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: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo »

I was only trying to play with the 'street shitter' comment. It was an attempt at humor, nothing more.

What is your take on 'race-realism' and the recent turn toward right-leaning identity movements in Europe and America?
You I'll never leave
awiseman

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by awiseman »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But in terms of history economy and society nearly nothing in common.
Yet they still create the same kind of living environment no matter where they end up or what context they're in because GENETICS matters more than anything else.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You just mean there's poverty and social problems. Anyway, some lists contain six of the world's ten fastest-growing economies over the previous decade from that very same Sub Saharan. So one could argue there's more future living there than in Chicago and Detroit! Would you propose emigration?
Of course they're growing because it couldn't possibly get any worse than it already is. And let's not ignore the China factor; or are you not aware of this?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Well, "you" are not the West, "you" are some obscure, powerless minority entertaining violent ideas. It's not about stomach, but the humanitarian laws the Western countries have signed up to, as "pinnacle" of their civilizational principles.
It's telling that you refer to 'muh equality' as the pinnacle of European achievement while referring to the space program as "putting a tin can in space". This is everything that's wrong with liberalism in a nutshell.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:That's the system you're dealing with, first and foremost. But it needs brains to understand, not just stomach. Of course one can make a case that these foundational principles of the West are the cause of its downfall. But you're not making that case here.
My approach to the dirt world invasion would have saved countless lives and money over the long term, but that just doesn't give us the feels like putting an 18 year old rapefugee in school 13 and 14 year old girls. One of us is using our heads, and it's not you.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I'm all for population decrease. Overpopulation is the real issue in this world and economies based on massive populations with all the economical wreckage and class systems which are just features of what's basically an expired idea.
This point we can agree on. An economic system founded in endless growth on a planet with finite resources is bound to fail. So this begs the question as to why the hell all these liberals want to overpopulate The West with blacks and browns where they will consume far more resources than they would have had we kept them in their natural habitat.
It' still just at most 10-15% of the population for most Western countries. In my view it's more than enough to digest. Of course we never had 7 billion people on the planet before and the current economical and political realities either.
The invasion is still ongoing and their fertility rate is far higher than Europeans. Already in Sweeden and Germany the native white Europeans under age 10 are a minority in their ancestral homeland. This 10-15% will grow exponentially, and we will have a massive civil war on our hands some time this century because of. It will make WWII look like a walk in the park by comparison.

Diversity+Proximity=War
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

awiseman wrote:It's telling that you refer to 'muh equality' as the pinnacle of European achievement while referring to the space program as "putting a tin can in space". This is everything that's wrong with liberalism in a nutshell.
It's just how "Western civilization" seems to perceive itself, by and large. Not something I was promoting but you seem to read what you want to read. Oh well. The remark on space programs was a playful comparison with inventing algebra or written language in way more limited and harsher, ancient times.
So this begs the question as to why the hell all these liberals want to overpopulate The West with blacks and browns where they will consume far more resources than they would have had we kept them in their natural habitat.
Their idea is that modernization and civilization of newcomers will create forces of production and innovation.
Dwindling populations: not as much.
The invasion is still ongoing and their fertility rate is far higher than Europeans.
The first generation, sure, after that it becomes rather similar to modern rates. Because it's mostly a social-economical thing.

Overall I'm not sure if you're interesting enough to discuss anything further with. The world is a bit more complex than seems to fit in your skull right now. Good luck with your rants!
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Eric Schiedler »

It was inevitable that this thread would attract race-realists. And we have an example of Poe's Law in action. This exemplary individual, awiseman, states ideas that are indistinguishable from their parody.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Santiago Odo wrote:What is your take on 'race-realism' and the recent turn toward right-leaning identity movements in Europe and America?
The Muslims come from war torn nations, have nothing to lose and see the surrounding culture as being aggressive and indifferent, so some of them double down on their identity in a violent and retarded way. It's similar to what happened in Spain during the Reconquista. You can't be a wine drinking, pork eating Muslim, so Christian fanaticism became the indicator of allegiance to the cause. Eventually, it became inseparable from the power structure/hierarchy.

If Muslims were coming to my neighbourhood and acting like they owned the place, I'd be pretty pissed off too. However, I've grown up with plenty of Muslims and none of them wanted me to follow their customs on pain of death. In fact, they *defied* their religion - which according to smug idiots like Sam Harris is a living entity with psychic powers - by inviting both my parents and me to their homes on their religious occasions, as well as visiting ours during ours. I understand and support the positions - like Diebert's - that analyse the situation from a geopolitical and psychological-historical perspective. Don't much care for the rest.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo »

Eric, I think it is more fair, and accurate, to say that the masculine, highly discriminating, elitist, 'genius-oriented' program of GF would attract people whose minds work similarly to Weininger.

Weininger would have been, or might have been, an identitarian radical. Much of the philosophical platform of GF is based in very very acute definitions and it is suggested that to see clearly one must see sharply.

My own view is that there is a tremendous amount to think about when one thinks of 'race-realism' as a topic. For example, it was pretty much all spelled out in the 20s and 30s by Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard. There is nothing inherently wrong with thinking is categories of race and culture and locality, indeed all people should do this.

I also think it is wise indeed to be able to think in terms of European preservation and I have to admit I am puzzled that it is a forbidden category. Why?
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo »

Jupi, but isn't it that Diebert's position, though I surely respect his articulation of it, is the position of a man who does not himself have a significant cultural, spiritual, religious and perhaps even 'national' identification. Is this the same for you?

It does not sound as if Diebert, nor you perhaps, can be said to 'have a pony in the race'.

Having listened to and read a good number of the different theorists for race-realism and other related concerns, the ones that define that position have some core set of values they are attempting to defend. Take for example E Michael Jones, a dedicated Catholic and with an active, assertive and probing mind. His attack on the political structures of the US is as intense and principled as many opposing oligarchic control-systems, yet he argues from a Catholic position.

The Red Ice people are actually very nice people, I find. There is something winning about them and I feel I can relate to their concerns, as I can to Richard Spencer. These people also feel they are on the edge of loss and of losing, and their 'pony' is to articulate a stance, and to bring others to it, where thy can begin to act in their present against that which is destructive to them.

Could you, for example, articulate an argument in defense of say 'Swedish cultural identity' (an obvious, white, separated community) from policies and ideologies that sought, deliberately or inadvertently, to significantly alter the demographis make-up?
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Eric Schiedler »

Santiago Odo wrote:Eric, I think it is more fair, and accurate, to say that the masculine, highly discriminating, elitist, 'genius-oriented' program of GF would attract people whose minds work similarly to Weininger.
I agree with the use of the terms masculine and discriminating, but not elitist or program. Guessing at what 'genius-oriented' may mean, something along the lines of "discussing and promoting genius", then I would agree.

I don't see a reason to single out Weininger, as other prominent philosophers also had opinions about races or cultures.
Santiago Odo wrote:Weininger would have been, or might have been, an identitarian radical. Much of the philosophical platform of GF is based in very very acute definitions and it is suggested that to see clearly one must see sharply.
I don't know what an identitarian radical is in a manner that makes it different from a race-realist. Except that one term is a bit perjorative, so if I am to be generous, I think what you mean is that one may want to promote national politics around certain cultural lines, and cultural lines tend to correlate to genetic populations.
Santiago Odo wrote:My own view is that there is a tremendous amount to think about when one thinks of 'race-realism' as a topic. For example, it was pretty much all spelled out in the 20s and 30s by Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard. There is nothing inherently wrong with thinking is categories of race and culture and locality, indeed all people should do this.
I am reminded of the time when Diogenes was asked of which city (Polis) was he a citizen? He replied, I am a cosmopolitan.

There is nothing inherently wrong with thinking about race-identity politics because one might think about it in order to counter the argument.
Santiago Odo wrote:I also think it is wise indeed to be able to think in terms of European preservation and I have to admit I am puzzled that it is a forbidden category. Why?
In my view, it is not a forbidden category. [edit grammar] However, the discussion veers off quickly into unsupported claims and is derailed and the argument doesn't return to supportable claims.



Eric Schiedler
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo »

AWiseMan wrote:It's telling that you refer to 'muh equality' as the pinnacle of European achievement while referring to the space program as "putting a tin can in space". This is everything that's wrong with liberalism in a nutshell.
Well, that is certainly a false statement! You make a point that has a shade of a relationship to a *truth* but which is a gorotesque generalization. We are absolutely and thoroughly resisdents of and products of 'liberalism'. One would have to carefully articulate what in liberalism is unliked and why. That is an extensive analytical project. You don't come across as having done it.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo »

Eric, If I read you right, you suggest that a similar attitude on *our* part (that of Diogenes) is a good and necessary one? There is a luxury offered to a man who has relinquished any ownership interest, at any level, to all things and to everything. But from my angle at least it is just a fun anecdote to quote but no one could take it seriously. He would not even have defended his tub.

And this is part of my point: Identity requires something to be identified. These elements of identity are things one values. One's defense of what one values is not irrational, often it is quite reasonable, rational and articulated.

If one's physical being, one's body, is taken as the core of oneself, which it certainly is, in what way and by what argument would you define otherwise?

I see the physiological arguments as being as functional as, for example, the spiritual arguments of Weininger. And Weininger would have, with a push and a shove, likely have become a race-realist along the lines of Houston Chamberlain.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Eric Schiedler »

Santiago Odo wrote:Eric, If I read you right, you suggest that a similar attitude on *our* part (that of Diogenes) is a good and necessary one? There is a luxury offered to a man who has relinquished any ownership interest, at any level, to all things and to everything. But from my angle at least it is just a fun anecdote to quote but no one could take it seriously. He would not even have defended his tub.
Diogenes was at home everywhere, as is every genius. As far as property rights were concerned, he stated he would have defended his tub on the principle that if it was fated that the robber steal his tub, then it was fated that Diogenes would beat the robber.
Santiago Odo wrote:And this is part of my point: Identity requires something to be identified. These elements of identity are things one values. One's defense of what one values is not irrational, often it is quite reasonable, rational and articulated.
Identity is the principle that consciousness is the demarcation of an appearance into what it is and what it is not. You can't conflate this with legal identity, a formal principle in a given society that determines who owns what thing and by definition who does not own it. A sound legal framework is suitable as for the purposes of organizing society.
Santiago Odo wrote:If one's physical being, one's body, is taken as the core of oneself, which it certainly is, in what way and by what argument would you define otherwise?
Legally and philosophically, I disagree. Philosophically, one's true self is not just the body. Legally, one is entitled, by law, to numerous privileges that are identified as part of the person beyond the body, such as one's estate.
Santiago Odo wrote:I see the physiological arguments as being as functional as, for example, the spiritual arguments of Weininger. And Weininger would have, with a push and a shove, likely have become a race-realist along the lines of Houston Chamberlain.
It depends what you mean by spirit. You will have to point me to a spiritual argument of Weininger that has to do with race. If you're talking about his chapter on Judaism, I don't think it would apply to today's race-realism at all. He was pointing out that Judaism was not conducive to his definition of genius, and said little, if anything about political positions.

I am not interested in speculating what Weininger's views would be if he were transported to a different time or place. Were his views of fin-de-siecle Vienna those of a race-realist? No, I don't see the evidence. Perhaps you can find such evidence. However, if you are saying that Weininger's views on genius make him a race-realist, then definitively, no, I do not agree.



Eric Schiedler
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo »

Eric wrote:Diogenes was at home everywhere, as is every genius. As far as property rights were concerned, he stated he would have defended his tub on the principle that if it was fated that the robber steal his tub, then it was fated that Diogenes would beat the robber.
That is not such a good argument! But it is simple and workable in other situations. Based on this 'fate' argument, we can justify the ever-constant European desire to be rid, once and for all, of the invasive, power-hungry Jew; we can easily, and with almost no need for argument, simply decide to preen out of Europe all the invasive peoples who have come. It is our 'fate' to do this. Simply because the 'thief' came ...

You do see where this goes... Diogenes seems just a giant child. Irrelevant. I say that respectfully.
Diogenes was at home everywhere, as is every genius.
That is a peculiarly assertive statement. You have turned 'the genius' into some sort of species? This species is as much at home on the high seas, in the jungles of the Amazonas, in a high rise apartment with a view of Central Park, or in a spaceship on its way to Mars.
Identity is the principle that consciousness is the demarcation of an appearance into what it is and what it is not. You can't conflate this with legal identity, a formal principle in a given society that determines who owns what thing and by definition who does not own it. A sound legal framework is suitable as for the purposes of organizing society.
Huh? I do not think that those who have identity, or who identify with their identity, or work to define themselves, or to clarify identity, rely much on this way of looking at things. I would also say that the concept or notion of identity in the Occident operates from top to bottom, and from bottom to top, and that it is cohesive and coherent within the general order. I can conflate all levels of identity and seek a constant principle running through it.
Legally and philosophically, I disagree. Philosophically, one's true self is not just the body. Legally, one is entitled, by law, to numerous privileges that are identified as part of the person beyond the body, such as one's estate.
But I did not say that one's self, 'true' or otherwise, is only the body. But I am quite certain that the basic point, or the final point, of self is one's own body. That is, one's physical manifestation in time and space. Sure, you could make some other argument, and it would be philosophical, but it would (I personally think) become as incoherent and romantic as your assertion that a Diogenes value system is practicable and ethical.

One's estate: meaning what one has while in a body? One's 'tub' as it were? But that is an extension of oneself, and one's body, and one's work within one's frame in time. On the basis of that argument I would suggest that the European Estate is then to be protected, and one collectively has a right and an obligation to do so.
It depends what you mean by spirit. You will have to point me to a spiritual argument of Weininger that has to do with race. If you're talking about his chapter on Judaism, I don't think it would apply to today's race-realism at all. He was pointing out that Judaism was not conducive to his definition of genius, and said little, if anything about political positions.
It is the easiest word to define, and the quintessence of what he meant, according to me, by the term 'masculinity'. And my sense is that, too, as a convert to Protestantism he very much carried forward his sense of 'spirit' and 'the spiritual' into his overall sense of what he combatted.

The notion of greater or lesser degrees of 'masculinity' in people, and of course in races, is quite easy to transfer almost directly to a racialist and a racist argument. The anthropology of the Occident, some few hundred years back, and the construct of 'white identity' was based, with no doubt at all, on a similar notion. That is, superiority was understood as a mental and spiritual superiority of a Christian sort. I.e. given by Christ by virtue of having been saved. To have become members of Christ's body and to act on Christ's behalf in a salvation project is still deeply embedded in the Occidental self and activity. These ideas and these definitions interchange one with the other. The Nazi philosophy, taken as articulated by Houston Chamberlain, is not at all incommensurate with some of Weininger's ideas.
I am not interested in speculating what Weininger's views would be if he were transported to a different time or place. Were his views of fin-de-siecle Vienna those of a race-realist? No, I don't see the evidence. Perhaps you can find such evidence. However, if you are saying that Weininger's views on genius make him a race-realist, then definitively, no, I do not agree.
Why would you not wish to speculate? Clearly there is utility in doing so. Just as there is utility in attempting to speculate, for example and comparatively, where the Genius Forum group of ideas and assertions will lead if applied in time and space. In a sense one is ethically bound to do this and one is remiss not to.

I do have a strong sense that Weininger would very definitely have taken a side on the issue of 'The Rising Tide of Color' as Lothrop Stoddard did just a few years later. I have almost no doubt of this, myself. It is only because of the events of the Second War that people stopped thinking in those naughtie terms. That is, very realistically, very practically.

I would argue that part of our confusion in the present is between our realist sense on one side, and what is enforced on us by political correctness (a moral imposition, a sentimental moralizing). And I also am hanted by the sense that we have been 'infected' by feminized modes of thinking and that we really have to define and redefine masculine categories. Part of being a man, and thinking like a man, is taking culture and race and idea and civilization very seriously. This is what I respect in those who are working in these hard areas.
You I'll never leave
awiseman

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by awiseman »

Eric Schiedler wrote:I am not interested in speculating what Weininger's views would be if he were transported to a different time or place. Were his views of fin-de-siecle Vienna those of a race-realist? No, I don't see the evidence. Perhaps you can find such evidence. However, if you are saying that Weininger's views on genius make him a race-realist, then definitively, no, I do not agree.
Being a 'race realist' basically means noticing things we're not supposed to notice.

The social programming that white westerners receive in this regard runs deep. It appears to run exceptionally deep in intellectuals or those who see themselves as independent thinkers and high minded philosophical types. I've coined this social programming Equalism, the most influential religion in The West. I believe it was Orwell who said; "Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them".

If one believes in evolution yet denies the reality of race, one ought to do some serious introspection.
Santiago Odo wrote:I also think it is wise indeed to be able to think in terms of European preservation and I have to admit I am puzzled that it is a forbidden category. Why?
I believe this is the most important question white European men can ask today.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

awiseman, which is more important to you: spiritual wisdom, or raw intelligence?
awiseman

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by awiseman »

Russell Parr wrote:awiseman, which is more important to you: spiritual wisdom, or raw intelligence?
You'll have to define what those things are supposed to mean before I can answer that.

In the meantime I have a question for you. Why does the Jew controlled media get us worked up to drop bombs in the Middle East over pictures of dead Arabs, but the Jew controlled media tries to calm us down and reminds us not to "abandon our values" every time Muslims kill white Europeans and Americans instead of getting us worked up to remove Arabs from our nations like we ought to? Why aren't they spamming pictures of the dead white Swedish children who were ran over by a Muslim who drove a truck through a crowded street? Why do white lives not matter?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

awiseman wrote:
Russell Parr wrote:awiseman, which is more important to you: spiritual wisdom, or raw intelligence?
You'll have to define what those things are supposed to mean before I can answer that.
Spiritual wisdom, to me, is an expertise of the nature of reality, as well as the ability to live in accordance to that knowledge. It grants one the ability to perceive and behave in reality in a way that is unencumbered by ego-centrism. It is the ability to judge things and situations based on merit and logic alone, beyond any subjective stake in the matter.

Raw intelligence is nothing more than the ability to work with complex logical systems within the mind. It does not speak of what one does with such intelligence, for good or bad.
In the meantime I have a question for you. Why does the Jew controlled media get us worked up to drop bombs in the Middle East over pictures of dead Arabs, but the Jew controlled media tries to calm us down and reminds us not to "abandon our values" every time Muslims kill white Europeans and Americans instead of getting us worked up to remove Arabs from our nations like we ought to? Why aren't they spamming pictures of the dead white Swedish children who were ran over by a Muslim who drove a truck through a crowded street? Why do white lives not matter?
There is no "white lives matter" campaign because white people run the show. It comes with the territory. It would only upset everyone else if there was such a thing. That said, I don't agree with the BLM movement. To me, it ignores the core issues when it comes to racial disparities and tensions, such as the piss poor education system. As for the Jewish run media, I do not disagree with your statements. I have little faith in the media to portray world events in an unbiased, let alone wise manner. Convoluted special interests have been controlling the narratives for a very long time now.

It shouldn't be about race, however, but about principles. Every race has bad actors, and bad traits unique to their genetics. White people, for example, can tend to be overly paranoid about their own genetic survival, and "protecting what's theirs". I assume it comes from having been evolved in the same harsh conditions that resulted in their physical appearance. This isn't to say that such conditions didn't cultivate favorable traits as well, because it obviously did. And that is my point; we all each have pros and cons. We're all different. We all need to do what we can to push for progress towards a healthy evolution for all people. But of course, it is much easier, and satisfying, to exploit the weak for money and power, even of our own people. Would you agree that white people are not innocent in this?

I'd like to revise your equation you've mentioned a couple of times to this: ignorance+proximity=war. A diverse culture of wise people can get along just fine.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Russell Parr wrote:White people, for example, can tend to be overly paranoid about their own genetic survival, and "protecting what's theirs".
The entire human race, really. It's what we have evolved to desire. What form this desire takes is irrelevant - race realism, ideology, religion or (the most visceral and therefore dangerous of all) plain old love/lust. That's part of the reason I'm not offended by racial insults, and don't view race realists more disdainfully than I would manginas or Marxists.

Tracing the human desiderata down to the same rotten core, without concern for aesthetics or social hygiene is supposed to be cynical and misanthropic. To my mind, it's the only moral way to express compassion.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo »

AWM wrote:In the meantime I have a question for you. Why does the Jew controlled media get us worked up to drop bombs in the Middle East over pictures of dead Arabs, but the Jew controlled media tries to calm us down and reminds us not to "abandon our values" every time Muslims kill white Europeans and Americans instead of getting us worked up to remove Arabs from our nations like we ought to? Why aren't they spamming pictures of the dead white Swedish children who were ran over by a Muslim who drove a truck through a crowded street? Why do white lives not matter?
I think this entire construct is misleading. But I notice that because it demands a deconstruction, it demands time to do so. The thing is, you can make any outrageous assertion that you want, and in the climate of the day, with so many conflicting narratives and so many players seeking to disinform to their advantage, most people likely do not really have a sense of hoswtheir world is constructed or how power really functions, but latch onto semi-true or semi-false narratives as a substitute for understanding.

It seems to me the the bellicosity of the US is part-and-parcel of its origins. It has shown itself capable of all different sorts of adventures and adventurism, not the least was the War Between the States and then the Philippine-American War. Some have speculated that the later American Empire, its intentions, its will, its distortions, and the conflict it inevitably produces between high ideals and the reality of expansionism and adventurism, can be discovered in the Phillipine-American war. And there were then, as now, concerned citizens who opposed it and advocated against it.

Simply put, you cannot blame this adventurism, nor the deviousness required to pursue aims which cannot be justified and thus do not concord with declared values of Americanism, on the Jews or on anyone else. Therefor, it is a false narrative to assert that present American adventurism, which is an extension of much of the same in the 20th century, is determined by Jews or Jewish interests. That argument becomes incoherent quickly.

However, it is true or seems likely that Neo-Conservatives, many Jews themselves, had and have a pro-Israel bias. Yet it is just as true that Protestant America, with no promptings from Jews, has often chosen to 'support Israel' , or the idea of this Judaic people, in their struggles in the present era. The Protestant identification with the Tribe is a known feature. OTOH, the Catholic Church has not ever been a friend of either the Jews generally, nor Israel specifically.

It seems to me that if one were to look for reasons for American adventurism, one would have to consider the whole thing about the postwar 'military industrial complex', but that complex of industrialismts was still more or less Eastern seaboard industrialism which was still old school Protestant by and large. The Americna military machine, connected as it is to industry and to a 'Pentagon-based economic system', is thoroughly American and would function in that way even in the complete absence of any Jew or of Jewish interests.

But surely there is 'Jewish interests', and surely there can be said to be such a thing as 'Jewish domination in media and communications'. There are two factors here: One is that it is nearly impossible to have that conversation, or to broach it, without it careening instantly into declarations against 'Jewish control', which have to do (IMV) with projections. In a projection one projects onto someone else what one does not wish to recognize in oneself.

The entire argument about, or against, 'Cultural Marxism' is really the revelation of a particular narrative construct, and this has its predicates, its rules, it parameters, and of course its own will. I've looked into it enough to understand that there is something to it and that cultural Marxism is strongly influenced by some Jewish theorists and that 'liberalism' is tinged with these values, and especially in the post-Sixties. But at the same time the post-Sixties is similarly tied up with and infused with a general humanism. In fact a great deal of the humanism of the Sixties (Ban the Bomb, worker's rights, the dignity of man, and the genuine desire for a better and more civil world) has a Catholic root (Peter Maurin, the Catholic Worker, etc.) And Catholic social teachings are infused with Jewish humanistic values. You could never, not ever, unravel Christianity and thus Judaism from the Occident and its monuments and attainments. It is part-and-parcel of the Occidental self.

It did occur to me when I spent a year and a half reading the texts of the Alt-Right and the Nouvelle Droite that the 'JQ' would jump out of its bounds and take on a life of its own. I thought then, and I still think now, that it is best if it gets exteriorized so that it can be talked about. But then I notice how easily that narrative can get distorted and suddenly become hallucinatory and a sort of demonology-in-motion.
Last edited by Santiago Odo on Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

awiseman wrote:In the meantime I have a question for you. Why does the Jew controlled media get us worked up to drop bombs in the Middle East
You should be tweeting that question to Donald Trump, don't you think?
awiseman

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by awiseman »

Russell Parr wrote:I'd like to revise your equation you've mentioned a couple of times to this: ignorance+proximity=war. A diverse culture of wise people can get along just fine.
A diverse culture of wise people is an oxymoron. If everyone were wise and shared common values and goals that would be a nice, cohesive, homogeneous society; the very opposite of diverse. Ever notice how the elites in politics, hollywood, and the media constantly repeat the phrase 'diversity is our strength' when in fact this is our greatest weakness? Look it up if you don't believe me. Do a youtube search of that phrase. It's actually very creepy.
Dan Rowden wrote:
awiseman wrote:In the meantime I have a question for you. Why does the Jew controlled media get us worked up to drop bombs in the Middle East
You should be tweeting that question to Donald Trump, don't you think?
Us in the Alt Right are not a bunch of Donald Trump sychophants. He has been receiving tons of criticism from us on twitter. The same cant be said of the liberal media who for the first time are praising Trump as 'brave and decisive'.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

awiseman wrote:
Russell Parr wrote:I'd like to revise your equation you've mentioned a couple of times to this: ignorance+proximity=war. A diverse culture of wise people can get along just fine.
A diverse culture of wise people is an oxymoron. If everyone were wise and shared common values and goals that would be a nice, cohesive, homogeneous society; the very opposite of diverse.
Try to become wise first and save the theories about the characteristics of a wise society for later. The only homogeneous aspect of a wise society would be wisdom. Why should the other aspects of such a society necessarily be homogeneous? There is no reason why disagreement, individuality or even factionalism wouldn't exist. In fact, they might even be necessary depending on how the society intends to survive and expand.
Us in the Alt Right are not a bunch of Donald Trump sychophants.
I know from experience that this is true for *some* in the alt right (Kevin Solway for example), but you're not one of them. The non-sycophants saw through the sham *months* ago when Trump was making those ridiculous campaign promises. In fact, the only reason they supported him was to get rid of Hillary and prevent a consolidation of power in the hands of the liberals. After that was achieved, they summarily withdrew their support for Trump and his cohorts.

The sycophants are just reading from a script prepared for them by the alt media. And what's drama without conflict? To your simple minds, the recent intervention in Syria is supposed to be a moment of betrayal, when it's simply another item in an already existent list of contradictions between words and actions.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo »

According to Commander Solway's own declarations he leans to the left. All he has shown interest in is pointing out some distortions among the hyper-Left. He has indicated no alliance or allegiance of any sort with the general ideas of the Alt-Right. He defines no cultural centrism nor 'racialism' and no eurocentrism thst I can discern.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Santiago Odo wrote:According to Commander Solway's own declarations he leans to the left. All he has shown interest in is pointing out some distortions among the hyper-Left. He has indicated no alliance or allegiance of any sort with the general ideas of the Alt-Right. He defines no cultural centrism nor 'racialism' and no eurocentrism thst I can discern.
D'n'D should note that when even *Alex* can't be bothered to explore an imagined twist/contradiction in the main founder's "story", it's probably not a good idea to pursue it yourselves.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo »

Wisely said.
You I'll never leave
awiseman

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by awiseman »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Overall I'm not sure if you're interesting enough to discuss anything further with. The world is a bit more complex than seems to fit in your skull right now. Good luck with your rants!
Right, there isn't much left for us to discuss on this matter. Good luck living in a mixture of Islamic Theocracy and black ghetto culture.
Locked