Augustinius, Manichius, Cartesius
Big Bro Boomers selfishly over-state fear of collectivism at expense of Little Bro Xers atomization
In truth, I didn’t intend to move over to Majorityrighs, I rather sought to poach Bowery and bring him to The Voice of Reason Broadcasting Network. Noting his talent, disillusionment and insult he experienced of Majorityrights proprietor, Guessedworker; I hoped to bring his talent to VoR.
When Bowery told me that he would come to VoR and set about to “re-boot the Enlightenment”, I face palmed as he was gearing up to fly in the face of the White Post Modern philosophy – a philosophy cultivated largely to overcome the flaws of Enlightenment era philosophy and extend up-to-date conceptual tools to take us where I knew that our people needed to go. Nevertheless, I kept quiet, as he has marked talent, even if not the best philosophically, and I could work around him. However, his coming to VoR as a regular didn’t materialize because, as I said, the network was allowed to go down when Carolyn Yeager and Tanstaafl left to establish their own network.
When I did move over to Majorityrights with the demise of VoR, Bowery remained a somewhat grudging presence, enduring the insult of Guessedworker, but also conflicting bitterly with some of the others there – he would finally give an ultimatum: “It’s me or Graham Lister.” Graham is a rather intelligent man, a geneticist, sometimes commenter and poster at MR, but with an absurd level of disdain for Americans and the attendant foibles that Bowery had – individualism, aversion to any social integration theory as the road to “eusociality” in our people (eusociality in people means their functioning in a non-human way, like a hive group, like bees or ants); and his own special idea to stave off eusociality, an elaborate scheme to administer “pair-wise duels” to preserve “Euroman’s individual nature”, which, he maintained, is under threat by the zeitgeist of specialization that has been evolving since the times when we gathered around campfires; followed by a pernicious development of “civilization” culminating through Rome’s imposition of “civilization” on the feral Northerners of Europe, ruining their true individual and creative nature.
Captainchaos said:
“Computer geeks make for shitty political philosophers.”
Graham Lister replied:
“Very true – narrow technical intelligence doesn’t often translate very well into the much broader field of political thought. Well done CC! There’s hope for you yet!”
Needless to say, Bowery wasn’t pleased with this sort of remark. But to my surprise, he also took a rather hostile stance toward my offerings, not as antagonistic as Guessedworker, however…
Being a social constructionist, I take for granted that there is, at least somewhere along the line, a joint effort in the construction of knowledge. With Majorityrights being a discussion site with active and regular commentators, I figured I could at least eventually show them that this outlook was a natural fit as a means to advance ethnonationalism. If I put up a “specificatory structure”, i.e., a post that could use adjustments, some “shaping and crafting”, I expected it to be treated as an occasion for friendly, minor correction and amendment as such (I say “friendly minor correction” as it is clear that my will is good and the material that I bring to bear is relevant, different and important), not absolute dismissal of everything I say and me along with it – treated as the Trojan horse of an enemy envoy (even though NOBODY, friend or foe, was doing anything like me) to be utterly vanquished as redundant where not the bringer of veritable evil. Although that treatment was even more GW’s sickness, they were both treating me in accordance with the “transmissions” model of communication, as if I presented myself as Moses on Mount Saini delivering with all pomp and pretense, the infallible and perfectly understood truth to the passive audience receiving it below. The modernist assumption and its corresponding refusal to suspend disbelief, maintaining instead a position of endless skepticism and critique, with the assumption that the battering would lead to “foundational” knowledge, would become more and more evident, as would Guessedworker’s disingenuous purpose for this convenient premise.
For “a discussion” site, as Majorityrights purported to be, there was next to nothing in the way of discussion – in fact, that would have been more like a social constructionist/communications perspective. Instead what comments there were, were basically trolling and ridicule which were anything but informative; this trolling based on the old transmissions model, as if I were presenting myself as a Moses on Mount Saini, issuing edicts impervious to feedback, this pompous guy not amenable but who, rather, needed to be taken down.
Snark and aim for the “one thing” that would take down the whole charade was also an artifact of the STEM mindset of this culture at MR, enamored of machine precision. It is a bad mindset to apply to the more messy world of praxis (the social world) – where people have agency and there are reflexive effects; thus, where working hypotheses and specificatory structures are a better means of analysis than a quest for perfect and singular theory to the exclusion of all other ways of considering its issues.
From Bowery I’d get a reaction and a similar position as GW, as if I was waving the same (((red capes))) of the humanities that he was used to reacting-to. And I received some pedantic instruction as to how I might pursue GW’s STEM reaction ontology project.
For a salient example, although I devised the first DNA Nations post to flatter his abilities and encourage his participation in the project, he never really did much participate, but instead talked of implementing his own “sortocracy” project and said, with a tinge of sadistic glee – “then we wouldn’t need it” (The DNA Nations project). This is the STEM dream, to find an error or redundancy in a scheme and then eliminate it as redundant.
And I got this snark from hims in line with GW’s hyperbolic resentment of scholasticism:
“Augustinius, Manichius, Cartesius”
In fact, lets go right these examples.
“Augustinian” and “Manichean” are Clerk Maxwell’s “conceptual demons” – two different kinds of challenges that humans have to face and are well advised to distinguish.
Augustinian devils are natural challenges, they don’t change when resolved. It is a reasonable and obvious hypothesis that I offer that Europeans, especially northerners, are evolved more to deal with these challenges; this corresponds with scientific achievement and with social naivete – it means that people of this mindset are a bit prone to be dupes. I am not knocking this predilection, it is my own and ultimately, it is the important mindset as it is by successfully taking on Augustinian challenges that humans will survive or not.
Manichean Devils are man made devils; they can be tricksters and change the rules; say, if you’ve solved a problem they can “un-solve” it. It is a reasonable hypothesis that I offer that Middle Easterners are more evolved to deal in terms of this kind of devil, as they are evolved in circumstance where the challenge was more against other tribes than nature itself. This outlook of the Manichean Devil is evident in the Mossad’s motto, “wage war by deception,” and in the Muslim “taqiyya”, which is also an endemic means of deception.
Now. why the fuck would Bowery flout me as pompous, saying that I was coming to Majorityrights in pretentious scholasticism, talking in terms of “Manichius” or “Augustinius”?
Especially with his concerns for Northern “Euroman” and his individual scientific creativity, there should have been no aversion what so ever to these working hypotheses. I might have rather expected steel manning.
I would expect someone like Bowery, who claimed to be “lightyears more intelligent” than me, to do better in terms of seeing the value and working with me to integrate ideas like this and several more that I brought to bear… but instead was treated like a frivolous and pompous fool – ” Augustinius, Manichius …and Cartesius”…
Yes, Bowery would lambast me in a Skype call, telling me to “stay far away from talking about Descartes. You are demoralizing our people!”…. he would add with a tone of utter disgust, that I should stop criticizing “Modernity” as a problem.
Now, what we’re seeing here is a STEM boomer reaction to the (((red caping))) of post modern concepts. Boomer, as in settled in that perspective, before Modernity “came into question” and assault by the (((red caped))) misrepresentation of “Post Modern” concepts – (((Post Modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity.
He’s acting very defensively of science, as if I am attacking science when I discuss some of the mistakes of the “Empirical Philosophers.” I should be able to take it for granted that when I talk about problems with “the empirical philosophers” that I am talking about Locke, Berkeley and Hume, not criticizing empiricism per se (or even empirical philosophy).
But Bowery either was that sensitive to the potential disparagement of science and/or, like GW, but to a lesser extent, he was looking for a foil to polemicize against. I think in Bowery’s case, it’s more a science sensitivity.
It’s kind of like when I discussed the post modern concept of herremeneutics with Dr. MacDonald and he insisted that hermeneutics is anti-science (when I know that it is not, it is facilitative of science) because all he’s known is the (((red caping of heremeneutics))) as anti-science.
And again, when I talked of “scientism,” Bowery reacted as if I was criticizing science per se. Unlike GW, he was at least placated when I clarified (though it was to repeat, as I was never vague about this), that what is meant by “scientism” is bad science or bad application of science.
You don’t want to defend bad science, do you? He did not say anything but it was clear that he would say no, as he is a frequent critic of bad science.
Let me offer a graphic example of scientism, a very dangerous expression, at that:
It is not hard to to find other examples. The idea that human beings are animals who cannot be monogamous would be another example of scientism. There is no reason to extend examples and elaborate, the point should be clear. This is NOT about being against science, but against bad science, or bad application of science, i.e., scientism. Having made this distinction many times over the years, I still found GW responding to the word scientism as if he’d heard the word “science” and it being criticized, calling for him to rejoin, “well Europeans are a scientific people”… I face palm. Ok, maybe he was trying to invoke sympathy but… sheesh.
Ok, now lets turn to the biggie, the big bugbear for Bowery and Guessedworker: Cartesianism.
In philosophy, including for Guessedworkers fixated German god, Heidegger, Cartesianism is at the crux of Modernity against what would come to be known as the Post Modern, Hermeneutic turn.
From here on out, I might interchangeably refer to Guessedworker as “Asshole” because that’s what he is. Now, Asshole believes that he has removed Heidegger of this critique, having “told me” that Heidegger was not against Cartesianism altogether; in fact, recognized that this Cartesian provision could not always be avoided.
Since Asshole is “telling me this” (“you have been told”), let me tell him right back to his philosophically talentless self, that trying to abolish all utility in Cartesianism is not what philosophers are doing in its critique.
I have made this clear. He has been told. I/we are not going to try to tell microwave engineers to stop using Cartesian coordinates where they find them to work in their inquiries.
What Post Modern philosophy (proper) is doing, commencing with Vico’s critique of Descartes and with that critique picking up steam and resource through Heidegger, is to call our attention back from Cartesian estrangement and detachment from Praxis and instead re-center our world view in its relative social group interests and requirements for conduct (i.e., “phronesis”, the means of practical judgement, not pristine theory) – guiding us yes, in hermeneutic circulation as need be, from holding fast to our emergent qualities enough for guidance against misdirecting social rules to providing coherence over and against the arbitrary thrownness of our existential circumstance.
This is not to take our hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity so far as to be estranged from our relative social interests in abstractions beyond praxis and authentic human concern – that would be Cartesian – nor getting caught up in the arbitrary flux of our thrown condition below praxis, in brute nature, where force and might is all meaningful as opposed to the human negotiation of praxis; caugth instead in the mere facticity below praxis, its confusingness to our authentic concerns, its contradictions, paradoxes, arbitrariness (we can in fact breed with any race, you can say “we are all Africans under the skin” ..stupidly), as again, that would be a Cartesian problem which may otherwise be ameliorated, liberated by the hermeneutic turn from mere facticity.
Whether in this corrective liberation from mere facticity and its tortuous arbitrariness or in corrective of principles which, if followed ad nauseum, would take us beyond nature to no care for this world, hermeneutics is a process of engaged inquiry which provides a distinctly human capacity to liberate us from this Cartesian estrangement, from non-human causality, to be liberated from mere facticity (beyond momentary and episodic facts and confusions as need be) by the White Post Modern, hermeneutic turn.
Now, it is important to emphasize that hermeneutic inquiry does not deny facts, ignore more objective and scientific inquiry as a part of its survey or reject its findings.
Again, these inquires into facts and truths irrespective of our subjective and relative interests are well placed as invaluable feedback against the calibration of our relative interests.
When we can grasp the non-Cartesian, partly storied, historical narrative, accept the limitations but see the opportunity in the tiny bit of arbitrariness to “the narrative” of our people, as delimited group, not run away to the Cartesian netherworld above or below Praxis, then we may be accountable, coherent, agentive and corrective – i.e., homeostatic of our group systems, establishing autonomy and warrant thereof, sovereignty in a word. We may have “authentic” human existence as a people and with it, the wide range of functional autonomy that our people enjoy as individuals.
This Post Modern, hermeneutic, anti-Cartesian, anti-Modern turn, is thus an extremely important turn for European peoples. No fucking Asshole Guessedworker with his piddling 143 I.Q. and no Bowery will dissuade this. It is too important. My I.Q. will be 200 for the occasion if need be (lol).
There are many examples of the significance of the heremeneutic process of inquiry, its capacity to resolve problems where the rigidity of Cartesianism might fail. But let me call attention to one example that became particularly illustrative between Bowery and I.
Bowery’s got this concept of “Sortocracy” and while its pretty good as a libertarian sourced ideas go, it’s limitation as compared to heremeneutic method is shown in an example that he provided.
I wrote about this in an article – A Hermeneuticist Confronts a Sortocracer With A Provocative Issue – and I’ve commented upon this as well. His concept of Sortocracy is a very empirically based idea, i.e. here and now testing: viz., people are encouraged to vote with their feet to sort and be with whom they like, where they like, in order to test the human ecology that they see fit. Here’s where it got provocative, interesting, my ears perked. He added in passing, that “this would have resolved the Polish corridor /Danzig question right away” rather than its being a precipitating dispute of WWII.
Knowing something of the history of the city, that it has been Germanic, it has been Polish (including in its hay day), it has been neutral, it has been German and was almost entirely German in population at the time preceding WWII, that Sortocracy may have sorted things out as Hitler wanted (but not quite, as it lacked the resistance that supplied the rhetoric of his reasonableness in the face of intransigence that his war mongering rhetoric deployed); but hermeneutic inquiry contained the possibility for a more just adjudication, which was attempted by noting that the city has been in important dispute for centuries between Poland and Germany. And a return to its neutrality might have been its optimal status. Perhaps not, but hermeneutics circulating process of inquiry can look at the history and take it into account to correct for a more just result, if possible, based on historical information; or it can circle back to the situation now and say, well, better make it German. The point is, that it opens up important vistas that a-historical empiricism does not. Similar historical inquiries would be raised in Czech and the Sudetenland under the Treaty of St. Germain.
Now, what the Cartesian anxiety does to Bowery, lacking in hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity as it were, is have him attempt to engage, at the apex of his inquiries, into different kooky ideas, whether its an absurd binary choice between pairwise duels or that we become eusocial creatures like insects… or that we must tear civilization down in order to save our natural selves [I’ve written about this too, “Civilization”, which Bowery sees as a major problem or “Modernity” which I see as a major problem] ..civilization is to be torn down in order to free the Euro man in his commune with god at the end of this Cartesian stretch, whereof he does not, you see, see that he should be curbing his objectivist inquiries; which, though yielding some great ideas along the way, need to be curbed and recognized as feedback to be gauged against the relative interests of our people, and corrected in their systemic virtue in that group systemic calibration – for what, really, does his individuality matter otherwise and where, otherwise, does it really come from. ..to whom is it really indebted?
But on the other hand, this is where I have sympathy for Bowery’s Cartesian anxiety, knowing it well for having been in the situation of America myself. To say the least, Praxis does not present itself as an appealing option. Rather, one is looking for an escape from “socialization” in this imposition of peoples from everywhere and anywhere, from the fall-out of (((weaponized))) Lockeatinism, where classifications are not mere impositions against individualism, but “racism” and cause to force people upon you who are utterly destructive to you. This is the rule of the land, just about everybody takes it for granted as the the American way (the hegemonic, American way)… you experience Cartesian anxiety, acutely, you look for the way out – in Bowery’s case, in terms of libertarianism to begin with and then perhaps to more speculative ideas, to where you’ll even give Doolittle a considered hearing.
GW and especially Graham Lister are not very sympathetic to the hell of Bowery’s circumstance. They take for granted what White Americans cannot in their situation absent the ancient coherent history of the people and their land at bottom; a couple hundred years history Americans have, with no collective identity to enforce it, only individual rights and not much for you, Whitey.
Now, while I am sympathetic to Bowery, I am not overly sympathetic.
I believe that his perspective is scientistic in its recoil from the White Post Modern Project. While it is possible for us to evolve in eusocial way and certain means of war, in particular, are a likely way to stimulate that direction of evolution, he is showing a lack of appreciation for the Aristotelian nature of Praxis. In the main, if we have our bearings in praxis, its correctivity, there is no clear an present danger to us turning into eusocial creatures very quickly; and if we see ourselves evolving in that way, we can take measures to correct it – i.e., if we are losing our individuality, masculinity, whatever, we can take measures to correct these trends.
Whereas Bowery has at times acted as if he was saving us from eusociality, he was, in fact, metastasizing Boomer cancer.
Big Brother, the boomer generation, is not watching, is not looking after your interests. He has disingenuously allowed the once more relevant fear of collectivism to be over-extended in his selfish interests at the expense of our group survival – not looking-after, but blocking “Little Brother,” viz., generation Xers corrective concern regarding atomization – the obvious vulnerability and destruction of our group, systemic survival and individuals thereupon.
And now these selfish pigs (not Bowery, but Boomers as a metastesized pattern) are aligning with right-wing Jewish interests – either naively or disingenuously – to bypass the ethnonational left corrective of gen-Xers, to instead mainline the parasite’s directives directly for an advanced stage take-over through generation internet bubble – instant experts, ‘knowing-it-all’ thanks to taking Big Brother’s (((directed vigilance))) against “The Left.” …the YKW don’t want the gentiles to get any grass-roots union organizing ideas now that they have hegemony in all elite niches; they just want right-wingers who disingenuously or naively comply with thwarting those nascent Left Ethnonationalist challenges to them (let alone any coalition building of ethnonationalisms against them).
Little Brother’s Concerns are Not being looked-after.
… that is to say, necessary philosophical corrections of the Gen-Xers are not.
“The attempt to sideline positions such as this as on one side or the other of the “individual vs collective” divide is, itself, a most egregious Cartesian attack.”
The Hermeneuticist doesn’t side track issues by balancing concern for the individual and collective (for example). But rather, in circulating corrective of Cartesian runaway – in this case of the boomer generations’ emphasis, now anachronistic over emphasis on the fear of collectivism’s dehumanizing dangers – it instead recognizes that the emphasis for our people now has to be more directed toward correcting our atomization as a people resulting from the rupture of ethnonationalist unionization (through weaponized modernity, for example: unionization being an “unnatural”, socially collectivizing concept as Asshole might see the red capes of praxis; whereas nationalism should emerge as naturally as his zen farts); we need to assert the warrant of our people’s unionization and accountability thereof; without which the very grounds even of what distinct individualism that the European species affords is destroyed.
All American highschoolers of the 50s and 60s were assigned (((Kafka’s))) book Metamorphosis, a sci-fi nightmare allegory culmination in eusocial take-over of its subject’s once human body.
They were also assigned Orwell’s 1984 story of the negative utopian horrors of collectivism, to where social accountability, that is to say, accounts requested, had been taken beyond all reason (producing insanity like that of the Stasi, Merkel and much of the PC enforcement of today).
It is apparent now, that the parasite is encouraging WN in right-wing reaction against the so called left (against the hyperbolic exaggerations of their international, Marxist left and Cultural Marxist, anti-White Left as disingenuously lumped with proper White and non-Jewish left ethnonationalism); into right wing reactions that double down in the reaction against YKW abuse of left conceptualization of the social and group; a reaction encouraged, where not prescribed by them as the parasite merges with the host Whites to drive them over the top and into to ultimate dissolution of those aspects which will not be totally merged and controlled by its Jewish agenda for thorough supremacy over the “gentiles.”
Grade school kids of the Boomer generation were sometimes drilled to scurry beneath their school desks to shelter themselves from atomic attack from The Soviet Union.
I guess its not very important, maybe a standard kind of intellectual hazing ..and maybe he would be annoyed for having had ideas similarly that others were claiming as theirs uniquely, but Bowery would gaslight at times; for example, showing me the wiki page on the “Human Be-in” and acting like he was informing me about the connection between a Heideggerism and the underlying, unarticulated Hippie motive.
For more examples of this older bro hazing, which may be a little obnoxious, not very good, but also not necessarily egregious… testing to see if you are not too intellectually sensitive…
I would say Bowery’s criticism of the Mulatto Supremacist article, one of the first that I put up at MR, was somewhat valid, but I was mainly trying to get the term out there as a pejorative. The Haitian uprising against the French colonialists presented itself as subject matter, but ran counter to Mulatto Supremacism as a threat, since the blacks proper destroyed the Mulatto claim to supremacy; true enough, the Boxer, Jack Johnson, was black proper and therefore somewhat problematic to its coherence as subject of the piece, only tangentially and potentially propagating Mulatto Supremacism by way of any offspring that he might have. That wasn’t quite Bowery’s concern, as he criticized my “analysis” for looking at a boxer; and that criticism is valid except that women are not always attracted to feats of I.Q., but can, reasonably, be a bit more ecologically balanced in their interests, including for aspects of biopower, as in the case of Jack Johnson’s wife exactly, who left an intellectually accomplished White husband for Johnson.
Black biopower can be quite an intellectual challenge to take on, not only a physical challenge, that’s why I looked to take it on… I also wanted to take on an example illustrating how black biopower could be a challenge prior to the time of quite such Jewish hegemony…e.g., there was no Cultural Marxism in Johnson’s hay day.
Bowery said that women don’t like, in fact, “nobody likes” (I don’t know how he knows everybody but..), nobody likes my take on Sex, in my articles, Sex as Sacrament, Sex as Celebration, Sex as Natural Fact and other Stories, but I am saying that there are different views upon it, so which one does he not like? or do they not like?
And when I discussed Lakoff’s (Women, Fire and Other Dangerous Things) concept of human’s having to classify (Lakoff said categorize, but to classify is the same thing), Bowery said that he was thinking of this back in the day, suggesting therefore again, my redundance, that I was not contributing anything new (modern), therefore nothing important…. or saying that I am “sloppy” as I don’t treat Praxis in a STEM manner, like a car engine, as GW might…. or suggesting that I am a wuss (in hidebound stereotype of masculinity, playing into the modernist notion of universal maturity – he once presented me this image and said, “see that, that’s you”:
So he is a bit stricken by Cartesian anxiety. That is where you get the nutty shit, understandable in its cause though it may be, in the midst Jewish rhetoric and sophistry of praxis, amidst the imposition of throngs of people unaccountable, people you want nothing to do with imposed upon you by the (((weaponized))) modernist notion of “civil rights” … imposing people upon you that you need to get away from. Getting social and getting together with people? That’s the last thing you’d want – if you are taking a mere empirical perspective, without the White Post Modern concept of hermeneutic transcendence and social constructionist engagement, responsibility.
Especially when someone is claiming to be light years more intelligent than I am, I don’t expect to have to argue this much, let along argue against intransigence.
I posted an article “James Watson does not exist” (said sarcastically, of course) in order to illustrate how easily his concerns fit with the White Post Modern view, when he was miffed at Watson’s travails in the PC (((red capes of Post Modernity))).
…
Through the times at Majorityrights, Bowery didn’t have much to say about social constructionism other than castigating a commentator troll who was using it in the red cape way.
But he seems to be stuck on the anachronistic social constructivism and thought that he was going to correct me by citing von Glassersfeld as such: von Glassersfeld – people go around perturbing one another, lol.
Social constructivism, however, looks at the products of socialconstruction not the process itself, and it is this interactive process of social constructionism, of its nature in praxis, which apparently neither Bowery’s nor GW’s boomerism has come to terms…..despite its advantages, despite its reality!
Bowery has made individualism – the sovereign euro man – into a veritable religion and has said on at least one occasion that he would go to another people if they were the more likely vehicle to protect individualism.
In a way, he is at the extreme opposite from GW’s concern. Whereas Bowery is averse to the social interactive perspective because in America all kinds are thronged and forced upon you – which might just make you want to extricate yourself from other people to the extreme as in Bowery’s case; GW is averse to social interactive possibilities because he wants to hold his people together, their taking for granted a social bond and historical homeland; he wants for them not to be swept up in language games which may liberalize them from their emergent form.
In Cartesian anxiety Bowery goes speculative, off the deep end into pair wise duels, nutty speculation of pure relation to god, realms of shield maidens, sovereign male White knight protectors…Someone said something about “Dungeons and Dragons”… how they were glad that they didn’t get wrapped up in it in their youth..
Now, in segue, I will save for the Guessedworker section the few remarks that I have in defense of using ideas from Vico and Harre; but I have strong reason to believe Bowery was supporting GW in his dismissal of Harre and Vico. This is to really misunderstand how I am using their work and to take issue only as they might.
Addendum regarding an avenue attempted by Bowery in Nordicist Boomer Cartesian Anxiety
Nearly ten years ago at Majorityrights, I had been making posts deploying Vico and Heidegger’s neo-Aristotelian, existentialist repositioning of Praxis (our people group classification) as the central world view. I was trolled relentlessly and with utter stupidity by a Christard named Joe, whose main offense was the sheer number and volume of his irrelevant Christian conspiritard posts, gunking up the threads. For whatever stupid reason, Bowery was taking the disposition that it was not supposed to bother me when it was if I was trying to carefully conduct the playing of classical orchestra while Joe was constantly disrupting the sound with loud, obnoxious noise. It was pretty clear that Bowery simply did not have a great deal of respect for what I was saying (or for me to be able to say it) if he simply expected me to accept Joe’s obnoxious disruption.
Then on 14 March 2013, Bowery displayed what I maintain to be a folly of his Nordicist boomer Cartesian anxiety. That is, he made a post arguing how John Harland shows Christianity to have been retooled through Northern European auspices to protect their natural individuality …and thus supposedly remains worthy as a religion for European people – nordicist snobs, anyway.
Suffice it to say I recognize this expression of Cartesian anxiety, seeking foundation beyond the correctivity of praxis in Jesus or whatever pure principle of individuality, let alone biblical text – ugh! to be part and parcel of the problem for the homeostasis of European genus and species.
In commenting on his post, I made some important points and then the Christard Joe came in with a deluge of bizarre conspiracy theories, comment after comment. Now, one will take note that the Christard/J-friendly misdirection agents, Thorn and Haller, welcomed this absurd commentary from Joe.
Going back some, as Majorityrights is a fee speech forum, I actually defended Joe as a commenter at first, stating that he presented ideas that others could clarify their disagreements by way of but that was before the deluge of utter absurdity from him.
And there was no real good reason for Bowery to continue to defend Joe; it was a reflection of a bad aspect of James in that for his high I.Q., he wants ‘yes’ men, not respecting the opinion of someone like myself who might say ‘no’ to some of his ideas and thus willing to see commentary obfuscated by the likes of an idiot like Joe.
Why do I say this? First there was Joe’s (along Thorn’s and Haller’s Christard distracting bullshit) interminable trolling attacks in commentary on my posts, which Bowery thought that I should just put up with. And then, after I made some thoughtful comments on Bowery’s post proposing the utility of Harland in redemption of Christianity and Joe came back with a deluge of conspiratorial bullocks, comment after comment, I made a few wry remarks, Bowery blamed me for encouraging him; but on the contrary, it was Bowery’s explicit tolerance of him that encouraged him. But what was even more insulting was misrepresenting my assessment of Joe as an expression, analogously speaking, of a “virus”, i.e., the Christard virus, and construing it as if I was somehow concerned that his ideas might go “viral” in the idiom of “become popular” misunderstanding rather than being what they were, overbearingly obnoxious distraction.
I will post the relevant comments from that post here, with the only caveat with regard to my position being that I may come across as an atheist in my rebuttal of Joe in some comments where I quote Nietzsche and “Zeitgeist” with George Carlin, but actually, I do believe that Europeans can and should have a new religion which serves our genus and species.
I will start off with the last comment first, made by myself just today. I could see in scrolling through this thread, “Christianity as expression of authentic European culture,” that I was talking of Christianity as “controlled opposition” in April of 2013 (lest anyone think Adam Green is the unique and stellar purveyor of this idea.
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 13:06 | #
P.S., Note my use of the term “controlled opposition” for Christianity in this comment of 15 April 2013. That is not, of course, to say that others could not or did not make the same inference, only to assert that I (and probably others) were talking that way long before Adam Green (who said that he traced the idea to some book he’d read; maybe so).
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:48 | #
The motive of the shit eating Jew fly calling itself “Joe” is to come here with its flurry of derailing and trivializing conspiracy theories that nettle and attack tender morsels until it can finally lay its Jewish eggs, the controlled opposition of Christianity, into a wound.
There is no true Christianity, it is all a Jewish hoax.
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 12:57 | #
Bowery was not representing my opinion here in suggesting that I was worried that Joe’s views would go “viral” .. in fact, very insulting to suggest that I would have such concern. I was rather bothered, and rightfully so, that he was obstructing and disrupting valuable informational traffic with his bullshit. His vast and relentless trolling was degrading the threads and distracting from careful thought.
As one looks back, one can see that I exercised patience and did NOT encourage him. Further, there was no reason what so ever to grant his comments space for people to “contemplate” here, including idiots like Thorn and Haller; who you see, what a “surprise”, welcomed him here.
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:24 | #
I don’t exactly agree, DaneilS. I do think that you’re encouraging him by continuing to respond to him. Anyone who reads what he writes with any degree of perception will see that he is not engaging in intellectually honest discourse. Others might be “infected” by his “viral” memes (the sense in which I think you mean his posts are “viral”) and go off and start transmitting the same viral memes to others. However, keep in mind that his perspective on Christianity is rather unique which tends to mitigate against that risk on the face of it.
Have fun with Thorn, your resident retard, Christard.
Christianity As Expression of Authentic European Culture
GW has expressed the constraint:
“It is a pity that Christianity, as flawed as it is from a European racial perspective, is undeniably part of the unity of north and south. We are stuck with it, for it has been too close for too long to us – and the faithful must have their faith expressions, after all.”
DanielS has expressed the constraint:
“Adding yet another knot in the tangle is the argument that with the Christian texts already being the terms in which many of our people think, the currency for two thousand years now, there must be some ontological basis beneath, and we may as well find the positive logic to it for our purposes. However, with the texts being what they are, the motivations of the texts being as convoluted, Jewish and ambiguous as they were to begin, all that winds-up happening with the deciphering of our “true” logic behind Christianity is a contribution to the mess.”
Note first of all, that Bowery is going to share Guessedworker’s snobbish concern for Nordics and relative disregard for Southern Europeans when it is an unnecessary false either/or, throwing southerners under the bus where all Europeans can be taken care of in their peculiarities by national boundaries, where the differences of our species are the concern (e.g., protecting the individuality of northern types). Nevertheless, in his Nordic penchant to quest after pure objectivism, Bowery wants to show how Harland can use Christianity to protect the individuality of the nordicists – just what we need, right? more of that bullshit.
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 06:06 | #
I think it is already clear enough that I am inclined to this option:
“or declare folly the entire effort to connect with the spiritual force of Christianity.”
Except that I would not necessarily reject spiritual force. I just don’t believe that it has to, or does necessarily, come with Christianity.
I favor a religious orientation around the 14 words, one to which any person of European extraction may subscribe – innocent until proven guilty.
However, as ecology and historico-systemic accountability are crucial, there is the necessity to negotiate and maintain a balance among and between different kinds of Europeans.
We need to be careful to be neither slobs nor snobs:
The slobs would be those who would recklessly integrate all European peoples on the one hand or perhaps allow for too much non-European influence on the other hand.
The snobs would be those who observe a particular European snob club, permitting of only one particular kind of European, one nation, one region, or one based exclusively on some particular skill; while needlessly excluding and putting at risk Europeans* who, while being loyal Europeans, cannot or will not subscribe to that particular European club.
* Of course, the snobs would be putting themselves at risk in certain circumstances by needlessly shunning potentially helpful allies; or in the worst case scenario by generating new enemies among Europeans.
To me, the most essential requirement, after being genetically European and after loyalty to Europeans is, whether one is willing to fight or flight on behalf of Europeans. I see maintaining the distinctions of Europeans as 1b. It is not the second priority but in the name of not going perilously far in the snob direction, to where we leave ourselves dangerously thin of allies or worse, increase our antagonists, the genus of European ought to occupy the realm of friends.
Perhaps Heidegger’s distinction between first and essential is useful here: Of accountability, first would be your particular nation but essentially would be European.
Or first European and essentially your particular kind of European? …I’m not sure, but somehow there should not be a serious conflict between the parts and the whole of Europeans
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:58 | #
…….
Not only is Christianity not authentically European, by taking it for grated that it is authentically European KMac gives what is (in my opinion) the mistaken advice that it is somehow radically rebellious to resurrect and defend Christianity against Jewish attacks. It is not radical and rebellious. To adopt Christianity is to play right into Jewish hands, their manipulated contrivance.
This seems to be an ongoing problem with those confronting the J.Q. They seem to feel doing just the opposite of what the Jews would want for their own interests is necessarily what is good and authentic for us, for our interests.
But that is mere reaction. Moreover, as I have said in many instances, that with the Jews acting in group interests, to merely do the opposite would be to act in a way opposing group interests, most saliently, not in our own group interests simply because we do not want to be like Jews.
Hence: Christianity, Darwinism, Inequality, Individualism, Anti-social constructionism, Nazism, pure theoria of science as opposed to the rhetoric of praxis, ruthlessness as opposed to compassion….
all these things and more are reacted into as necessarily good because they are the didactic opposite of the Jews exaggerated self interest.
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:18 | #
.
* A further note on the snobs. It is not wrong for them to exclude others from their particular club. The problem comes to the extent to which they effectively exclude Europeans from the genus, European, and unnecessarily put them at risk to non-Europeans as such.
Nevertheless, it is true that there should be some purist snob clubs to protect fairly pure genotypes or whatever other valuable difference may exist.
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44 | #
…objective measures, impartiality…. oh, Blacks are suffering from immigration too (like we should give an F)
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:12 | #
1) What to do with the authentic European spirit that finds expression in Christianity—however distorted?
As many people will continue to be engaged in the Christian narrative, I suppose it is a question of some relevance; however as I see it, there is too much chance of reconstructing the tangles of Judeo-Christianity, and that will be seen as an unnecessary price by the majority of us, who do not find Christianity compelling whatsoever.
Some of us would rather churches be transformed into swimming pools or general discussion halls if not churches of the 14 Words
2) What is authentic European culture?
To begin with, it is rule structures which reconstruct European people by entailing things they are legitimated to do, are prohibited from doing, or are obliged to do.
Europeans have a variety of ways of doing things and their particularization of these rules differ.
You place heavy emphasis on a region of European people, on individualism, duels, a special reading of Christianity. Fine, I suppose that can be one expression of European, but it certainly does not encompass all of what it means to be European.
One thing that does represent a common bound of European is our DNA groupings and our evolution on the continent. There is more, but that is a significant basis which does not allow for that much weasel room, because there is a clear difference from Jewish peoples.
Farther elaborating on European rule structure:
It sets limits and protections on the the systemic pattern of the people at the point where it is being transgressed. Hence, it is culture (artificial selection as you observe), the cultivated turn of culture, in that it recognizes that the European people’s system is an open system; thus its well being and persistence is not entirely self corrective, not entirely homeostatic, but must be cultivated, through rules: obligation, prohibition and legitimacy which protect and afford the living and re-birthing of the people in a variety of benign, enjoyable and (to them) helpful ways.
Regarding the 14 Words, I did not say that it covered all the bases. First things first. However, if it is based in the Euro DNA Nation and its categories, which I propose, it is not adoptable by some other people. Rudimentary though it is, it forms (for me, anyway) a more positive core value than Christianity has to offer: an individual rebels against Jewish collectivism and exploitation? That strikes me as negative, reactive and inherently unstable.
I have the impression that you are too concerned that individualism will be consumed by collective enterprise. First of all, I don’t see why anybody would want to deny individual sufficiency to the extent that it can realistically exist; next, I see it as a part of evolution: population, struggle, variation, selection, survival. The variation part will foster individualism and the reconstruction of individualism where it may have been dulled for a time – viz. it can be reborn from our genetic basis where it may have been a bit dulled (say, by a necessary collective effort for survival).
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:30 | #
Hymie, the genetic map of Europe that I provisionally use shows that Europeans are identifiable and distinguished genetically.
There is some overlap with Iranians, yes, but they are still quite different from Europeans
The part that is similar is the fairly large percentage of R1a that they have. They even have some R1b.
Iran
R1a 16.5%
R1b 6.5%
But Europeans invariably have more of the R haplogroups in sum total; in addition to sporadic Nordic, Dinaric, pre Celto Germanic among their distinctly European groupings.
Joe’s first post comes here: Joe on Fri, 15 Mar 2013
and then here reels-off three more long comments.
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:11 | #
Joe, you obviously didn’t bother reading the link I provided or you would know that to conflate 20th century US with 18th century US as you did in your response indicates such intellectual slop as virtually eliminate any residual interest your unusual viewpoint might hold.
Amidst 97 protracted comments by Joe, from March 13 to April 8 Thorn and Haller show their hand with these tidbits:
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:10 | #
Informative discussion over at The White Network on the topic of Lawrence Auster, the rise of Jewish hegemony, and the resulting white dispossession thereof.
http://thewhitenetwork.com/2013/03/16/macdonald-and-tanstaafl-on-auster-and-jewish-influence/
Notwithstanding Lawrence Auster’s first and foremost underlying motivation: “Is it good for the jews”, I think on balance he and his body of work is a positive for the pro-white preservationist cause.
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:40 | #
Joe,
So you’re another Californian Catholic white patriot, eh? I thought I was alone in upholding that particular ‘slant’ here at MR. Welcome aboard!
……
Now, from March 13 to April 8, Joe made 97 protracted comments, welcomed by Thorn and Haller; and his only prime interlocutor was Bowery, who gave eleven responses to Joe during that time. Who was encouraging him? Certainly not I.
Finally, after all of Joe’s crazy shit about me and others being “Daseinists” and other insane bullshit, he posts this and I respond (hardly feeding the troll).
Posted by Joe on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 20:59 | #
About Jesus ;
Jesus was NOT a Jew ;
Article : ” Jesus Was NOT a Jew” :
http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/JesuswasNotAJew.htm
Search Term will access more information :
” Jesus Was NOT A Jew”
116Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 21:05 | #
Nobody gives a shit, asshole
After a deluge more of Joe’s commetns, I added this:
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:48 | #
The motive of the shit eating Jew fly calling itself “Joe” is to come here with its flurry of derailing and trivializing conspiracy theories that nettle and attack tender morsels until it can finally lay its Jewish eggs, the controlled opposition of Christianity, into a wound.
There is no true Christianity, it is all a Jewish hoax.
And I added this great comment by J.B. Campbell:
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:41 | #
“The problem is Christianity, which is Judaism for gentiles. Christians cannot deal with Jews because they believe that Jews are god’s chosen people.”
“I think it is the problem, the basic problem we have yeah.”
“To become a Christian is to deny yourself the right of survival… It assures the Jew that the enemy will not fight back.”“Yeah, those whom the Jews destroy they first make Christian.”
“The purpose of this essay is to prepare the reader for a life of struggle against Jewish rule in this country.”
“It is so simple to see what I’m talking about looking at Russia after 1917. What happened to all the Christians in Russia, I don’t even know how many millions. There are wild numbers, at least twenty million Christians were slaughtered by the Jewish Bolsheviks and maybe more than that.”
“To become a Christian is to deny yourself your right of survival in the deadliest struggle on earth. Those whom the Jews destroy they first make Christian, because it assures the Jew that the enemy will not fight back.”– J.B. Campell
Then I added a few remakrs from Nietzsche, and “Zeitgeist” featuring George Carlin, and that may have made it seem like I am an atheist, which I am not (I favor a new religion for European peoples, genus and species).
Joe made several other comments and I made a few other appeals to drive Joe away; naturally, Thorn came to Joe’s defense, saying his typically retarded things like I “abhor successful people” ? and that’s why I don’t like Joe and Christianity, lol.
…
More deluge from Joe.
I respond:
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:17 | #
The authentic religion of Europe will be based on the 14 words or tantamount – as such it will clear away Joe’s false religion of Christianity:
Joe is a an evil virus that will do anything in its power to bury the truth on behalf of its religion that would have you worshiping a Jew in preparation to its universal subjugation and eternal death.
Joe goes on and on, while I troll him a bit until the 19the April when Bowery says this:
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:37 | #
Daniel, this is the second time you’ve addressed me in an inappropriate manner about this Joe character. The first was in a your part 3 where you basically stated that Joe would not be doing what he is doing here at MR if it were not for my encouraging him to do so.
[…]
You will notice, if you are careful, that my “encouragement” of Joe was that he should put his ideas together in a single coherent (yes I know you’ll say this is impossible) post where he can argue with folks who want to argue with him. Clearly I do not as I have not responded to him subsequent to my “encouragement” to write such a main post; which the reasonable man might see as different from encouraging him to spam every main post in MR and may even have been a more effective tactic to get him to stop spamming every main post at MR than continuing to pay attention to him as you have.
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:57 | #
I don’t exactly agree, Jim. I do think that your encouraging him at one time had something (not everything, by any means) to do with his feeling free to attack my posts and spam the threads.
As for the Boston thread, he was bringing a lot of kooky conspiracy theory there too, so I parodied your statement – Why would anyone commit utterly pointless seemingly random acts of terror, evincing pure nihilism, against benign events like ….Dasein? – to take a jab at him, not at you.
Do you see? I was not addressing you (in a manner appropriate or otherwise), l was addressing him.
Nevertheless, I will leave the matter unless it becomes acutely relevant.
….
I then attempted to be more kind than I should have with James effort to redeem Christianity, saying this:
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:20 | #
………..
As to your PS, I can understand your frustration at central points of your post not being addressed in commentary. I can’t think of one post of mine where that has not been the case.If you want to rewrite Christianity by way of Harland, it sounds like it could be a worthy narrative for the way of life that you and others value most.
It is more the drawbacks of getting confused and intertwined with other interpretations of Christianity that would keep me away from Christianity altogether and start anew with religious fundamentals. I think Christianity is too much a corollary to the received texts; and that they are poison.
I have no doubt, however, that there will be people who like your rendering of Christianity and your making use of those Harland aspects that have served well for northern European peoples.
P.S. I do think that I accidentally addressed Bill a bit too harshly (at the end of the incommensurability post), but I did not mean to: my rancor was really aimed at Auster. I left in an accidental pronoun “you” that would imply Bill, when I meant Auster.
At this point, Jamesmakes the sarcastic and innacurate comment that I was the one who was encouraging Joe:
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:24 | #
I don’t exactly agree, DaneilS. I do think that you’re encouraging him by continuing to respond to him. Anyone who reads what he writes with any degree of perception will see that he is not engaging in intellectually honest discourse. Others might be “infected” by his “viral” memes (the sense in which I think you mean his posts are “viral”) and go off and start transmitting the same viral memes to others. However, keep in mind that his perspective on Christianity is rather unique which tends to mitigate against that risk on the face of it.
And again most insulting of all, James is suggesting that I am worried that Joe’s ideas will “go viral” as opposed to my seeing him as an expression of the Judeo Christian virus and and a boring distraction as such.
But I didn’t say that at the time, left it the matter there in April of 2013.
However, seeing some activity on the thread now, I want to update my comments with the clarity that while I am not of an Abrahamic religion, I consider myself as having religious convictions with regard to my European people, genus and species.
Furthermore, I note my calling Christianity false opposition in that thread.
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 12:57 | #
Bowery was not representing my opinion here in suggesting that I was worried that Joe’s views would go “viral” .. in fact, very insulting to suggest that I would have such concern. I was rather bothered, and rightfully so, that he was obstructing and disrupting valuable informational traffic with his bullshit. His vast and relentless trolling was degrading the threads and distracting from careful thought.
As one looks back, one can see that I exercised patience and did NOT encourage him. Further, there was no reason what so ever to grant his comments space for people to “contemplate” here, including idiots like Thorn and Haller; who you see, what a “surprise”, welcomed him here.
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:24 | #
I don’t exactly agree, DaneilS. I do think that you’re encouraging him by continuing to respond to him. Anyone who reads what he writes with any degree of perception will see that he is not engaging in intellectually honest discourse. Others might be “infected” by his “viral” memes (the sense in which I think you mean his posts are “viral”) and go off and start transmitting the same viral memes to others. However, keep in mind that his perspective on Christianity is rather unique which tends to mitigate against that risk on the face of it.
Have fun with Thorn, your resident retard, Christard.
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 13:06 | #
P.S., Note my use of the term “controlled opposition” for Christianity in this comment of 15 April 2013. That is not, of course, to say that others could not or did not make the same inference, only to assert that I (and probably others) were talking that way long before Adam Green (who said that he traced the idea to some book he’d read; maybe so).
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:48 | #
The motive of the shit eating Jew fly calling itself “Joe” is to come here with its flurry of derailing and trivializing conspiracy theories that nettle and attack tender morsels until it can finally lay its Jewish eggs, the controlled opposition of Christianity, into a wound.
There is no true Christianity, it is all a Jewish hoax.
In the year 2013, I was being trolled relentlessly by an incredibly obnoxious Christard named “Joe” in the comments section of Majorityrights ..he was disruptive of my posting, making me feel hurried to put up posts before they were properly edited so that they not be distracted and misdirected by his trolling or, like someone playing a loud speaker in the audience when you are trying to put on a classical performance. Obnoxiously as well, Bowery didn’t care, acted like the fault was strictly mine for not just letting him do his troll thing and junk up the comments. Then “Joe” started doing the same thing under one of Bowery’s posts (wherein Bowery was trying to retool Christianity for Nordicists), after I’d made some thoughtful comments on important matters. I was patient, Bowery said that I was feeding the troll Joe after I finally did briefly address him again (Bowery was blaming me for encouraging him when it was Bowery who really took the position of entertaining him). To make matters worse, when I likened Joe to a “virus”, Bowery made the insulting misinterpretation of my motives, suggesting that I was worried about Joe’s stupid ideas going “viral” as opposed to being annoyed by the disruption of his stupidity.
I address these matters in two recent comments: First, let me call attention to one of comments that I made to Joe, which indicates that I had been discussing Christianity in terms of Controlled Opposition circa 2013:
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 13:06 | #
P.S., Note my use of the term “controlled opposition” for Christianity in this comment of 15 April 2013. That is not, of course, to say that others could not or did not make the same inference, only to assert that I (and probably others) were talking that way long before Adam Green (who said that he traced the idea to some book he’d read; maybe so).
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:48 | #
The motive of the shit eating Jew fly calling itself “Joe” is to come here with its flurry of derailing and trivializing conspiracy theories that nettle and attack tender morsels until it can finally lay its Jewish eggs, the controlled opposition of Christianity, into a wound.
There is no true Christianity, it is all a Jewish hoax.
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/mr_interview_of_kenneth_humphreys_by_james_bowery_concerning_the_syncretic
Next in regard to this comment by Bowery:
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:24 | #
“I don’t exactly agree, DaneilS. I do think that you’re encouraging him by continuing to respond to him. Anyone who reads what he writes with any degree of perception will see that he is not engaging in intellectually honest discourse. Others might be “infected” by his “viral” memes (the sense in which I think you mean his posts are “viral”) and go off and start transmitting the same viral memes to others. However, keep in mind that his perspective on Christianity is rather unique which tends to mitigate against that risk on the face of it.”
To which I (DanielS) say, “Bowery was not representing my opinion here in suggesting that I was worried that Joe’s views would go “viral” .. in fact, very insulting to suggest that I would have such concern. I was rather bothered, and rightfully so, that he was obstructing and disrupting valuable informational traffic with his bullshit. His vast and relentless trolling was degrading the threads and distracting from careful thought.
As one looks back, one can see that I exercised patience and did NOT encourage him. Further, there was no reason what so ever to grant his comments space for people to “contemplate” here, including idiots like Thorn and Haller; who you see, what a “surprise”, welcomed him here.”