White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
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 »

But I diametrically oppose your claims of that being about "real things". The only relation it has to reality is that the charade is masking a craving for reality, identity and to derive protection from the act itself. The brutal ineffectiveness of it only increases the anger and anxiety. It's not unlike your recent drive of posts: showing the unreality and deception only eggs you on...

Better phrased: Whiteness: a nonsense category by Frank Furedi (read the whole thing)
  • Unable to fit into today’s world, they desperately plunder the past for symbols and slogans to validate their existence. The resulting spectacle in Charlottesville, with white nationalists clutching Nazi and Confederate flags and chanting ‘Hail Trump’, reminds one of Marx’s old dictum that history repeats itself, first time as tragedy and second time as farce.
Another proper observation, by Brendan O'Neill
It's becoming so clear now why the war of words between SJWs and the new white nationalists is so intense. It isn't because they have huge ideological differences -- it's because they have so much in common. Both are obsessed with race, SJWs demanding white shame, the alt-right responding with white pride. Both view everyday life and culture through a highly racialised filter. SJWs can't even watch a movie without counting how many lines the black actor has in comparison with the white actor so that they can rush home and tumblr about the injustice of it all. Both have a seemingly boundless capacity for self-pity. Both are convinced they're under siege, whether by patriarchy, transphobia and the Daily Mail (SJWs) or by pinkos and blacks (white nationalists). Both have a deep censorious strain. And both crave recognition of their victimhood and flattery of their feelings. This is really what they're fighting over -- not principles or visions but who should get the coveted title of the most hard-done-by identity. They're auditioning for social pity. "My life matters! My pain matters! I matter!" The increasing bitterness and even violence of their feud is not evidence of its substance, but the opposite: it's the narcissism of small differences.
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 »

Yes, Diebert, I am sure you diametrically oppose my definitions. I think I understand why. We have, of course, a long history of sharing ideas and perspectives. I do acknowledge that you see what you understand me as defending or explaining, and then surely the activism that we can witness, as being 'charade'. I do understand how this fits into your ideas, articulated so often, about 'seduction'. I remember all of this. I have, at least I can say this, deveoted time to understanding your philsophical position, your epistemological position.

We differe, no doubt, as to how we define 'real things'. When you put it in quotes (and I might do the same) I suggest that you are making a postmodern statement! That is, you have no way of locating the 'real'. The idea itself, for you, is seductive. I am sure that you can go on and on (and on) about this.

You are merely making statements, perspectival statements that define how you view things. In that there is both strength-of-position and, I suggest, weakness-of-position. You do not seem to me to have any sort of definitive position. You act often --- mostly always --- as if you do. You can do that if you wish. But you do not convince me. Not to say that I cannot be influenced but you have not influenced me.

I see your positions (in the brief sense that I can summarize them) as needing more work. This can be talked about in the right conversational conditions.

I have explained that I am interested in the phenomenon that stands behind these 'identity' postures. I choose to see them in a more positive light. I am attempting to work out these views while I am, admittedly, in the midst of arriving at my own. I make no claim to having things all worked out here. But plunging into ideas is fun, interesting and valuable.

With you, and as-against the positions you take, one always responds as reasonably as one can. There is something about you that inspires this. But you make outrageous comments such as this one of 'not unlike your recent drive of posts: showing the unreality and deception only eggs you on'.

It is a repetition that you have made, and that you would make to anyone who forms an idea-set that differs from you. It is just a way of attacking but not really of arguing. I accept the limitations though of the possibility of 'working out' differences. Sometimes it is better to stay with stark difference. Whenn you became moderator, and when the power of life and death was given to you, you have abused that power as you seek to eliminate from the discussion the ideas that you oppose. This is offensive. Therefor, I want to make it clear to you that though I listen to what you write, and understand why you write it, I do not accept your claim that you are demonstrating my positions as of 'unreality and deception'. You might just as well use David's fabulous dismissal: I have just not come into enough realization of the Infinite! It's more simple...

You also function in a similar territory. True, you are much more subtle, more verbose (and you better format your posts!) but you operate in a similar domain of authoritarianism of opinion. You seem to feel you define 'philosophy'. I do not have a problem with this taken in and of itself. But your authority has little pull on me. Your declarations seem facile and shallow. But I choose to avail myself of you to continue to define my own ideas and positions.

I have not read Furedi's piece but I will try to get to it. But simply on the face, reacting to the blurb, I see the statement as ideologically-driven. I cannot say I am opposed to ideological insertions --- we must work with them! --- but I am not convinced and moved by this statement. I believe more can be gained from looking positively on these people, not in undermining their position.

Your discourse, generally speaking, and because it is analytical in the true sense of the word, does tend to act 'acidically'. As a general statement I am interested in opposing this acidity.

I am not iclosed either to the more blatant and open udermining offered by O'Neill, such material should be read, but I do not, not right now, and not today, agree with the base of his critical position (as I understand it).
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 »

Yes, yes, you posted that for the sake of posting. Go study the pointers and the authors writing it. They bring some clear intellectual grip with them and would be located I guess somewhere in "left leaning libertarian", which is "reformed Marxism" to some. But it's a direction you should open up to, in my view. It's a bit too "open-ended" for you as a platform perhaps but your own desire for platforms is something that also needs to be questioned. People always have flown, crashed and burned to grow.
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 »

What a pathetic article, Diebert.
The troubling sight of neo-Nazis marching on the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, shows that the legacy of the past continues to haunt our lives. But it often does so in unexpected and confusing ways.
He has no understanding at all of what is really going on there, nor where it is going and what will become of it. The problem is classic: the easy-recourse to that label. Doesn't matter if it is Nazi or Fascist or Neo-Nazi of Crypto-Nazi: once the term is used it reveals, overtly, that person's bias. To understand what is going on in this movement, one must open one's mind and do a good deal of careful reading. He has not (and I doubt you have either).
Take the reappearance of white nationalists and white supremacists in the US. Unlike white supremacists in the past, their 21st-century progeny can barely spell the word ‘supremacy’, and certainly do not actually feel superior to others. In fact, they often play the victim card in the knowledge that they have become social, economic and, above all, cultural outcasts. Unable to fit into today’s world, they desperately plunder the past for symbols and slogans to validate their existence. The resulting spectacle in Charlottesville, with white nationalists clutching Nazi and Confederate flags and chanting ‘Hail Trump’, reminds one of Marx’s old dictum that history repeats itself, first time as tragedy and second time as farce.
Same here with 'white supremacism'. If he had actual knowledge of the more important identitarian philosophers, he would know that they do not depend on superiority definitions. In fact they recognize others as more gifted (in certain respects). The identitarian posture as it pertains to white identity is more complex and more meaningful. It is also understandable and defensible ethically. The writer of this article, obviously, does not understand this element and thus his piece is just one more easy critical slur. Little more.

He is right that many of these people are lower-middle-class and some are undereducated. Had he more respect he would show it. In my view, I fully understand that many of these people are suffering in certain senses from lacks. And that is one reason why they are 'clamoring' as I often put it. Again, it is something arising 'in the body' (the social body) and I prefer to value it, not arrogantly judge it or attempt to condemn it. If they are 'outcasts' then I support their fight to get inclusion. I notice that the NYTs has a contemptful attitude toward the fly-over American. I don't like their attitude. I will turn my effort and attention to empowering these people. Get it? Making myself clear?

If you desire to see it as a 'desperate plundering of symbols' you are free to. I regard that effort as one of self-discovery, of rooting around inside oneself and also outside oneself culturally. When identity has been lost, one must recover it. One does that in fits and starts. It is a necessary and a good thing. I support it. And I can help.

I'm starting not to like you Diebert! I'm beinning to think YOU wrote this article. Do you mind much if I put an icepick into your ear, Old Bean? (Joke).
White supremacy is certainly not what it was. This is hardly a surprise given that the idea of white superiority had fallen apart by the end of Second World War. Even those political leaders who still believed in the superiority of the West hesitantly embraced the rhetoric of racial equality. By the 1960s, it was widely accepted that overt racism was no longer acceptable in public. As Frantz Fanon, the radical Martinique-born philosopher, noted at the time: ‘Racism no longer dares appear without disguise.’ So, although racist sentiments persisted within some white communities, racial superiority had become discredited, ceasing to have any significant influence over public life.
My answer to this is that he should read Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant. This means that to refamiliarize oneself with coherant ideas is the basis of a self-education project. This education project is active and positive insofar as it instills and reinstills ideas that can function positively, and prophelactic in the sense that it requires a defensive posture against Marxian intrusions. If he will quote Fanon and assert that 'racism must have a disguise', well then, let us do away with any disguise at all. Let us clearly define exactly what we mean when we speak of race and culture and the physical being. I will grant you that this is not an easy feat, yet I assert that it can be done. A coherant posture that defends one's self in racial and cultural senses is possible. It can be done. And it can be done in accord with ethical principles. Much hinges on getting out from under the oppressive weight of the term 'racism'.

It should not matter if the West is 'superior' or not. The West is however MINE. It is ME. I define myself in those terms. (And the 'me' I use here is intended to be that of many submerged and even voiceless people that I choose to identify with and also to empower. Need I ask agains if I am getting my points across?)
Paradoxically, during the 1980s, which was precisely at the moment when white racial confidence evaporated, some of racism’s opponents, especially so-called critical race theorists, declared that racism was more prevalent than ever before. Others suggested that all white people are at the very least unconsciously or unintentionally racist. It was at this point that academics began to use the term ‘whiteness’ to refer to the privilege supposedly enjoyed by white-skinned individuals.
I see it differently. In the 80s the first overt movement to erase whiteness came out into the open. Why? Because of the shift in demographics that had been engineered. That emboldened sector, with their more-or-less Marxist allies brought their attack out into the open. I see the assault on 'whiteness' (I will employ his term) as having a longer history, and the process that eventuated in the Sixties and on into the 80s and up into our present is part of a long continuum of 'attack' on that same whiteness. The key here is to learn, again, what is to be defended, and to get out from under oppressive characterizations and definitions. The acute process that this writer speaks about is simply the acute phase of an historcal process that can be investigated, understood, and countered. So, what I propose is the counter-current. It is a vanguardish set of ideas that is 'medicine' against the long, continued efforts of an idea-movement destructive to Occidental identity. Make sense?
The concept of whiteness makes racial thinking an unconscious act. This means that no light-skinned person can claim immunity from racism. Indeed, those who protest that they are not racist, or do not even perceive themselves as white, are denounced for failing to come to terms with their white privilege. Whiteness is the equivalent of original sin, and white racism inescapable.
Well, then this person claims that he has no 'white identity'. What a shame! Further in his stupid article he goes on to say that he has no identity. That is really too bad. I suppose Frantz Fanon and the rest of these helful people were successful in their project.

I propose going in a radically different direction. I propose to counter every assertion he makes. To recover identity, to sharpen and strengthen it. To understand and articulate race and cultural differences, to work to reestablish them and to smash those (in the idea realm) who formulate this shite. (There is no reason to comment on the rest of the article).
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 »

It's becoming so clear now why the war of words between SJWs and the new white nationalists is so intense. It isn't because they have huge ideological differences -- it's because they have so much in common. Both are obsessed with race, SJWs demanding white shame, the alt-right responding with white pride. Both view everyday life and culture through a highly racialised filter. SJWs can't even watch a movie without counting how many lines the black actor has in comparison with the white actor so that they can rush home and tumblr about the injustice of it all. Both have a seemingly boundless capacity for self-pity. Both are convinced they're under siege, whether by patriarchy, transphobia and the Daily Mail (SJWs) or by pinkos and blacks (white nationalists). Both have a deep censorious strain. And both crave recognition of their victimhood and flattery of their feelings. This is really what they're fighting over -- not principles or visions but who should get the coveted title of the most hard-done-by identity. They're auditioning for social pity. "My life matters! My pain matters! I matter!" The increasing bitterness and even violence of their feud is not evidence of its substance, but the opposite: it's the narcissism of small differences.
I do not care to know who wrote this, it doesn't matter. It is based in misunderstanding and in bias. The conflict between the 'SJW and the 'new white nationalists' is 'intense' because the white demographic is now beginning to understand what will be done with it and to it when the augmenting demographic gains political ascendency.

It is a false statement to say they do not have tremendous ideological differences. The Antifa left is radical, communistic, possibly revolutionary in a Marxist sense, and heaven knows what else. The communist left, if one turns to the historical examples, is said to have been infinitely more destructive of human life than even the National Socialists are said to have been. It is a safe statement that one should not trust the radical left for this reason. If you were to refer to the historical examples.

The Right, and the fascistic right of the Interwar period, the religious right, the local community Right that made up the ideological opposition to the Communistic Left (in the Interwar period) were extremely opposed, ideologically, to the Communists and the Marxist. And now the New Right that I know about and have read extensively is similarly ideologically opposed to them. But the main argument for their own movement arises out of an exigency of the present: the open attack on white identity within the present current of rising social hysteria and activism spearheaded by a radicalized SJW in collusion with the national government and the media systems.

To place these two groups, or poles, on the same platform and to then denigrate them equally, is a fallacious method to undermine the concerns of both. Black activists, within the context of US history, very certainly have their sound argument to make. It would be impossible to deny them that. You could make similar arguments for for Mesoamericans (La Raza).

I reduce this one one hand to strict power principles (a term used by Chomsky). It is my hope, and I will contribute to this as a mission, that my demographic --- the white demographic of the US --- regains its political power over and against any 'other', be they Black, Mexican, Middle Eastern. I desire for the US to 'return' to its former demographic composition prior to the Immigration reforms of 1965. There you have the required statement, the articulation of the core motivating principle. How will this be enacted? Answer: by a reversal of what was put in motion, demographically, in 1965. Fifty years has transpired and at least 50 years will be needed to reverse it. Would I be 'morally wrong' to desire this? Is it wrong to want to live in a country made up of 'your own people'? If it is, please explain to me why.

Diebert, you are sometimes an idiot. The argument that stands behind his stupid reduction of 'narcissism of small difference' reminds me of the stupidity and bias in many of the arguments that you have put forth recently. You simply express misunderstanding coloured with contempt. You have internalised the 'discourse' that will function against you (eventually) and which is now functioning against us. You are partnered to it. You explain it. You defend it.

You are free to see things in terms of 'narcissism of small differences', you spider-intellect, but you are seeing incorrectly and stupidly. These are not 'small differences' and it has nothing to do with narcissism. Those are acidic critiques whose only purpose is to undermine and weaken. That is effectively where you stand and where you locate yourself. You are free to team up with people working in those areas if you so desire.
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 »

Alex,

- "That's really close to nonsense, Santiago"
- "What a pathetic article, Diebert"

Yup, we're really going for vintage here! The difference is that I normally give proper reasons. Lets see if anything changed:
The problem is classic: the easy-recourse to that label. Doesn't matter if it is Nazi or Fascist or Neo-Nazi of Crypto-Nazi: once the term is used it reveals, overtly, that person's bias.
The article was about a protest with loads of people wearing openly Nazi flags and patches, classical Fascist paraphernalia and KKK outfits. The main organizer was Richard Spencer who on his last rally quoted text from Nazi speeches in the original German and stated America belonged to white people (children of the sun) as a race of conquerors and creators. And after the speech in response to all the Nazi salutes he shouted "Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!".

So it's not Furedi "labeling" anything. You are close to delusional wrong for even suggesting it! What you're looking at is a group deliberately wrapping themselves in that label and then parade with it. Get it? Get it? GET IT?

Get on with it! Lets first admit to simple verifiable facts. It doesn't need arcane reading skills or "between the lines"..
The identitarian posture as it pertains to white identity is more complex and more meaningful.
He's not commenting on your precious authors and probably is well aware of all your subtle associations and variances on the theme. Thing is, the people there on the street are simply not.

Furedi has way more interesting work on the culture wars which he lets start with WW1, a war of ideas which is still going on. But he's not going to play with defunct racial ideas or non-functional color coding when better terms are available. So the conclusion is simple: using the term "white nationalist" or "white identity" equals playing the race card. It's the "poor man's choice". Poor of spirit and intellect, or simply little common sense, lost in over-intellectualizing or fascinated by the word for all the wrong reasons.
I will turn my effort and attention to empowering these people. Get it? Making myself clear?
Yes, you're sadly and ineffectively trying to support sad and ineffective people who are glamoring for power. Following a sentiment of pithy and sympathy does not always lead to healthy corners...
When identity has been lost, one must recover it.
Or one learns to change and grow into the future instead.
If he will quote Fanon and assert that 'racism must have a disguise',
You should try to read slower and calmer. It was referring to the 1960's.....and then things developed further.
A coherant posture that defends one's self in racial and cultural senses is possible. It can be done. And it can be done in accord with ethical principles. Much hinges on getting out from under the oppressive weight of the term 'racism'.
To re-assert ones "racial identity" as a project is the very definition of racism, simply because it relies on ideas and science which are called "racism" by far and large. The oppressive weight is probably the discovery that the question of race or ethnicity is very complex and just will not help you to get your self back. Unless you talk your self into a dream.
\It should not matter if the West is 'superior' or not. The West is however MINE. It is ME.
You're not by the way, not really. You left for the South and was raised "Jewish" or just Marxist or some newage mud. But I can understand that you, for very personal reasons, might experience the power of seduction of this intricate system of labels, not matter how bankrupt they are.

Your life is perhaps a metaphor here for the situation, the soul of the new radicals, the "isis rising" left and right, east and west. If it was up to me, the world should stop looking as the Islam, racism or cultural Marxism as fundamental "causes". Simply because it's a facade! The terrorist networks embraces a sham version of Islam not unlike the white identity folks gobbled together a sham racial theory and the SJW apply a perverted version of socialism to cultural divides. The theme becomes clear as a way more problematic, "postmodern" threat to the world. Or better said: we're seeing reactions to what's perceived as threat: the cracking of the surface when continents drift...
I see the assault on 'whiteness' (I will employ his term) as having a longer history
The author you criticize is known for his work on this stretching back to at least the start of the 20th century and beyond.
Well, then this person claims that he has no 'white identity'. What a shame! Further in his stupid article he goes on to say that he has no identity.
He means to say he has a well developed personhood. You perhaps don't, not really knowing what that even means perhaps and I think many are aching for it. And then the journey begins.
I propose going in a radically different direction. I propose to counter every assertion he makes. To recover identity, to sharpen and strengthen it. To understand and articulate race and cultural differences, to work to reestablish them and to smash those (in the idea realm) who formulate this shite. (There is no reason to comment on the rest of the article).
Yes you need a project as hard as you need that "platform" or at times a "stage". And over time you're getting harsher, sloppier, embracing more outrageous ideas as long as they are "hard" and "unbending" enough to keep afloat a year longer. Good luck!
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 term 'Nazi' is used by progressives to describe people, ideas and policy which they find counter-progressive. To grasp why I say that he reverts to the use of that label one has to understand and describe how Nazi was made into an emblem of ontological evil and represents in the imagination of most a representation of Satan. Reading the article, I discerned I could quickly guess where he positioned himself. It is a typical position. And because of its typicality I understand this view (in the sense of 'ontology'). It functions as an easy label. And this is how he used it in his article. I am critical of that usage.

I suggest that it is a mistake to identify these people, and this movement, through that label. And that was my point.

In order to understand this movement, one will have to do some genuine and fair-minded research. I am certain that many who make up the intellectual Alt-Right have read my 'precious authors'. It is the first stop really on the road to understanding this movement within the American context. You are free to ridicule those authors if it serves you. But that is a mistake. What I suggest is that you take off the lenses of bias and look freshly at what is going on. I have done this and to do so I have had to work out some of my own programmed prejudices.

You are very very wrong about 'the people on the street'. I spent some time reading on the Stormfront forum and I was somewhat startled to notice that some writing there had extensive reading backgrounds. There is no doubt that large sections of it is devoted to 'chimpmania'. But I was impressed to discover that many of these people are researchers of history. So, I suggest to you that your prejudicial and superficial description came out of your loose Dutch asshole which, confusedly, has replaced your mouth. Please! reorganize this physiology!

I am sure that Ferudi has a developed and I am sure interesting position. I will say though that based on this piece he is following conventional lines of perception and thinking. Do I blame him? No. He expresses something about *our present* and its assertions. These views and perceptions are structured into the personality. When they are challenged, the very self experiences stress.

I register and hereby record, you pompous Rhinish siltworm, that you understand 'white identity' to be merely a race-card play. 'Poor in spirit and intellect....' et cetera et cetera et cetera. You know where I stand though. I cannot say that I disagree with your characterization at least about some. But what I said stands: I choose to give energy and resources to *these people*, and I have also noticed them growing and changing very quickly. Take for example Henrick of Red Ice (Lana's husband). Their intellectual evolution has been amazing. The Red Ice website got hacked and frozen on the first day of the protest in a strange 'coincidence'. Here is Henrick explaining what happened. Not only do I like them as people (insofar as I can gain a sense through video and their writing) but I appreciate what they are doing. The more that I look into it (and them) the more that I find people and ideas that I admire. Not as carte blanche though.
Yes, you're sadly and ineffectively trying to support sad and ineffective people who are glamoring for power. Following a sentiment of pithy and sympathy does not always lead to healthy corners...
With this you devolve into your typical psychological routine of criticism. I have seen through it, described that it is the core element in your *philosophy* and reveals your limitations, and I dimiss it with various imperious gestures and finger-flicks. Am I succeeding in making myself clear on this point?

The rest of what you are saying, in my view, is grounded in various mistaken and prejudicial concepts that drive your perception. I understand this and have nothing more to contribute. If this works for you have at it.

My own processes of understanding and dealing with my personal (familial) history and how I shifted from a certain Jewish sympathy (but never a real identity) and to the recovery of a more pure, a more original, and overriding Europeanness, both as fact and also as choice, I can only assure you that it is different from your ridiculing characterization. I know you well enough to know that you do recognize this and I do not contemn you therefor for the cheap shot. Cheap shots are fun!

The rest: 'Your life as metaphor...' et cetera might have some interesting facets, but this movement is not me and it is not mine. I appreciate your effort to paint negative pictures as it fits into your general effort. But what is going on is much larger than my own self or process. I might in fact be quite atypical to it and in it.

Everyone needs a 'project' Diebert. Many who came to the GF site did so because, they too, were floundering in these senses. It is very important to connect with 'genuine processes' and those that are connected to 'the springs of life'. I remember writing about the 'living water' and the well-spring. When these are lost, people suffer. They lose their bearing. Like you really! You have gone through this. It defines you in many ways.

Many many people are floundering in a distorted postmodernism. I know you know this. I think you have cobbled together strategies for dealing with it in yourself. But I think you also have run into limitations. Certainly our friends at GF have! It is what we have to deal with.

I guess we are locked into mutual woart-light descriptions of each other. Mine however is true as I see you as taking up existence in a postmodern swamp that has you trapped. And you falsely see me as injecting identity into my arm so to be able to keep going for another year ... Nice one!

Thanks for the Good Luck!
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:...one has to understand and describe how Nazi was made into an emblem of ontological evil and represents in the imagination of most a representation of Satan.
It's not that difficult Alex. There's no need to study all the books because the Nazi movements of old and of new both are describing themselves, their aims and methods quite well! On top of that it's clear from the past what was ultimately done. It's not a bad practice to start there and then work back to find the turns and twists of how one got there. The first place to start is to study what people claimed they did, administrated how they did it and ended up doing. The emblematic is theirs.
I suggest that it is a mistake to identify these people, and this movement, through that label. And that was my point.
But it's flawed, quite a stubborn lie from you actually, because "these people" and their movement identified themselves that way. So you should discuss with them how mistaken they are.

And again you show you didn't comprehend the article fully. It's clear that there's a mistake, indeed by these protesters to identity themselves as such since they're not what they claim. Why that is can be found hinted at in the same article.
I have done this and to do so I have had to work out some of my own programmed prejudices.
I think you're taken in by a set of powerful sounding ideas and reject any criticism or deeper analysis of them. Like alt-right!
I spent some time reading on the Stormfront forum
Man, I was there already 12-15 years ago. Yes, studying revisionist material and authors. Surely there were very intelligent people there who studied a lot of material. Impressive perhaps but impression doesn't make it all right! It takes a whole lot more, a broader diet and discipline to develop that broader view.
I will say though that based on this piece he is following conventional lines of perception and thinking.
I don't think so! You don't know the actual difference but that can not even be expected at this stage. You absorb everything through a set of thick, very thick lenses right now. You'll only get cured when you hit that wall, hard.
The more that I look into it (and them) the more that I find people and ideas that I admire.
You were made for loving it, baby.
With this you devolve into your typical psychological routine of criticism.
It's true though and I confess. Just pointing out your intellectual and logical errors is not enough for me. Simply because you'll going to ignore it anyway. So I normally tag some observations to it which I know will be understood at some level. With a bit of luck, and I wish it, your dreams will play it back for you. Just watch it!
to the recovery of a more pure, a more original, and overriding Europeanness, both as fact and also as choice
And as I said, that does not exist. Even Steve Bannon was quite clear on this lately, as he has a broader view on this topic. It's all about nationalism for him: "I think a lot of (them) are really 'Polish identity' or 'German identity,' not racial identity. It’s more identity toward a nation-state or their people as a nation". He sees these radical groups justifiably as pure fringe to endure, ineffective, not based on any sound platform and deluding themselves if they think they are.
I remember writing about the 'living water' and the well-spring. When these are lost, people suffer. They lose their bearing.
In hindsight your better writing days! But your own frustration pushed you to the inevitable. And I don't blame you, like so many you do look for signs of hope, revolution and a restoration. Only because you look at times genuinely interested in truth instead, I do attempt to burn down your efforts. You can thank or curse me later.
Mine however is true as I see you as taking up existence in a postmodern swamp that has you trapped. And you falsely see me as injecting identity into my arm so to be able to keep going for another year ... Nice one!
No, look at it as equal opportunity, a kind of "Polder model" here: we're all "taking up existence" in the swamp, the very swamp which postmodern analysis can reveal more in detail if you ever feel inclined to find out. And we all need injecting identity to keep going, as a figure of speech, naturally!
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 »

So what I'm proposing is to label this conflict as expression of whitening. 1] Did it really start with the renaming and removal of the iconic past? And more fundamentally, 2] was it even a real conflict? 3] Did the media capture extremes to paint the conflict in a specific light? 4] Did we see a spectacle, like some re-enactment? 5] Or was there a real process underneath it? 6] In postmodern times we have to ask these questions to understand the context of the event.

7] Why did Charlottesville’s city council vote on the removal? This was linked to the social unrest after the racist mass murder by white local white supremacist Dylann Roof. 8] But generally it's being argued the Confederates were "on the wrong side of history", and should be remembered but not revered on a pedestal. In addition not to embolden the Dylann Roofs of the world.

And 9] why did Richard Spencer say the protest and burning torches was "a way to communicate with the dead" and mentioned the "beauty of that spectacle of flames at night". The undertones of a destructive desire? Or a child's memory of the display of fireworks? He adds, as to confirm his postmodern dedication: 10] "It’s a beautiful aesthetic".

Food for thought. 11] Is it violence to re-appropriate the past and its symbols? 12] Does it even make sense to keep a losing side, a losing idea alive? As it might keep resentment burning for generations. See and try to apply this on the issues in the Middle East.
What I find amazing is how deeply *you* are wrapped up in the politics of my country. It has to be at least mentioned. And I think it also has to be mentioned that you see yourself as able to Rx these situations. This is certainly not a criticism. It is just a statement.

However, in your specific case, I do not think you can have enough insight to really grasp what is going on in that country. Yes, you have an angle, and you can certainly put out your opinion, but I discern that you don't have enough information for understanding.

About number 7. The simple answer is that any monument erected by Southerners to commemorate southern history is definitely and obviously connected to southern identity issues. The erection of many or most of these monuments functioned as a balm to the profound defeat that the white South dealt with. It does not take a great deal of excess imagination to understand why a given people (the Whites in this case who owned and controlled the South) would desire to put them up.

It follows therefor, with or without Dylann Roof I will add, that as a rising and emboldered demographic, empowered by 2 terms of a social-activist presidency who was trained in Saul Alinsky-style activism (bold, direct, absolutist, uncompromising), will naturally turn its attention to those Symbols and will desire to demolish them. On another site someone posted a picture of a monument (with no statue) that reads: 'United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state'. (See 'The Battle of Liberty Place monument' Wiki, etc.)

Obviously, the allusion in all of this is to a long, strange and also a determining history. If we are to apply the 'push come to shove' method of getting to the core of the issue, or the 'cut to the chase' method, we have to expose the underlying race-issue. In my own case, and in a certain sense contrary to my own education (as a Californian from the radical Bay Area), when I read Richard Weaver's 'The Southern Tradition at Bay: A History of Postbellum Thought', after having read 'Ideas Have Consequences', I was personally thrust into a project of revisionism in essence.

This was during the time I participated in the Civil War forum and which I linked you to. Weaver's perspective opened me up the issue of examining reigning metaphysics. Weaver's view is, to put it in simple terms, that the present is the present it is --- I will insert the term 'hyper-liberal present' --- because certain radical ideas were put in motion at former historical junctures. The base-position of any conservatism must be to locate and defend a value-set that comes under attack by radically progressive moments. There is no other option. You have to come up with a position. In short (without reviewing the books or his philosophy) is that when the South was destroyed something valuable and important was destroyed along with it. (This is the introduction to 'The Southern Tradition at Bay').

According to Weaver, this *value* has to be sought out, uncovered if you will, pulled out from the rubble, and certainly brought to light even when the South is seen and understood (by the North, by *the world*, within the present metaphysical dispensation) as being evil. In my own case, and confronting people on that historical form (Civil War Talk), I came to recognize another octave of 'hyper-liberalism' in action. When you come up against these people, you come up against a Construct.

This is where I began to learn that one's 'notion of self' is intricately tied to a specific 'metaphysics' and, if challenged, can lead to a crisis within the self. By challenging or confronting certain views you challenge and confront people at the level of their persons, their being in a certain sense. What I learned there is that to confront this Construct is no easy feat. There is no sense in bickering with them because that, in itself, does not and cannot go far enough and cannot reach them. I mean, the personality battles, with some introduction of Idea, are interesting, necessary and valuable, but what is required is a complete restructuring of idea at a more profound level. This of course leads into the larger, the overarching, metaphysical definitions.

That led, of course, into Shakesepare studies and to Basil Willey's 'Seventeenth Century Studies' and then on to Lovejoy's 'The Great Chain of Being'. It became evermore apparent that to understand The Present, and certainly myself in this present, and all people around me, and then more particularly the Genius Forum because it had resolved to propound the pathway to the 'most important questions' and it was my fate to arrive, to participate, and like you to have the glory of meeting The Talking Ass), that to understand this Present I would have to understand better the 'determining metaphysics'. To make a long story short, my present position within Identity Politics and 'white identity' all links back through these metaphysical studies. But I would say that I owe a great deal to Richard Weaver.

Again, there is so much material that would need to be explained and, as always, tltr becomes the block, but I associate 'white identity politics' and 'white civilization'. Just as the South was destroyed (a war, a defeat and an occupation), so too in our present the same machine rushes forward. It can be summed up for conversational purposes as The Americanopolis. I would suggest that the reason *all of you* who are not Americans have your eyes all focused on this Americanopolis is because it leads the hyper-liberal charge. It appears to be strangely central to everyone's concerns. (I do understand that concern for the superpower is natural and inevitable).

I am deliberately jumping ahead sharply and quickly. It has become my view that to confrong 'hyper-liberalism', and this is distinct from classical liberalism, one has to confront a large edifice of Idea that has so penetrated perception and understanding that it has become 'reigning metaphysics'. To turn against Time in this sense, to become a counter-current to it in the sense of Men Against Time, requires a metaphysical shift within oneself. This is not something that occurs from one day to the next. In my own case --- a slow learner aparently! --- I can trace 10 years of effort. But I would not say this is abnormal. I would say that to establish/reestablish the sort of conservatism I would define (ie a metaphysical platform and not 'conservatism' in the popular and shallow sense) requires something akin to 'the reconstruction of the self' or what the self in an essential sense accretes around it. These are generational shift, and a generational shift is upon us.

I actually have the feeling that David, Diebert and Danny-boy have fallen to the side of the demands of this Project. Diebert, the 'articulate fool' of the Forum, will surely have a whole war to fight in opposing these terrible statements that I have just made. And this comes about, IMV, because Diebert most and best articulates the postmodern swamp we all find ourselves in and which we are desperate to resist. This postmodernism, despite the humorous fact that I link Deebs to it as 'resident postmodern spider' is really the Web that we have to deal with, or that is dealing with us. We are in it and we gargle in its choirs (to steal a line from a Dylan song).

I am intersted in and involved in a project of constructing, or recovering, an identity posture for European and pan-European people. If that is 'white people' then so be it. If I need to construct, quite literally, a racialist posture then so be it: I will do this. In fact this is what is being done. This is what MUST be done. To say this, of course, sounds utterly outrageous --- impossible! --- and all I can say is that every element of it, every facet of it, must be carefully defined and explained. It can be done, of this I am now convinced.

I submit this in fun, more or less, but I do want to say that I do not intend to be educated in this school. There is much more here than meets the eye, this I can assure you. I will reverse all the tenets of this schooling by proposing and asserting a counter-doctrinal stance. I will actually construct a sound base for the notion of 'supremacy' by holding to, articulating, and explaining hierarchy-of-value and hierarchy-of-meaning. This is part of the recovery-process in the recovery of metaphysics.

These statements, off the cuff, rapid-fire, are initial statements, initial shots fired if you will, and every element in them, every assertion, has to be carefully defended and explained point-by-point. It is a fraught endeavor and it is a veritable feat.

And now with The Golden Lion as Chief Strategist (I am disappointed David but I accept your decision brother!) we can really get to work!
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 »

And 9] why did Richard Spencer say the protest and burning torches was "a way to communicate with the dead" and mentioned the "beauty of that spectacle of flames at night". The undertones of a destructive desire? Or a child's memory of the display of fireworks? He adds, as to confirm his postmodern dedication: 10] "It’s a beautiful aesthetic".
I think the Charlottesville torches came from the Finnish and Estonian marches. Here is the Estonian.

It is interesting to see your 'framing mind' go to work. This fits, of course, into your general view: all is seduction and all goals are false-goals. Remeber: you are 'stuck in a postmodern swamp'. You will go to battle against anyone who brings forward a creative idea.

The notion of communicating with one's ancestors is interesting. You could approach it from a Jungian angle. But then there is the notion of 'communion with the saints'. I am sure that Spencer has read C.Z. Codreanu's 'For My Legionaries' (assembled by Lucian Tudos). And I have no doubt that people are generally mining their own past, both in a psychic and an historical sense, to find there the symbols that they need. This is both a restriction and a freedom. I do not think that we can ever simply break from our past and though this might be distressing it can also be in its way a liberation.

I would suggest that to resist 'Americanopolis', and to resist 'globalization', and to resist 'leveling', and so many other things, it is required to turn away from what is presented to one for identification by the media and discover it locally and through community.

As I have said just above, I look for ways to support people in their identification-seeking projects. I prefer to give my energy and support to these contemptables (as you would see them) who are struggling to find an anchor in this present. I am definitely not on the side of the present intellectual elite, or the NY Intellectual Establishment. I think that you are far more centrist not just in your politics but in many things. Factually, and when one analyses what you write (over such a long period really) there is very little movement in you. You are like an intellectual lump on a log. You have dug in here (GF) just to shore up your post-count, to protect it I guess. Your commentaries do not lack all serviceability, some of your presentations seem thorough and thoughtful within their limitations, but you seem to have no idea of where to go. Again, you seem stuck in a swamp and stuck in your own webs. They just get more giant, more expansive, better formatted.

Spencer and others like him function through the idea of being and embodying a vanguard. His old 'Vanguard' podcasts were put together with this in mind. It is the vanguard that sets things in motion both for good and for evil I suppose. Here is an interesting critical piece.
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 »

Kelly is a Catholic consevative and fairly middle-road. He interviews Andy Norwicki and so far this is the fairest description of the Charlottesville event I have heard.
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 »

Andy Nowicki, sure, the author of "Meta-#Pizzagate: On the 'Unspeakable Rites' of Those Who Rule Our Demon-ocracy". In other words certified disconnected and lacking a grasp on what's going on in the world, what's reasonable and not. But okay.

He does, unwittingly, reveals part of the problem in the interview: he states he expected trouble and yet presents the arrival of that trouble as somehow the problem of the aggressive left. It reveals simply violent confrontation was sought & found. A march is never "peaceful" if part of that march represents intentions to violate e.g. principles of equality.

It would be more interesting to hear his opinion on the Nazis and white supremacists marching along in unison. Identity is not just something to represent but is also defined by what is opposed. Which makes me wonder if the alt-right protesters even have a clear platform. They should be more clear in what they reject. The platform is muddled, confused and postmodern!
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 should be happy to know I have my iPad but no keyboard. Muzzled by my own forgetfulness! (Out of town for a few days).

I said he seemed to give a balanced view of the events and this seems fair. But I am also aware that he is a (his description) 'reactionary Catholic' which means, as I discover, certain definitions about the demoniac. Kelly is also Trad-Catholic and has interviewed E Michael Jones who is the same.

I find it interesting to consider all the viewpoints and narratives that conflict and, sure, it is classically postmodern. Or it can be examined 'ironically' through those lenses. But behind any distortion are 'real things'. More on Norwicki.

I know nothing about PizzaGate myself. But I will listen to this.

The rest of your post is just silly. You lack comprehension of American constitutionalism.
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 »

Intriguing Vice report (not bad, but not sure how representative of the larger group).

You are really siding with people like this? It's interesting how an "internet meme", lacking any meaningful, consistent platform (beyond the ones you've dreamed up for them so kindly) is trying to manifest into social reality. It's interesting how they not just voice opinion but readily threaten to exterminate and remove their ideological (& racial)enemies, if they had the chance.

Do you think it's reasonable to give more freedoms to this kind of vacuum? Well I guess it's similar to letting you post here. Sigh.
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:What I find amazing is how deeply *you* are wrapped up in the politics of my country.
This thread is about "European G̶e̶r̶i̶a̶t̶r̶i̶c̶s̶ Genetics" after all and you keep on bringing up this flawed concept of some European identity in the context of some "whiteness" Lets first talk about why you are wrapped up in any European matter? It's getting clear to me that the European process is a bit different from the American, simply because they have at the root quite different notions of pre-modernity and the national itself. Modern America is a rootless country after all; they are "the world".
a rising and emboldered demographic, empowered by 2 terms of a social-activist presidency who was trained in Saul Alinsky-style activism (bold, direct, absolutist, uncompromising), will naturally turn its attention to those Symbols and will desire to demolish them.
And what would be wrong with wanting to destroy a cancerous flawed idea and its symbols? It' s an open question really. We should dare to ask: what's wrong with extermination of what you find out is not only offensive but a poisoning and destructive cultural structure: language, symbols, subcultures etc? And I'm sure the neon-Nazi folks might agree with me here somewhat!

History is filled with extermination projects of various kinds. It's a relative modern notion that we have to allow for a certain freedom to develop any notion and "let it be". It's unclear to me, looking at radical Islam, radical left, radical right, pedophilia, human trafficking, repressive ghetto's stuck in some poverty narrative, the rise of the SJW or even online support groups for voluntary cannibalism and other death pacts, if this approach is really not causing monstrous issues on the long run?

Of course this blade cuts at both sides. If any majority will start believing my ideas are to be wiped out, I'll have a problem
If I need to construct, quite literally, a racialist posture then so be it: I will do this. In fact this is what is being done. This is what MUST be done. To say this, of course, sounds utterly outrageous --- impossible! --- and all I can say is that every element of it, every facet of it, must be carefully defined and explained. It can be done, of this I am now convinced.
The project you're suggesting is just not that special. Our whole modern culture is indeed engaged in a "project of constructing, or recovering, an identity posture". It's just you who needs a special claim on this widely acknowledged development. And it's perhaps a perfectly natural development. If anything, it's the task of any culture to maintain or develop this, to struggle with this. You can find this more fleshed out in the mainstream social sciences. It's not hard to find.
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 »

Re:the holding of burning torches by people uniting with those dressed as KKK and waving NAZI flags
Santiago Odo wrote:It is interesting to see your 'framing mind' go to work. ... You could approach it from a Jungian angle.
Yeah... my "framing" mind. Sure! The Tiki torches (by the way, a Polynesian cultural product) did not require much additional framing but are in various ways, ironically, wrongly applied. Again, it's the protesters who are engaged in some type framing here in a very deliberate way. Torches were very fundamental to the NAZI parades and symbols, not to mention the KKK imagery. They do not need me or any anti-fascist group to affirm this reasonable association.

It's interesting you bring up Estonian nationalist torch marches esp those by "Blue Awakening" at their own independence day. It's not impossible it inspired the torches at Charlottesville but then exactly in the way I've been explaining: misappropiration! These US white-supra-nationalists hold "no candle" to some of the political movements rising withitn Europe. These Americana are monkeys without organization or platform. They only have displays and big mouths on media. But media savvy people at e.g. Breitbart and the Trump campaign have been trying to "tap" into this. It all points to the hopeless situation in the US of having no functional political process to provide a nationalist platform like those developing in Europe. This all has to do with the hyper-nationalism the US empire has been breeding all along. It's virtual but not real nationalism. Blah blah, more postmodern references , blah blah :-) (effort would be wasted).

Furthermore, we still need to address the Nazi's utter rejection of the core teaching of Christianity in the light of these "white identity" movements attempts to ally with these neo-Nazi elements. Also in relation to your earlier defense of Christian metaphysics. It seems to me that you have many reasons to distance yourself from anything smelling Nazi for so many reasons. And yet do think others are "framing" a movement when all the sings, symbols, salutes and oaths appear as some alliance...
I think that you are far more centrist not just in your politics but in many things. Factually, and when one analyses what you write (over such a long period really) there is very little movement in you. You are like an intellectual lump on a log.
It seems to me like you have never really understood my take and randomly assigned platforms or positions for your own sake.

In your case it's fascinating to see you flip from identifying with Jewishness and exposing antisemitism at this forum towards reading eagerly at Stormfront, praising its intellectualism and accept a certain level of Holocaust revisionary and now even siding with the notion of white supremacists which amongst other things are rejecting the Jew as definitely non-white! If that's the flexibility of mind you are promoting, it's kind of pathetic and desperate looking! It would lead again to the conclusion you are without any firm identity or person-hood to begin with. Or that little what you have has been under pressure from the start. And perhaps because of that you're never in the position to elevate any of it to any serious philosophical discourse.
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 »

My Kingdom for a keyboard!

You just wait, my Dutch Arachnid! I'll soon be equipped to respond.
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 »

Then in the mean time, enjoy the follow-up of the Vice video of Chris Cantwell breaking down. This is illustrative for boasting white men who have little reality backing them. You press a little and they squeak in tears and play victim.
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 watched the HBO presentation. Very well done really. And it will be very effective. You ask if I am siding with people like this. My answer is that I 'side' with a meta-political perspective. I side with local resistance to social engineering schemes and I oppose what I think E Michael Jones successfully exposes in The Slaughter of Cities. And I notice that one resullt of this particular social engineering was the destruction of the inner city white neighborhood and in the course of time to the restructuring of America in the multicultural model. I am moved to consider Jones' analysis of the effects of the social engineering on black communities as well, the uprooting of them from the rural south in war time. The video 'Slaughter of Cities' is worth listening to. I think I agree with a good deal of it.

If you are asking if Cantwell is a model for white identity politics, obviously not. But I do have insight into his internal make-up. Would you ask me to explain and defend him? I would not be able to. But I would think and speak about larger meta-politics and I would choose to examine how this has come about. The HBO piece represents sophisticated PR production at its finest. That is tricky material to unravel. But it is easy to imagine the same productive and narrative skill applied to the creation of the opposite narrative, in defense of the other side.

Certainly there exists a way forward in those countries that are now ethniclaly homogenous to preserve their social integrity. It has been said that this is occuring in the Eastern block. It is obviously astoundingly difficult in the US to imagine an ethnic separation. Except perhaps in these regions that are still, relatively, ethnically pure.

When you (when one) carries forward the social engineering project begun in America in the postwar --- it took more substantial form in the Sixties I think --- I do not see it ending well. People either resolve to blend together or they regroup. Because it is an artificial creation and one sutained, as it were, by force (a nefarious force but force nonetheless). My personal opinion at this juncture (open to modification of course) is that white identity --- Whites plain and simple --- need to get out from under the social engineering machine and *see* and understand themselves. Easier in Europe by and large. Easier in some regions of the US. I do not see separatism nor racism as an evil. When I say racism I mean race-realism. I think everyone is race-realist in fact.

I see manifestations of anger as in Cantwell as evidence of 'social pathology'. As evidence of sickness in the social body. But the 'movement' in a larger sense, in a wide social sense, is not composed of Cantwells.

(Written painstakingly on an iPad screenboard).
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 »

I did listen to Novicki's 'PizzaGate' interview. To make a long story short the background to his concern has to do with the rise of sexual perversion --- he and they include homosexual libertinism in this --- and the various scandals that have surfaced where it has been suggested or insinuated that child pornography and abuse (trafficking, prostitution et cetera) have been linked to upper government echelons. Based on my own reading of traditional Catholicism and the TradCath opposition to nearly everything going on in the post-Vatican ll church, these views connect to Catholic ideas and concerns about 'breakdown of morality', and, of course, to Christian notions of the demoniac.

There is a connection between neo-fascisitic ideas concerning social purification, the reversalmof rampant social perversion, the religious mind both pagan and Christian, and the upsurge of Right activism. See Jonathan Bowden's talk on Savitri Devi for the most radical articulation of (in her case) pagan reaction to the 'hyper-liberal present'.

I mention this because I do feel that religious reaction of this order is tied to metaphysical definitions that are re-manifesting in our present in various forms. Irrationally in some sense, raw and inarticulate, and as I say sentiment that rises 'out of the body'.

In my view a 'true spirituality' --- what anyone of us might practice --- is a self-imposed fascistic regime over our own existential body. For that reason it is wise to understand religious reaction to the hyper-liberal present. It is part of the dynamic unfolding.
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 »

All very interesting but the relevant point however might have escaped you. The reference to the actual Pizzagate was meant merely as a reference to sloppy thought, irrational conjecture, abandonment of sound scientific principles and various unhealthy forms of "research" combined with a somewhat perverted mindset.

Especially if we'd follow the projection theory like eg here Belief in Conspiracies Linked to Machiavellian Mindset.

My own musing on this: it's part of the swamp where darker creatures move around, as now ego-identity is so much under pressure, people massively dive deeper, into what's basically chaos and come up with imaginary platforms, theories, conjecture but in the end only create more chaos with little creativity (unlike e.g. art). Here, to paraphrase Baudrillard: conspiracy itself became part of the generalized process of indifferentiation. Hence any creature from the lagoon will be found perpetuating and spreading these very elements. Anyone caught by his own shadow will gravitate to these as well. Which is also why I tend to be rather merciless when people try to inject them as some kind of Genius material.
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 listened to this talk between and Kyle Hunt and Frank Raymond and found that I agreed with the bulk of it. What fascinates me is the rapid transformation of interpretive viewpoints. Very curious things going on in the world...

Frank Raymond

Kyle Hunt
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:Andy Nowicki, sure, the author of "Meta-#Pizzagate: On the 'Unspeakable Rites' of Those Who Rule Our Demon-ocracy". In other words certified disconnected and lacking a grasp on what's going on in the world, what's reasonable and not. But okay.

He does, unwittingly, reveals part of the problem in the interview: he states he expected trouble and yet presents the arrival of that trouble as somehow the problem of the aggressive left. It reveals simply violent confrontation was sought & found. A march is never "peaceful" if part of that march represents intentions to violate e.g. principles of equality.

It would be more interesting to hear his opinion on the Nazis and white supremacists marching along in unison. Identity is not just something to represent but is also defined by what is opposed. Which makes me wonder if the alt-right protesters even have a clear platform. They should be more clear in what they reject. The platform is muddled, confused and postmodern!
What I have resolved to do, and I think there is much more to be gained than with your method, is to make an effort to enter into the understanding- and interpretation-system of people who see the world through different lenses. What I notice about your webbish spider-view is that time and again you declare, openly or through insinuation, that you understand the world. I would suggest that your entire presentation, the way you present yourself and the way you interact with others, and also control others from your Kingly Seat at Genius Forum, manifests this peculiar quality of your personality. What is it? How would one describe it? It is both a manifestation of your particular ego, naturally, but moreover a set of assumptions about the solidity and the validity of a 'structure of view' in which you see yourself located. You pretend to understanding and you pretend to grasp of the true essence of problems and you declare that your perceptual position is proper, accurate and, ultimately, good. As I have said --- or if you will suggested --- you do not really have a position. If you can be said to have a position it is within an intricate web of labyrinthian formulations that might be described as horizontal yet with little or no vertical reach. Defining you is difficult --- you, the Great Definer of others --- because the edifice of self you present is grand in proportion, and the view of reality you present corresponds accordingly.

You speak of 'disconnect from reality' but this implies, naturally, that you have 'connect' with reality. That you can explain it, that some special insight is available to you. I notice however that you in fact have none at all. What you have is an unending series of descriptions through which you describe a flat, baudrillardian view which only turns in on itself and spins endlessly. Intricate webs, beautifully built, which function as a trap to anyone with a creative idea or with creative intentionality. This is why the term 'swamp' seems apropos as well as the notion of 'being stuck'. You are caught in your own mire and all that you can do is entrap others and this you do beautifully.

It is worthwhile to propose that one examine your peculiar metaphysics. I am not sure if you yourself have the awareness to do this. (It has been said that to see one's own metaphysics requires a 'master metaphysician'.) After all the spider weaves her web unconsciously. She does what she does, it is a miracle, but what intelligence has determined it? I have begun to conclude that what best describes Diebert is the term 'collapsed metaphysics'. And this would explain the baudrillardian masturbatory subjectivity, the strange (and unnatural) love of these pithy emptyisms: meaningful meaninglessness as I have called it. You love this shite!

I would suggest that a man cannot really have a 'value-structure' nor really much of an idea-structure when he is located in a 'collapsed metaphysics'. And in your case one that is rigorously defended. You will even take it to the point of eliminating others from the conversation (the forum-space) when your webbish turf is imposed upon.

There is a peculiar anecdote that always struck me as relevant. A troupe of castrated dogs will, I have been told, instinctively turn against one dog who has his testicles. I am not sure what goes on there but I wish to draw a correspondence not with the sexual thing but more with the idea, meaning and value thing. Because you have no metaphysical base, or that your base is in a collapsed metaphysics, you cannot really have any value system. In one moment you might react against a neo-Nazi with his gun collection and his antisemitism, but then in another speak about desiring or appreciating some mass culling, but there is no coherant or basic value-premise. When one attempts to drill-down into what in fact you 'believe' and what you value one discovers no base at all. You seem to undermine all positive declarations of value while asserting none.
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:It's interesting you bring up Estonian nationalist torch marches esp those by "Blue Awakening" at their own independence day. It's not impossible it inspired the torches at Charlottesville but then exactly in the way I've been explaining: misappropiration! These US white-supra-nationalists hold "no candle" to some of the political movements rising withitn Europe. These Americana are monkeys without organization or platform. They only have displays and big mouths on media. But media savvy people at e.g. Breitbart and the Trump campaign have been trying to "tap" into this. It all points to the hopeless situation in the US of having no functional political process to provide a nationalist platform like those developing in Europe. This all has to do with the hyper-nationalism the US empire has been breeding all along. It's virtual but not real nationalism. Blah blah, more postmodern references , blah blah :-) (effort would be wasted).
What does one take away from this strange statement? If a sturdy European nationalism exists then that is a good thing. Because there is a developing platform around which to accrete some resistance, and then counter-definitions. If those in America are disorganized, uncertain, sloppy and careless as appears to be the case, then the admonition is that they get their act together and pay more attention to Europe.

I fundamentally disagree though with not so much what you say but where you desire to take it, or the function of your undermining words. Having looked into this phenomenon for a couple of years no I would say that, though confused, there will develop an articulate American position. But when people are enmeshed in chaos and confusion it is, naturally, not at all easy to get out from under it.
Furthermore, we still need to address the Nazi's utter rejection of the core teaching of Christianity in the light of these "white identity" movements attempts to ally with these neo-Nazi elements. Also in relation to your earlier defense of Christian metaphysics. It seems to me that you have many reasons to distance yourself from anything smelling Nazi for so many reasons. And yet do think others are "framing" a movement when all the sings, symbols, salutes and oaths appear as some alliance...
I would suggest that you look more deeply into these questions. There definitely is a Christian Identitarian movement within the US. They are immature and inarticulate and yet they feel something at the level of 'body'. And there is also a bridge being built between those who identify as pagan and those who identify as Christian.

A Christian and Catholic metaphysical platform does provide one with a metahysical base from which to resist a specifically Marxian platform, this must be said. And it also provides a way to understand the tension and conflict between 'Judaism' and Jewishness and Christian culture.
In your case it's fascinating to see you flip from identifying with Jewishness and exposing antisemitism at this forum towards reading eagerly at Stormfront, praising its intellectualism and accept a certain level of Holocaust revisionary and now even siding with the notion of white supremacists which amongst other things are rejecting the Jew as definitely non-white! If that's the flexibility of mind you are promoting, it's kind of pathetic and desperate looking! It would lead again to the conclusion you are without any firm identity or person-hood to begin with. Or that little what you have has been under pressure from the start. And perhaps because of that you're never in the position to elevate any of it to any serious philosophical discourse.
Overt antisemitism still concerns me, as it should concern everyone. But what you are really saying is that you have contempt for intellectual movement or growth. It is 'only natural' that when one has grown up in America that one will naturally have a pro-Jewish outlook. I also grew up with very progressive politics and, without much critical examination, absorbed these perspectives. But the object of investigation, or good reading, of honesty and intellectual integrity is to learn how to see oneself, wouldn't you say? One must begin somewhere, mustn't one? Those who come from my background have been taught to develop sensitive antennae to any note of antisemitism. In this sense, as I have said many times, I am an outcome of indoctrination processes of the 'Frankfurt School'. Mostly at the psychological level given that my partents were involved in the Human Potential Movement in California.

You describe it, negatively of course! as a 'flip', as if to say that it could be this or it could be that. Yet if there has been a transformation of view it has been glacial, slow, careful and still is. But it is that instability that is more charateristic of your position if you were to be honest or if you could see clearly. You have flipped into indefiniteness, into a postmodern swamp, and there you are stuck in its stickiness. You can attack others easily, and effectively, because your webbishness is often more sophisticated. And one must mention your *sting* which is 'the sting of death'.

In my own case I have worked very hard to forge a conceptual path that embraces an enlarged metaphysical perspective not as a *game* or an ironic passtime but as a real metaphysical possibility. And I choose to serve any other who is doing something similar. I notice that many have a hard time with it and I desire to contribute to their process.

To say that those who write, or wrote, at Stormfront are people with a genuine intellectual life and position is simply a fair and sound observation. True, it came as a surprise, but so what? One observes, one learns. However the meaning of this transcends your petty negativities. My point is that the American Right (the post-conservative Right) is a developing force that is gaining hisrtorical perspective and clarity. There are some who are writing intelligently and fairly about the real state of affairs and are outlining a path to educate people into this awareness (I am not talking about Stormfront to which I pay no attention). I support that process even though it turns against cultural affiliations and even family ties. The issue is meta-political and it is important to develop an expansive viewpoint.

Diebert as spidery psychologist of GF with moderator's powers spends a good deal of time examining, spider-like, the motives of others. Pursuing their involvement in other fora, taking notes, developing analysis, all to be used in defending her position in her preferred space. These are really imortant doings for you in your defense of your *nest* and your *web*. You use the terms pathetic and desperate and I understand and apreciate the rhetorical weight of them, but is it allowed to turn the lens of examination around and focus it on you? You are a very psycholgical spider! and shouldn't have much issue with such self-analysis.

I am really interested in this phrase: 'Without any firm identity of personhood to begin with'. I am interested in it for a number of reasons. One is that I think *our culture* tends to dissolve 'identity' and this can be linked, IMV, to Marxian efforts to undermine hierarchy and identification and also value. This can surely be talked about. It is very true that in coercive politics, and surely when social engineering is involved, that the identity-structures of The Enemy must be undermined as a first step, so there is that as well. We also are aware that some encroaching 'spiritual' and philosophical paths will involve one in the notion of the value of dissolving identity and also self. Undermining the value or purpose of self and proposing a dissolution of self. This has been a big influence in culture on the post-Sixties and surely in this forum. And with this in mind one must at least notice that a 'white identity' posture is tremendously alarming to the powers-that-be, especially in complex America at this time.

But with this in mind I find myself compelled to suggest that he who notices lack of defined self is in fact proposing that he himself has a 'defined self' and 'self-knowledge'. But what 'identity' is that, I mean really? This leads me toward these 'suggestions' that your own self, in numerous senses, is not quite as defined as you suggest. Or to put it another way that you suffer from lack of defined self and are uncertain, too, what it should be. As we all are, of this there is no doubt. And this is why I notice the effect of this in what I would describe as a 'floundering' in a postmodern non-identity posture.

But your use of these psychological accusations has another function as you shore-up your position as lord and ruler of the Genius Forum web-maze. It is how you use moderator power in your battle against your various *enemies*, those who encroach on your space and your authority. I relate this to your declarations about your own intellect, your grasp of the present, or 'reality', and now your declaration about solidity of self.

Related to this is my sense that strengthening identity and coming to understand what to identify with, and why, is crucial. I relate this process to the initial GF project as I understand it which made absolutist definitions about what to identify with. Therefor the topic is a good one and is certainly very alive still.
You I'll never leave
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

Alex: This is where I began to learn that one's 'notion of self' is intricately tied to a specific 'metaphysics' and, if challenged, can lead to a crisis within the self. By challenging or confronting certain views you challenge and confront people at the level of their persons, their being in a certain sense. What I learned there is that to confront this Construct is no easy feat. There is no sense in bickering with them because that, in itself, does not and cannot go far enough and cannot reach them. I mean, the personality battles, with some introduction of Idea, are interesting, necessary and valuable, but what is required is a complete restructuring of idea at a more profound level. This of course leads into the larger, the overarching, metaphysical definitions.
Where your logic falls down here is that in reconstructing completely Idea at a more profound level is that you will not be able to avoid rebuilding that very sense of self that ties itself to a specific metaphysic or Construct. You're already giving evidence that you cannot avoid this Catch 22 dilemma, your words:
I stress 'return' 'redefinition' 'revivification' and I see these in the context of a necessary metaphysics which, yes my cooing Australian Dove, represents the centre and the solidity within the Occidental world-picture.

Given how intellectual is your approach to and from self-deconstruction, I question whether you have experienced, for yourself what St. John of the Cross called the dark night of the soul or spirit (so much for relegating self-deconstruction to the post-modern era). If you have, I would love to hear about it because it would be the reality of Alex as opposed to the ideology of Alex.

As an aside, I considered searching your posts for mention of your dark night/post-modern crisis of identity, but since you have posted under multiple names, the task seemed a daunting one. :-)
Locked