David wrote:Look, I am going to say this once and then I will ignore you. Because you have no awareness of what it means to go beyond postmodernism and become conscious of the Infinite, your views of what masculinity is are extremely limited. That you equate masculinity with the white nationalist movement is a joke. I have no interest in your adolescent racist fantasies. It is herdly, it is emotional, it is regressive, it has nothing to do with individuality and rationality. Postmodernism is a major, major problem, but your spiritually-dead response doesn’t even begin to deal with it.
A few things can be said. One, all of my ideas are in movement. Maybe for you and for others you have arrived at a fixed position and only need to polish your description of that position? For example, you seem to have a fixed idea of what a vision or understanding of the Infinite is and what it will do. I think that you have already gathered that I question many different aspects of the position you are taking. I will not say that I am closed to understanding more, and do take into consideration that despire opposition to some of your formulations I have and do also defend what I see as positive in what I understand to be your-plural position and efforts: a form of vanguardism.
And to be truthful (and avoiding even my own long-standing tendencies toward sarcasm and irony) it would be difficult for you to know much of my 'metaphysics' or what I do as a person in relation to *that*. When you make a statement about 'the Infinite' as you have, I take it as I would take a mystic's declaration about God or Being. I have quoted Ortega y Gasset a few times where he speaks about the relevance not of the mystic's vision but of the theology that is decided on by the thoughtful man in relation to his 'transports'. Similarly, if you are going to define an Infinite, in the manner that you do, I suggest that it is ultimately a man's project, a masculine project, to articulate in definite and concrete terms a wide-ranging position. So, with that said, I would define 'masculinity' through attempts to get clear about seriousness in respect to 'theology'. What I mean by theology is essentially metaphysics. And what this means is specific and concrete definitions about 'the nature of the place where we find ourselves', the 'meaning' of our being here and our experience of consciousness, and then the decisions we come to (as men) who are called to arrive at definitions and to communicate our positions.
It is likely best to understand my declarations about 'white nationalism' in a nuanced sense. Or to attempt to see what ideas stand behind it. You would have to understand that I am working with certain facts and also perceptions of specific conditions within my own country. You would have to understand how I have come to understand 'social engineering' in the direct sense of manipulation of circumstances and of communities within my own nation. And you would have to understand that in relation to these things --- realizations --- that I as a person am genuinely concerned about what is going on and what this means (if such a term is permitted:) for my own demographic. My impression is that for you to understand these things you would have to undertake a time-consuming study. My impression of you is that you are quite outside the loop of many current events and trends. I do not think that you have a grasp of what you sound like, and what you seem to stand with, when you put out your opinions on *things*.
As I have recently communicated to Diebert I have come to understand this forum itself as a manifestation of a condition that arises within and out of postmodernism. But I am also chary of employing terms that are too general and loaded in a certain sense. Postmodernism is one such term. What does it really mean? I think that when you use the term --- this seems obvious --- you literally mean that you have a revelation of sorts that reorients you away from the posmodern and back toward something original, eternal, timeless. I would venture a sort of agreement and mention that I use the term 'metaphysic' similarly. That is, we must arrive at such a definition and then we must pull together a response in an existential sense to the conditions of reality in which we find ourselves.
I have been moved (if I can put it like this: moved in the idea-realm) to at the very least see the sense of certain definitions that have to do with Europe and also pan-Europe. One aspect of my own value-set has to do with eurocentrism. I do not see this as chauvinist necessarily but as a realistic and also a 'masculine' position. That is, to make the definitions that support the understanding of eurocentrism requires an excersise of reason but also of application of value. I see this as quintessentially masculine. I also see defense of self, and defense of people, and defense of cultural achievement, and defense of the mental, spiritual and material situation and condition of the Occidental man as being expressions of a masculine spirit.
It is within this larger context of understandings, value definitions and value declarations, and then in relation to what I underatand as vast forces opposing this that I would place the vanguardist idea of 'white nationalism'. It is certainly not in any sense a popular idea! It is one that immediately produces reaction. But I can tell you that the processes I have gone through to get to this position (and it is more nuanced than you may realize) has been because I have seriously and responsibly engaged in serious study of the issue. This is not a passing or adolescent position. If you did want to understand how these ideas can be expressions of serious analysis and serious concern for civilization and also Occidental civilization, I would suggest a careful reading of Madison Grant. There are numerous titles that I would recommend, and which I read, but that would give you a solid understanding of the concern which is based in 'scientific fact' about the decline that I am concerned about. What is that decline? Well, you allude to it with the term 'postmodern'. We have to recognize, in a manly fashion, just what is going on and where we stand in relation to it. To do that is to embody masculinity in my book. To surrender that responsibility and to lose that capacity, is to fall not only into 'feminized' modes, but I would suggest in daemonic modes. Obviously, that word would have to be carefully explained. But the point, as I see it, is that 'to be a man' and to define masculinity is a terribly demanding affair. The boys here, when they have merely acted like boys, have not ever given me the impression of really rising to the occasion. Can you consider that as a fair criticism? It is offered, and it has been offered, in good faith.
I can surely understand why you would speak about 'adolescent racist fantasies'. But I do suggest that you attempt to see behind your own reflexive reaction and to see and understand how this is a 'determined' statement. If you wish to speak about 'herdliness', well, one might couch a conversation within that particular definition. I see the protoplasm, the body, the man within his body, a man in time and within his condition, and man in relation to what he conceives and receives in spirit (in his mind, in his higher concepts) as being the essential area that we have to work with and in. We must not lose sight of these basic facts. This has to do with 'who we are' and what we have created and also what we must maintain. Therefor (if with this brief allusion I have made myself a little more clear) the definitions that revolve around race and biology, location and community, and spiritual choice in relation to declaration of value are quintessentially masculine definitons. They are part-and-parcel of a masculine project. All this can be further explained.
But one must talk about what is arrayed against this and against these definitions. We allude, generally, to governmental manipulation, or coercion, or social engineering, or the influence of the MSM, or to 'propaganda' and indeed just above (Google) there is talk about some of these ramifications. We have to see and define what is arrayed against us (in these and many other senses). That is 'masculine seeing'.
Well, there you have at least some part of a response as I would make to you. I suggest that it is you, David, who needs very much to open your mind a bit more.