little spider came and built a tiny little web. A very affirmative spider, overall quite polite, she slowly began to support the discourse of the Sensei. Then to contribute more substantially. And as this went on the tiny web in the corner of the windowsill grew. Grew enormously. The hypnotic threads were extended and their 'stickiness' and their cloying gleem seemed as time went on to meld with the Sensei's discourse. Well, finally it was this Web which took over. But it is the extensiveness of the web that amazes! This was a tiny hut! It had floorspace for 5 people and no more. But the spider extended it in expanse so that it appeared as a mansion, an unending labyrinth of web-tunnels, gardens with spidery fountains of gossamer, entire vistas, and which finally encompassed all history, time, and all of thought's possibilities! And Sensei and his disciples, overwoven with webs, froze in time, mummified as it were. And Spider just kept building and building. Webs and tunnels that extend upwards, backwards, forwards, in and out, up and down.

Well, I think you capture what I am getting at. Sensei moved out but Spider remained. And then the Great Commanding Tasmanian General who conquered the territory where Sensei built his hut and taugh, handed the keys of the web domain to Spider! Now, the domain belonged to Spider. And construction continued! But where Spider had seemed a non-venemous garden variety from the harmless Rhineland, all at once it became clear that she had a sting! A terrible poison ...

Oh come on, you are going too far!

:::: Laughs :::: Well, perhaps you are right. But here the story gets interesting. It would be one thing if the filiments, so to speak, with which the web was constructed were 'liberating' or 'freeing' but after seeing so many dessicated flies hung on the cavernous walls a Lonely Traveler noticed that these spidery domains were a sort o death-trap...

Now come on now! 'Death trap' is a little extreme!

...into which the little lost fly entered, was drugged, immobilized, and infected with a postmodern toxin. Well, it is true that I go overboard with the extended metaphor but I do it for good reasons ...


Well, you'll have to offer better evidence that you are not in your own way a little overboard and I might say malicious in your approach to this...

Well, I can do that and I will do that. This is why I have selected this particular thread --- long since dead, long since forgotten, in which to take possession, as it were, of the story-line and redirect it.

And this is what you mean by 'Rewriting QRS'?

Yes, more or less. I have stated many times that the desire to extract oneself from the webs of the postmodern condition is a valid --- no, a crucial --- endeavor. Simply to have defined it within the very center of the postmodern swamp represents a noble and also a powerful stake planted. We are back to the topic of 'anchors' and, with that, back in the domain of metaphysics.

But allow me to say a few more words about Diebert the Many-Eyed. I suggest that Diebert 'explains' QRStianity better and more fully than either David Dan or Kevin had been able to. Because genuinely Diebert is a rather perfect example of the history and condition which has led to the postmodern swamp as I call it. That is why, again to return to the web-metaphor, the Spider had such sucess in the construction of its fantastic web. It fit right in. It was capable of articulations (labyrinthian definitions it is true but definitions nonetheless) which filled-out the Sensei's material and contextualized it within the Occidental processes.

Well, perhaps you can speak more about these 'processes' as you call them, these philosophical processes, that have led to 'the postmodern swamp' as you call it.

Well of course! This is what I have been doing. This is the task I have set before myself. I am attempting to construct, if you will, a counter-argument to the postmodern condtion. Obviously, I *relate* to it, obviously I am a product of it, and I am obviously of that sort of mind and spirit which once it has developed a sense of mission or task will set about to meliorate the condition. The purpose is to take as many steps back as possible to *see* not only the conditions of our present but a larger sweep of 'metaphysical history' and then, once one has identified the *condition* and the *problem* to be able to make propositions in relation to it.

But this seems rather large as a 'project' or I daresay 'grandiose'...

Perhaps you were about to say 'futile'? I had that sense. If I were to agree that the task is futile I would have to agree with the spider-volk of postmodernism that it is better to live in mire and meaningful meaninglessness, and then to decorate one's web-structures endlessly, to absorb any pointed discourse that has the misfortune to fly in ....

Alright, alright, we get your point already!

::: Laughs ::: Excuse me, I do get carried away. We can surely continue as time goes by. Right now I must leave you for the time being. I have to attend to 'mundane affairs'.

Thank you.

No, thank you for inquiring!
You I'll never leave
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by jupiviv »

JohnJAu wrote:And what is your entire argument against it all? "They're just giving people what they want to see for ratings". Somehow you deny it's even a possibility? Surely you can see that is the true bias.
Well, they are. The suspense, discussion and "payoff" which results from portraying incest justification, eunuch sex, moral grayness etc. are part of the package. The more the baddies win, the more satisfying it is to see them lose in the final epic battle. If the portrayal was actively propagandising in *favour* of violence, incest and depravity in and of themselves, most people would recognise that and look elsewhere (which they are free to do).

Right now Game of Thrones is definitely in the "payoff" stage. Dragon girl and snow boy (the goodies) have some cavern romance before going off to pwn the baddies with their dragon and Mongol-substitutes (who magically receive food and pay etc). It's 100% fantasy even in the aspects that are supposed to be realistic. In other words, pandering and entertainment. Actually, propaganda would have to be *more* realistic than this crap.

I don't think anyone is denying that propaganda or liberal bias are present in the MSM. It is your right-wing biased analysis of it that is at issue. What benefit is to gained from spending millions of dollars to brainwash people into accepting eunuch sex?

On the other hand, the recent popularity of dramatic, world/reality engulfing conspiracy theories can be legitimately viewed as an attempt by the MSM to brainwash the public into preferring fantasy over dispassionate observation. Good vs bad is the basic moral point of pretty much every TV show or movie I'm aware of, including Game of Thrones. In reality, that is simply how human beings wish, and wished, to view the world. Sexual freedom and license weren't introduced into the zeitgeist by Netflix or HBO. They have numerous causes and the media adapted to the public perception of these things.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Santiago, I disagree radically with your perceptions and "white" redefining of the meaning of post-modernity. It's also not based on anything tangible, mostly a slanted set of "whitening" resources. And with "white" I mean the current emotional and meaning-killing counter-movement, formed against a changing world where the horizon of social meaning is shifting and identities are harder to hold on to.

This forum has some good resources hidden away, for those longing to use the term in a bit more knowledgeable ways and not like some random sledge hammer. Note that on this topic I've always personally disagreed with the local administrators who were using the term often as blanket cover for nihilism or modern analytical methods while I'd see it, for philosophy at least, more as attempt to reflect on modernity itself which is only possible if one is able to go a bit beyond it ("post"). The alternative and the main resource for you, Alex, seems to be the position of some "pre-modernity", with which you then try to analyse the modern condition and its conclusion, which is then labelled "post-modern". All of which I reject with good reason as simply not being conductive to any functional dialogue. For this reason I cannot go further without first having a mutual sound basis for it.

From our local ass. Professor and academic author "Pye', we surely miss her: Postmodern primer and another primer

From earlier discussion between Alex the Magnificent and myself: from Musings, Critiques.
Locked