Race

Seleucus wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

First off, jews are not a race. They are disparate elements bound together by memes, and survival laws. They are memes perpetuating themselves into a gene.

Yes, Jews are not a family of mothers begetting generations going back to a mythical David.  I'm using race in the tradition sense that Greeks or Cecil Rhodes used it, as a language and culture group.

As if, how a nose or chin is pointed or hair color did not contribute to evolution of said language and culture!!

Its called phrenology, and involves a whole ambit of environment and genetic memory shaping everything from skull shape to leanness and meanness, which in turn shapes a language, a culture…

Dont know where you get this artificial splitting, since Spengler was even the first who said,

"One does not belong to a race; you either are it, or you are not." [will edit the exact quote later], or,

Spengler wrote:

"The blood is for us the symbol of the living. The blood of ancestors flows through the chain of generations and binds then in a great linkage of destiny, beat and time."

I believe blood is not just materialistic, but also has a spiritual component.

Blood and Soil,, rather than Language and Soil that heidegger espoused.

Quote :

Quote :

Are you familiar with Nietzsche or related historical philosophy?

Obviously.  

not...

Quote :

Quote :

And what is terrible about heathenism, that makes defence against them 'noble'?

Spend a few years living among savages and I won't need to explain it to you.  Rousseau was wrong.  He could believe in the noble savage because he actually never met a savage.  Have you seen how savages manage waste disposal, or traffic systems, or health care, or justice?  Filth, disorder, corruption, ignorance, cruelty.  

So heathens wrent responsible for the most advanced civilizational structures, not just in terms of infrasructure, but birth of science and philosophy and culture as we know it?!

How do you spell your Mephistopheles?

Philippe Rushton wrote:

"Each race (or variety) is characterized by a more or less distinct combination of inherited morphological, behavioral, physiological traits . . . Formation of a new race takes place when, over several generations, individuals in one group reproduce more frequently among themselves than they do with individuals in other groups. This process is most apparent when the individuals live in diverse geographic areas and therefore evolve unique, recognizable adaptations (such as skin color) that are advantageous in their specific environments." [Statement on Race as a Biological Concept]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Evola wrote:

"Of course, the prerequisite, here, is that such doctrine is understood in a global manner, and is therefore not limited to the biological and anthropological sphere ('racism of first degree'), but is led also to consider race as a reality of the soul, of the character and of the way of life, and, finally, race as 'world-outlook' and race of the spirit ('racism of second and third degree').
Every kind of indiscriminate ethnic adulteration, on the one hand, is the consequence of a degenerated inner sensibility and of the tyranny of materialistic, individualistic and sentimental considerations, and, on the other hand, is the cause of the further degeneration of peoples and civilisations ; this must be borne in mind. Precise considerations of 'racism of first degree' should thus not be neglected in the creation of a new ruling class, ...
Once, by means of the racism of first degree, a given sphere and a first selection are identified, we should proceed, through the racism of second and third degree, to further tests, in an exploration of deeper and more essential qualities than those of the outer appearance."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Evola wrote:

"...The real man, in addition to the biological and somatic part, is soul and spirit. Therefore, a comprehensive racial theory must consider all these three terms: body, soul and spirit. There will thus be a racism of the first degree, which addresses the strictly biological, anthropological and eugenic problems ; then, a racism of the second degree, which addresses the 'race of the soul', that is to say the form of the character and the affective reactions ; finally, as a crowning-piece, the consideration of the 'race of the spirit', which addresses the highest elements of the personality which, in regard to the general vision of the world and the beyond, destiny, life, action, in short, the 'highest values', differentiate and make men unequal. The classical ideal, racially interpreted, is the harmony and the unity of these three racial aspects in a higher type".
...A race must be judged, not from its physical exteriority, its somatic features, but from its psychic interiority. The body, that is to say the racial features, is the *means and ground* of expression *of a psycho-spiritual reality.* ...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Evola wrote:

"We have exactly the contrary in Judaism. What comes first in Judaism is the law, not the blood. It is the law which has given shape and unity to the Jewish people, not a race in the strict sense of the word.
It has been said, by a Jew, that, just as Adam was formed by Jehovah, the Jew was formed by the Jewish law, and this truth is not limited to the Judaism of the Old Testament, whose spiritual history has been much more eventful than is assumed, but extends also to the Judaism of the Diaspora, in which it becomes even more emphatically the case, since the Talmud appears as the real essence and the real soul of Judaism.
A first important point which derives from recognising this is that 'Jewishness', before than in the blood, must be sought in the spirit : 'race', here, is essentially a behaviour, a way of being and of thinking, which, in philosophical terms, can be said to be a 'category' of spirit. It is important to establish firmly in one's mind this point in order to be able to identify a field of action of Judaism much vaster than the one that is defined by blood alone.
Western civilisation has become spiritually Judaised in important sectors, and is thus affected by a forma mentis of a more or less Jewish type, even where no crossbreeding has taken place and, therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to speak of an influence by way of blood.
To note this, and, therefore, to assert the necessity of identifying Judaism as a spiritual category, does not prevent us from noting also that the persistence of an idea, of an attitude, of a belief through generations ends up finding expression in an instinct, in something which penetrates into the blood, lives and acts in the blood, and, in many cases, completely irrespective of everything that the individual, as reflexive consciousness, thinks and believes he wants ; this is the second aspect of Judaism, this is Judaism, strictly speaking, as 'race' ; race, therefore, in a rather special, non naturalistic, sense." [ib.]

Evola wrote:

"One of the decisive tasks for our future will be that of connecting the myths of such movements with a blood instinct: certain ideas and expressions, which are a 'driving force' only in that they have a suggestive power on the national masses, must find a mode of expression that, at least in an elite, relates organically to race and tradition in the deepest sense, so as to differentiate the ideas of our movement from the collectivist expressions and myths that can sometimes exert the same power on masses, but are a complete denial of everything that stands for stock, tradition, fatherland.
We therefore think of a selection of the second stage, to be carried out by means of a precise and repeated close examination of the political sensitivity within a group that would have already met the requirements of the physical racial selection. It would involve examining, here, to what extent the root ideas of the Fascist revolution could really speak to the blood, so as to be translated into a deeper reality than what proceeds either from common sense or from a confused enthusiasm."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Evola wrote:

"One's idea of race depends on one's idea of man: the nature of each racial doctrine is determined by its conceptualization of the human being. All distortions in the field of racism derive from a materialist view of man, a view informed by science and naturalism. By contrast, at the very basis of my racial doctrine I placed the traditional idea of man as a being comprised of three elements: body, character and spirit. I argued that an exhaustive racial theory has to take all three elements into account by examining race in its threefold manifestation: as race of the body, race of the character, and race of the spirit. Racial 'purity' is found when these three races stand in harmonious balance with one another, each race shining through the other two.
This, however,has long been only a rare occurrence. The most unwelcome consequence of the various cases of miscegenation which have occurred during the historical development of human society is notthe alteration of the physical race and psychosomatic type - what ordinary racism is chieflyconcerned with - but, rather, the divide and contrast between the three kinds of races within the same individual. As a consequence of such miscegenation, one finds men whose body no longer reflects their character, and whose emotional, moral and volitional dispositions no longer agreewith their spiritual inclinations.

'Spirit' should here be distinguished from 'character' as that component of man in touch with higher values that transcend life. In this sense, the 'race of thespirit' manifests itself in the different approaches to the sacred, to destiny and to the question of life and death, as well as in world-views, religions, etc. I here argued, therefore, that three levelsof racism ought to be distinguished in order to reflect the three kinds of races: the first level of racism pertaining to the race of the body, the second to the race of the character, and the third tothe race of the spirit. I rejected the fetish of merely physical racial purity, on thegrounds that the purity of the external race of an individual is often preserved even when hisinner race has dimmed or deteriorated (a common example of this is that of the Dutch and Scandinavians). Such an approach also put the problem of miscegenation into perspective:miscegenation certainly has negative consequences in those cases where the inner race is weak;yet if the inner race is strong, the presence of an external element, introduced - albeit not inexcess - by means of interbreeding, potentially provides a galvanizing challenge (hence, the opposite problem of certain aristocratic stocks which degenerate on account of incestuous unions). These, and other, similar considerations I made in my book.

From a political and social perspective, I acknowledged the use of racism as the expression of an anti-egalitarian and anti-rationalistic approach. Racism clearly emphasizes the idea of differentiation, with regard to both the peoples and the members of a given people. Racism opposes the democratic ideology born of the Enlightenment which proclaims the identity and equal dignity of all human beings; on the contrary, racism asserts that humanity as such is either an abstract and fictitious concept, or the final stage in a process of degeneration, dissolution and collapse - a stage only to be posited as an outmost limit never actually to be reached. Human nature, instead, is ordinarily differentiated, and this differentiation is expressed in the form of different bloodlines and races. This differentiation constitutes the primary feature of humanity:not only is it a natural condition among all beings, but also a positive element, something which ought to exist, and ought to be defended and safeguarded. The acknowledgement of diversity never led me - unlike certain other racists - to conceive humanity as a series of isolated, self-contained units; nor did it lead me to reject all higher principles. A kind of unity is certainly conceivable for humanity, but only at a higher level; and such unity accepts and preserves differentiation at a lower level. Unity 'from below', on the other hand, is a regressive    phenomenon: such is the leveling unity sought by democracy, 'integrationism', humanitarianism,pseudo-universalism and collectivism. De Gobineau had already criticized similar ideas,essentially by promoting racism in aristocratic terms." [Evola, Path of Cinnabar]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Evola wrote:

"When a race has lost contact with the only thing that has and can provide stability, namely, with the world of "Being"; and when in a race that which forms its most subtle yet most essential element has been lost, namely, the inner race and the race of the spirit—compared to which the race of the body and of the soul are only external manifestations and means of expression—then the collective organisms that a race has generated, no matter how great and powerful, are destined to descend into the world of contingency; they are at the mercy of what is irrational, becoming, and "historical," and of what is shaped "from below" and from the outside.
Blood and ethnic purity are factors that are valued in traditional civilizations too; their value, however, never justifies the employment, in the case of human beings, of the same criteria employed to ascertain the presence of "pure blood" in a dog or in a horse—as is the case in some modern racist ideologies. The "blood" or "racial" factor plays a certain role not because it exists in the "psyche" (in the brain and in the opinions of an individual), but in the deepest forces of life that various traditions experience and act upon as typical formative energies. The blood registers the effects of this action, yet it provides through heredity a material that is preformed and refined so that through several generations, realizations similar to the original ones may be prepared and developed in a natural and spontaneous way. It is on this foundation—and on this foundation only—that, as we shall see, the traditional world often practiced the heredity of the castes and willed endogamous laws. If we refer, however, to the Indo-Aryan tradition in which the caste system was the most rigorously applied, simply to be born in a caste, though necessary, was not considered enough; it was necessary for the quality virtually conferred upon a person at birth to be actualized by initiation. I have already mentioned that according to the Manudharmasastra unless a man undergoes initiation or "second birth," even though he may be an Aryan, he is not superior to a Sudra. I also related how three special differentiations of the divine fire animated the three hierarchically higher Persian pishtra, and that definite membership in one of them was sealed at the moment of initiation. Even in these instances we should not lose sight of two factors being present, and never mistake the formative element for the element that is formed, nor the conditioning for the conditioned factor. Both the higher castes and traditional aristocracies, as well as superior civilizations and races (those that enjoy the same status that the consecrated castes enjoy vis-a-vis the plebeian castes of the "children of the Earth") cannot be explained by blood, but through the blood, by something that goes beyond blood and that has a metabiological character. When this "something" is truly powerful, or when it constitutes the deeper and most stable nucleus of a traditional civilization, then that civilization can preserve and reaffirm itself—even when ethnical mixtures and alterations occur (no matter how destructive they may be)—by reacting on the heterogeneous elements, and shaping them, by reducing them slowly but gradually to their own type, or by regenerating itself into a new, vibrant unity. When it comes to this point, the only forces that can be relied upon are those of the blood, which still carries atavistically within itself, Through race and instinct, the echo and the trace of the departed higher element that has been lost; it is only in this way that the "racist thesis in defense of the purity of blood can be validly upheld..."  [Evola, Rveolt against the Modern World]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Evola says, the body has to be grounded to be 'locked' to a certain soul to be locked for a certain spirit.
If you define the norm, then you can permit varying exceptions.
To Yockey, Race in the objective sense meant people who share and are framed by a similar destiny;

Yockey wrote:

"RACE, as has been shown, is not a unit of existence, but is an aspect of existence. Specifically it is the aspect of existence in which the relation of the human being to the great cosmic rhythms is revealed. It is thus the non-individual aspect of Life, whether it be the life of a plant, animal, or human being. ... Race in the objective sense is a creation of history. One's destiny must express itself within a certain framework — the framework of Fate. Thus a man of race born in Kirghizia belongs by Fate to the barbarian world of Asia with its historical mission of destruction of the Western Civilization. Rare exceptions are of course possible — Life submits to no generalization entirely. Some Poles, Ukrainians, or even Russians, might be impelled by their souls to share the spirit of the West. If so, they belong to the Western race, and every healthy, ascendant race accepts recruits who come in on its terms and who have the proper feeling." [Imperium]

Scientifically;

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lyssa wrote:

who falsify reality and at the head of devolving dysgenics and overall spiritual retardation of mankind, someone to 'trust'? Really?! Are you one more hedonist sold to immediate gratification? Success sells and that smells good is good enough for you? HA

Let's say I'm man enough to know my Western culture is awesome, and I can still cheer for Jews and other races, because I'm secure in my own masculinity Westerness.

Quote :

Hel! How did you find this forum - intro please!!!

I made Dissident Philosophy Forum years ago.  So I was aware of this forum long since.  Eventually the god emperor Trump and other considerations awoke me from my leftist delusions and I thought these days I fit in, roughly speaking, here, not to mention needing some intellectual stimulation and conversation.  Also I had read this really amazing post on ilovephil a few years ago about Coulanges, ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=187867 which might have been written by you? I downloaded everything from Coulanges I could find.

Oh fuck, you pull up some amazing characters, I'm just checking out Julius Evola atm... I guess you could say that's why I registered...

Seleucus wrote:

Let's say I'm man enough to know my Western culture is awesome, and I can still cheer for Jews and other races, because I'm secure in my own masculinity Westerness.

I distinguish mindless racists from healthy racialists.
Its not about insecurity here, but fact-checking and assessing proper worth.

Like here, cheer Jews for what exactly?

Quote :

Also I had read this really amazing post on ilovephil a few years ago about Coulanges, ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=187867 which might have been written by you?  I downloaded everything from Coulanges I could find.

Yes, that's me.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Found the perfect example of a Hellenized Jews, Robert Spencer, he's a Melkite Catholic which is what became of the Hellenized Jews. He has exactly the political views you would expect.

Seleucus wrote:

Would you trust a people who don't look out for themselves first?  Obviously Jews are gonna do those things you say.  That's how you know a sincere and honest Jew, by his or her sense of superiority.  You're not any different.

The fact that they can delude themselves into superiority despite their history, is something itself to be suspect of. Talking about Superiority more-so through indifference, not through other.

Seleucus wrote:

Now that isn't saying there isn't a trend of slave morality in Jewish culture

Id say its far more than a trend, it is the expression of their entire historical becoming.

Seleucus wrote:

Let's say I'm man enough to know my Western culture is awesome, and I can still cheer for Jews and other races, because I'm secure in my own masculinity Westerness.

Hubris is a sign of Hypermasculinity, and an insecure femininity. You have the luxury to cheer because you likely do not bear the immediate consequences of such...bravery...yet.

Seleucus wrote:

Have you seen how savages manage waste disposal, or traffic systems, or health care, or justice?  Filth, disorder, corruption, ignorance, cruelty.  Save yourself the price of plane tickets to Sumatra, read Caesar's Gallic Wars.

Ive seen how citizens have mismanaged all of the above, to a far greater extent. At least savages usually didn't make fiat claims over large spans of land they didn't inhabit and maintain.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Seleucus wrote:

Have you seen how savages manage waste disposal, or traffic systems, or health care, or justice?  Filth, disorder, corruption, ignorance, cruelty.  Save yourself the price of plane tickets to Sumatra, read Caesar's Gallic Wars.

Ive seen how citizens have mismanaged all of the above, to a far greater extent. At least savages usually didn't make fiat claims over large spans of land they didn't inhabit and maintain.

Can you clear up a bit what you mean here?  For me this is far and away the most important issue in this whole thread.  Savagery vs free civilization vs empire.  I don't necessarily see this as a matter of race although obviously for historical reasons it tends to be.  I can imagine some people give white savages a free pass, but I don't.

Quote :

because you likely do not bear the immediate consequences of such...bravery...yet.

Are you questioning my bravery?  I must be misreading.

Obviously if a race is a threat to us we should cripple them.  But if they aren't, that's cowardly to fly into a panic and not to mind our own business, live and let live.  Like I say, the Philistines (Greeks) and the Jews lived a very long time quite indifferent to each other, that's well established today in archeology.  Likewise in Hellenistic times, there was a synergy between these races, and at this time in history, now, we Westerners can benefit from that collaboration again. I'm definitely a Zionist.

European barbarians, "savages", did not need to evolve more sophisticated methods of war and battle (therefor they remained tribal) until they encountered it when empires spread northward from where military organization developed with nation states (Mesopotamia 7,000-10,000 BCE). That does not mean they were any less intelligent, only necessity didn't force them to become empires until later.

Europeans adapted to harsh winters and being selected for intelligence which has a keen awareness of the seasons, requiring abstract/principled/quantifying thought. Making abstract noumena more categorized and distinct, to give them more significance by their contrast. This is the weakness of Europeans and their strength: their desire to simplify, which maximizes predictability (safety for their people). Only now they desire to simplify with nihilistic premises like equality (or that's what is sold to the common man, where others are aware it is a dumbing down).

Having the ability to absorb more natural information into these abstractions was essential to keep track of tasks that needed to be done for the very distinct seasons. To connect noumena together: imagination and creativity.

Culture plays a part, but they also atomized in identity (individualism) as a result of this process. Adaptations which maximized empathy and distinction were more valuable because of this atomization of identity - or else they would distinguish too harshly against their own kin.

It is not just whether a populace faced hardship that matters, though - also the kind matters and how frequent that change happens. In Africa there may be famine and droughts but how often were they? Were they as consistent as the changes in climate in Europe across the seasons? Enough to be predictable for the females to see consistent intellectual superiority of one man over another and select for them?

There is no free pass for any race. All gifts, burdens and distinctions are accounted for in their history.

Seleucus wrote:

 I'm definitely a Zionist.

And this is what makes you an Abrahamic and never a Pagan or a Greek.

"Indifference" is based on power relationships.

Judaism is not a racial identity.
Semite is the genetic identifier, Jewish is the memetic, the ideology, the noumenon.
In this case it is Nihilistic.

"Savage" is what Moderns call whatever lies outside their moral and value systems.
Given that Modern is another way of saying the most current, prevailing form of Nihilism, what is described by "barbarian" in a condescending way, is the annihilation of the past, which is another word for nature.
Ego is separated from Self, to reinvent itself, as whatever it wishes and that does not contradict the shared 'right' to be identified in whatever way you prefer.

The Modern "civilized" man, is really a castrated, circumcised, Last Man, a feminized man.

What is repressed, and forgotten, is not gone. The modern believes himself 'better' than the, so called, barbarian, because he's trained to imitate, proper behavior, or to confuse knowledge for understanding, regurgitating data as if this implied his intelligence, when it simply exposes his dependence.

The Christian is convinced he is truly good, and loving, and kind, when he is driven by a desire to appease a threatening God, and he pretends to be caring and altruistic, reverting to his nature in times of stress, or when he loses his religious bearings...then asking for forgiveness.
But what is love that all deserve?
What is kindness not coming from inside the man, but imposed from the outside as a rule, with a carrot, Heaven, and a stick, Hell?

No mixing the negation of nature, with the acceptance of it.
Words are cheap.

Seleucus wrote:

Like I say, the Philistines (Greeks) and the Jews lived a very long time quite indifferent to each other, that's well established today in archeology. Likewise in Hellenistic times, there was a synergy between these races

What you call 'synergy' is what I'd call taming, between these religions, not races.
Read [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Xtized. Hellenism and Jewish Kabbala both absorbed Plotinus, who platonized Plato.
So why shouldn't there be synergy, when Xtized. hellenes were/are advancing judaism by any other means.
Xt. is the international face of rabbinic orthodoxy.

Quote :

and at this time in history, now, we Westerners can benefit from that collaboration again.  I'm definitely a Zionist.

Cultural identity is a refinement, a discrimination of taste, style, principles. Some broad category like 'We Westerners' or anything else that operates at the lowest common denominator will be poor in vitality.

And there is still that point of 'again' that needs to be elaborated by you, as though, there was some 'benefit' wee have all agreed on? by their previous 'collaboration'...

Zionism is the fall-back position of Modernity.

It is, essentially, secular humanism using its true name.

In the propaganda movie Matrix, it is represented by Zion, where the mechanical enemies, the Marxists, compete with a more human variant, both participating in the either/or conflict between bipolar, RIGHT/LEFT, absolute One/absolute Nil, good/Evil, dualistic, binary logic of Nihilism.

My own categories are a division of Nihilism as
Nihilism proper, and "positive" Nihilism.

The second differing from the first in honesty, clarity, directness, providing an alternative 'reality, unsupported hope, in other words faith, demanding a suspension of reasoning and an allowance for emotion to take over..or the usurping of objectivity for the convenient sake of subjectivity.
In this paradigm the 'social contract' refers to an unspoken, but implied, agreement, to share an lie.

Democracy is the reaffirmation of this implied social contract, delivered as a necessity.

Need being the experience of existence, and suffering its extreme.
Therefore, necessity means the satiation of need before it reaches the point of suffering.
So, the necessity, implied in the 'social contract' is that of a shared desire to evade need/suffering - pleasure.
Before this shared need, the real be damned, truth sacrifices, integrity converted to hypocrisy.
Build it, and the masses will come....
Give me your wk, your ill, your downtrodden, your desperate...

The meek shall inherit the earth.

What, then, happens to this abused discipline we call philosophy?
It becomes another Abrahamic religion, or a secular form of the same, a self-help manual, a method of evading wisdom that hurts, and cultivating the parts that please, at the expense of the first.
Before our common need, our shared erotic desire, to avoid pain and suffering, hat shall e refuse to sacrifice?
Our only begotten son?
Abraham would have carried through with the slaughter of his own destiny, for the sake of his own personal comfort, and this hope in the irrational.
Only, in hindsight, has God been 'corrected' to have been testing Abraham.

But what vile mind would do such a thing to the ones he, pretends, to love?
No father I know.
Not unless they are degenerates, ill, mad, and therefore no fathers at all.

Satyr wrote:

Only, in hindsight, has God been 'corrected' to have been testing Abraham.

And god thought, "Oh my god, this moron would have killed his own child, what a slave. Can't start a tribe with this guy..."
Well, some other god would have thought that...

They also had to change the rules to stop the logical outcome of their own dogma: suicide.

Satyr wrote:

They also had to change the rules to stop the logical outcome of their own dogma: suicide.

It stopped?

It offered an excuse, to those not willing to go through with their own beliefs.

Nihilism had to provide a lie to the ones that could not fabricate one of their own.

Despite their hypocrisy, they still manage to express their self-destruction in other ways, id hardly call whatever biological processes they maintain... "living".

Honestly, you know what would be a lot more helpful, at least for me, is just to stick with particulars not a lot of ideological mumbo-jumbo.  Let's say there was this guy, and his career involved design and implementation of educational systems for savages, I mean like Borneo and Madagascar and that kind of place.  As these people come out of the jungles and build mega-cities, what lessons can we draw from history and philosophy that will guide or our work?  Sorry, my time is precious, I can't bother debating about the value of Zionism in abstract, too bad we didn't defend Lebanon when it would have been relatively easy, now the Jews are our only Western ally in the Levant.  Anyway, what I really want to hear your thoughts on are the bolded parts.

So, in terms of what's pragmatic for me.  I've been looking at Evola this weekend who is mentioned above.  Evola points out that the aristocracy had some good ideas and values.  They often did.  So in Borneo, we want to allocate the majority of our resources to educating the elite.  The equestrian class brought Greece out of the dark ages, but not all elites are so hot.  Look at the corrupt Czars in Russia, look at the Caliphs of the Ottoman period, or the celebrities of modern America.  These are not the kind of people we want to be backing.  Instead, we want to be investing resources in the middle-class, in Borneo that's a small group, but a rapidly growing one.  Their existence makes democracy possible and so we want to work on improving education for the middle-class.  And if so, then what sort of education, what do they need to learn, and how?  Obviously how we approach Islam is going to be pretty important in a lot of parts of Borneo...  Should we fund secular schools?  Or should we open Islamic schools that teach moderate Islam and start steering Muslims back into the family of Western peoples... (Islam, from Pakistan to the Crimea to Morocco are the lands once conquered by Greco-Romans and which succeed from European leadership.)  Should we stress discipline which is lacking in non-Western societies, or should we aim to maintain the low levels of neuroticism...?  Etc, etc.

Seleucus wrote:

Can you clear up a bit what you mean here?  For me this is far and away the most important issue in this whole thread.  Savagery vs free civilization vs empire.  I don't necessarily see this as a matter of race although obviously for historical reasons it tends to be.  I can imagine some people give white savages a free pass, but I don't.

Civilization and Empire ultimately seeks dominion over the entire Earth as a means to satisfy the hatred of life that lies deep within the citizen (0) or conqueror (1).

Savagery, however nasty, brutish and short it was, was honest in its relationship with life and was limited to the tip of a spear.

Seleucus wrote:

Are you questioning my bravery?  I must be misreading.

Am i?

Seleucus wrote:

Obviously if a race is a threat to us we should cripple them.  But if they aren't, that's cowardly to fly into a panic and not to mind our own business, live and let live.  Like I say, the Philistines (Greeks) and the Jews lived a very long time quite indifferent to each other, that's well established today in archeology.  Likewise in Hellenistic times, there was a synergy between these races, and at this time in history, now, we Westerners can benefit from that collaboration again.  I'm definitely a Zionist.

After everything they have done, you think they want to live and let live?

It is they who wish to spread the desert upon the entire Earth.

Whatever indifference there was, was from the Greeks.

The way you placate the masses is a separate issue to recognizing and identifying who the masses are.
I support a unified Europe, a united States of Europe, as a response to american Protestant/Jewish Nihilism, and Chinese dominance.
We are entering the stage of the SuperState, or the Superorgasnism, as I call it.

Who is this "we"?

Who says conflict is bad?
The "terrorist attacks" are waking up a dormant spirit - a wake-up call, a bit of fear to shake the sleepers, too long living in their dream worlds of equality and tolerance, and indiscriminate altruism, and open borders.
Nothing like a bit of blood to slap a drunkard back to sobriety.

When no accessible frontiers are available the only solution to peace and harmony, if that's your goal, is to keep the members high on chemicals and fantasies.


Know what Trump is?
Blow-back.
After decades of Liberals telling the world that what they see as different, is actually all the same, that sexual difference are social constructs, and homosexuality is also normal, we are now entering the phase of the repercussions.
Trump can also say that his inauguration crowds were the largest ever recorded, though we all see something different, because the senses can be ignored and words, declarations, hopeful testaments of conviction, are enough.

Welcome to the post-truth era.
In the west, after decades of retardation, and Abrahamic infection, and crypto-Marxist humanism, we are primed to believe in words, and not our own senses.
Trump is taking advantage of this generation-long brainwashing.

We're entering an era where a "boy", a man-child, can claim he is a woman trapped in a man's body, and you are concerned about Muslims and how to deal with that plague?
Listen, Islam is no more the real 'threat' than the Soviet Union was.

It's a fake bogey-man, to distract you from what is actually occurring.
the true threat, to the Abrahamic Nihilists in the west, and their brand of globalism called Americanism, is China, an emerging Germany trying to dominate Europe as she failed to do in two past wars, in emerging regional powers, like India, and Brazil, and Iran...and not no damn rag-heads with a bit of funding blowing themselves up every so often.

If you don't want to risk dying, do not travel to Indonesia, or Philippines, or Syria, and stop supporting immigration from such places...if not, learn to live with some risks to your very existence.

There is no family of 'western peoples' that can include the Abrahamic religions and their secular offshoots, like Marxism.
Shit and milk don't mix.
A tiny speck of crap, in a milky white bottle, ruins the entire batch.

How will you integrate anyone into western traditions when the westerners have lost their own traditions?!!!!
But what you mean by 'western' is this multicultural, pseudo-democratic, culture-of-no-culture, dumbing-down, Nihilism also known as Americanism, because globalism sounds to colonial.

Seleucus wrote:

Honestly, you know what would be a lot more helpful, at least for me, is just to stick with particulars not a lot of ideological mumbo-jumbo.  Let's say there was this guy, and his career involved design and implementation of educational systems for savages, I mean like Borneo and Madagascar and that kind of place.  As these people come out of the jungles and build mega-cities, what lessons can we draw from history and philosophy that will guide or our work?  Sorry, my time is precious, I can't bother debating about the value of Zionism in abstract, too bad we didn't defend Lebanon when it would have been relatively easy, now the Jews are our only Western ally in the Levant.  Anyway, what I really want to hear your thoughts on are the bolded parts.

Borneo and Bali and Jakarta still have some ancient Hindu heathen values left, and I'd encourage that! And you can forget about Islam ever acculturating anywhere, this has nver happened in history, and that's a good thing too. Secular Islam advances the same terrorist mindset by population explosion, that terrorist islam elects from, to carry forth its missions… Islam is the same offshoot of Zionist nihilism.

Open your eyes, or dont.

I'm seeing a lot of apologism for savagery.  Even denial that it exists.  I'm not totally clear myself, but what I notice is there are two levels of social organization, one we'll call culture which is internalized rules, the other is state.  I have read a claim that structuralism developed in response to trying to understand the former method of organization which by the time of the structuralists most of our attention was on the state system.  

Savagery versus free civilization versus empire isn't exactly a matter of technological difference.  Typically development would run from the patriarchal tribe, to monarchy, to imperialism.  The Greeks overthrew their kings, as the generation of the gods overthrew the Titans.  Perhaps this somehow symbolizes the overthrow of the ("Egyptian") palace economy at Mycenae?  Or perhaps it was a broad cultural habit to overthrow the patriarch in Greek tribalism?  Or maybe it has to do with means of production and landownership as Coulanges and Victor Davis Hanson stress?  Either way, the usual progression is aborted in Greece, or republican Rome and wealth and responsibility expand from the monarchic family, to the aristocracy to the demos, that doesn't typically happen.  It requires a largess and a magnanimity to we willing to extend franchise.  Anyway, the difference I guess is savages have no centralized state, this makes organizing difficult, meanwhile in empire the state becomes the total power, in free civilization there is a mediation between these two levels of power.  

Savages are technologically incapable of statism because they lack a conceptual division between warrior and citizen, nearly every tribesman is also a soldier.  By contrast in the Code of Hammurabi, we frequently see the expression "the king's men", this is the hierarchical level, allowed by the Akkadian conquest of Sumer, necessary for enforcement of the state's decrees.  Look at Greek civilization, they destroyed the division between monarch or aristocracy and people but maintained an ambiguity with their hoplite citizen-soldier who's vote dictated state prerogative.  Free civilization requires awareness of both savagery and also empire to be able to have a democratic tradition.  

Presumably early monarchy simply did not have the resources and wisdom to spare.  As abundance increases, power is shared with other rising elite families.  And finally as an affluent and informed middle-class forms democracy can happen.  Very often there is a cringing, despite wealth and knowledge increasing, and the center refuses to expand the franchise, ultimately dooming their civilization as the center hordes resources and the people decline in power.  This seems to have happened in the Ubaid period, house size had been similar for thousands of years, but now not only did some houses grow, others shrank (a harbinger of the Akkadian empire to come), as evidenced by foundations.  

Evola could either be seen as sensible in saying there simply isn't enough wealth to share while maintaining civilization without risking collapse, or, he could be seen as a cringing scrounge?  It appears history has shown him to be the latter, thankfully his argument didn't win, otherwise civilization would have retarded, it turns out there was sufficient wealth and knowledge to risk an expanded franchise.  

Obviously this is a question of extraordinary relevance to today as we extend power and wealth to undeveloped countries and welcome refugees.  Too fast, or is it magnanimous to do so, and there isn't a risk of collapse?  The Russian communists seem to have gambled right, they overthrew the Czar and in fifty years they had a man in space.  But if the gamble is wrong, its a free-for all looting and civilization is destroyed.  It's a dangerous wager.

The difference between your 'savages' and Empire is one rooted in homogeneous versus heterogeneous populations being integrated into a unity.
The gene/meme divide.

When a tribe, basing its identity on blood ties, of shares genes and memes, becomes powerful, it absorbs alien tribes, either as salves or, through females, by absorbing them genetically, or if the males are to be integrated and not slaughtered or used as slave-labour, they are absorbed memetically.
Meme as paideia, among the Greeks, or a common idea(l) that can integrated genetically alien tribes under a shared concept.
With the Greeks the idea(l) was their language, and how it shaped thinking and a specific attitude towards life and existence.
In the Abrahamic west, the idea(l) is money.

A meme has to relate to genetically alien tribes by finding the lowest-common-denominator where where the historical past that separates tribes connects at a point of commonality.
That point is usually genetic, or primal.
For example, money is an abstraction representing resources. It can also represent ideas.
It is THE idea that can cross tribal, or blood lines and be anything to anyone.
It makes past irrelevant, in theory, because ti can compensate for genetic factors or accentuate them.

Before money the lowest-common-denominator bridging genetic differences was fear of death, or existential anxiety.
Abrahamic religions could absorb heterogeneous populations under the abstraction of God.
But God became an idea, a political ideal, too divisive.
Secular humanism did away with the concept and replaced it with State, but not in the roman sense.
State minus natural identifiers to create hierarchies. Tribe-less State as pure abstraction.
This process, some call progress, is a Nihilistic one, as it must dismiss genetic factors, one by one, to create a uniformity based on a shared idea(l).
At this state of modernity we are dismissing sex and race, as identifiers, idealizing a race-less, sex-less, individual judged only by his/her performance within the system, or his/her value to the system. Sex, race, heritage, all the past, nature, is to be excluded from his evaluation according to his services to the system, rewarded monetarily.
Money = quality, and quality is determined by quantity = popularity, marketability.

In the past paternalism imposed strict codes of sexual behaviour allowing the integration of males into the whole.
By strictly enforcing codes of conduct, through moral laws and peer pressure and then law and order, males and females that would naturally be excluded from the gene pool could be integrated and converted to investors in the unity's welfare.
Such practices were easy when the population shared the same blood - shared genes and a common meme = culture.
With overpopulation and the evolution form tribe to city-state, to nation state and now Super State, the integration of heterogeneous population became necessary, demanding the rejection of genetics as too divisive and any meme that was rooted in past/nature.
The family unity had to be adjusted, beginning with Christianity, and then destroyed, beginning with feminism to adjust males behaviour.
The family father figure. often represented a competing meme the nihilistic meme could not tolerate.
Feminization is the forced conversion of males into surrogate females, accompanied with the adjustment of what a family is.

In Tribes the kind, the leader shared blood with the male head of their own families.
with Abrahamic nihilism god was the only tolerated Father figure, and believers, submissive males, were his representatives on earth.
The shared bond was an idea, and the idea was God.
An idea rooted in primal existential anxiety.
Later, in Marxism, the idea became the State, eliminating the anthropomorphic god figure and replacing it with a pure abstraction.
Today this abstraction is called Humanism, as the State was also or divisive.

Humanism, as a definition of 'human' as an idea, void of sex, race, class, all past, all nature....human as pure abstraction - idea(l).
This is the lowest-common-denominator.
Vague enough to mean anything, to anyone, at any time...and money is its blood tie, its method of exchange, sharing, communication, evaluation.
money as in mathematics, pure binary logic 1/0.
Man reduced to a code. The 'last man'.

The issue is lack of accessible frontiers, making nihilism viral.
The progress from tribal to the present, going through Abrahamic spirituality, can be traced along population increases, and the resources stresses it produced.
In the east Hinduism converted to Buddhism for the same reasons.
Repression of ego, the elimination of natural identifiers, were necessary when populations became so large that such division would inevitably result in conflicts.
Redefining ego, repressing it was part of the process of social engineering a type of human that would be tolerant, submissive and malleable.

Quote :

Humanism, as a definition of 'human' as an idea, void of sex, race, class, all past, all nature....human as pure abstraction - idea(l).
This is the lowest-common-denominator.

What do you think is the cause or origin of a universalist meme? What makes people create, or be attracted to, an all-inclusive group as opposed to a particularist, exclusive group?
Is it an attempt at dominance or submission?

apaosha wrote:

Quote :

Humanism, as a definition of 'human' as an idea, void of sex, race, class, all past, all nature....human as pure abstraction - idea(l).
This is the lowest-common-denominator.

What do you think is the cause or origin of a universalist meme? What makes people create, or be attracted to, an all-inclusive group as opposed to a particularist, exclusive group?
Is it an attempt at dominance or submission?

1. The universalist meme need not always be nihilitsic - this was the original positive sense of the term cosmo-politan, where the drive towards Human-ity is a natural process of life self-informing itself of various intelligences that have developed,,pooling it, and then selectively exploiting it to dominate more efficiently. Thats how you have a super-culture, a long-lasting objective standard, tending towards Individuality as a summation of diverse strengths of mankind, the wealth of A human-ity.

2. In the other case, the basic answer would be weakness. The hedonistic fear of pain amounts to the realization, the frail would be crushed, and so mass has to be stronger. The erasure of distinctions make assimilation easier, and cooperation smoother. The trend here however, is from atomic rootless cosmopolitan, metropolitan 'individual-ity' to The humanity. Those whose weakness is so great, they are unable to even execute their self-hatred and hatred of reality by destroying themselves, unconsciously destroy everything else, in order to be destroyed, exposed, selected out.

Although the second kind of universalism is a slow suicide,, from a higher detached viewpoint, one might say, they provide recuperation times to the strong to become more re-source-full. Too much strength and barbaric wars would equally spell the end of the world. So there is some kind of self-adjusting 'mechanism' at work in life…
Every current spawns its own necessary 'enemy', i.e. limit...

apaosha wrote:

What do you think is the cause or origin of a universalist meme?

Two reasons..
1- The natural antagonism of organism and cosmos , or ordering and disordering (inter)activity, experienced as need/suffering = agon.
The desire for eternal peace. Hedonism is really the death wish fantasizing an existence with no need/suffering, in other words to exist without the experience of existing. Paradise/utopia are projections of this state.
2- The evolved social instinct, from basic schooling/flocking, as a method of confusing predators, to co-dependence, where the organism can no longer survive independently.
Human species is a social species and so its sense of well-being is linked to its belonging to a group.    

apaosha wrote:

What makes people create, or be attracted to, an all-inclusive group as opposed to a particularist, exclusive group?

Quantity as Quality, is basically an attempt to immerse self within a sufficiently big buffer between self and world.
Herd psychology finds comfort in huge numbers.
Predator physiology prefers the intimacy of smaller, more refined groups, where individual talents, traits, have value.  

apaosha wrote:

Is it an attempt at dominance or submission?

Submission.
The need to survive, at all costs, drives the individual to sacrifice, self, individuality, for the sake of increasing survival possibility, increasing probability.
The Nihilist is willing to sacrifice reason, as with Abrahamic dogma, integrity, pride, ego, identity, past, anything just to increase safety.

Belonging is code for disappearing in the multiplicity, where the only distinction is how the individual contributes to the protection, the vitality of the herd, returned as heightened protection.
The individual sacrifices self to herd, and receives as compensation time, or sheltering prolonging life.

What I posted on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], with slight modifications.

Semites are a sub-category of the Indo-European race.
There are Jewish, Christian, Muslim and atheist or secular Semites.
Not all Semites are Jews and not all Jews are Semites.
Another reason why the term 'anti-Semite' is a Modern invention.
They are the lowest tribe, a slave tribe. Similar to today's Gypsies, or the 'untouchables' in the Hindu cast system.

To compensate they invented Judaism, that inverted their weakness into a 'strength' and their shame into 'pride.'
To compensate for their genetic inferiority they inverted the meme that was a extension of this, into a nihilistic meme.

To this day Jews despise physical labour because it reminds them of their lowly past.
Judaism gave them a sense of pride in self by overturning genetic hierarchies, into a theory, an ideology, a theology that inverted hierarchies and denounced life and past/nature.
The idea was so powerful that all slaves, at that time, wanted a piece of the delusional salvation Judaism offered.
This is when Judaism stopped integrity new tribes and proselytizing, and why they became hated among the slaves...to this day this is the main, the original reason they are resented.
Their invention, Judaism, also gave them enough sense of pride to stop being salves - to free themselves from labour.
How did they do that?
They began existing on the periphery of any culture they entered, doing the work people were too ashamed to do, like usury, like salesmen.
This work also enabled them to reject physical, slave, labour.

The metaphor of escaping Egypt depicts this rejection of their shame, as slaves, and entering the desert to discover themselves, their God.
Their ideal.
The one that would set them free. This they consider their 'suffering', their covenant with their god is to pay in suffering for their salvation through inversions (Nihilism).
Their rejection of others, denying them the same salvation, did not only make them hated by it identified them as 'chosen'.
This is why Christianity and Islam had to be invented to deal with this denial, to others, of nihilistic salvation, offering it to the slaves in all tribes (universal salvation - freedom) - cosmopolitanism = Globalism/Americanism. Salvation, on earth, through money as God.
The conversion of Hellenic health, into Christian dis-ease, is about this conversion of Hellenic pagan culture into Christian Nihilism - the culture of salvation, liberating of the salve by enslaving him to God/Money = covenant.

Judaism also offered them a method to apply a form of genetic isolation, not based on geographical boundaries, but memetic, cultural ones.
Strict sexual rules cultivated their ideal man - clever, able to make money by exploiting the work, the labour, of others, doing work others rejected as ignoble.
This brought them power, resulting in the Jewish paradox, no different than any nihilistic hypocrisy.

How would they hide a power founded on humility, or weakness, and the exploitation of strength and pride?


This is the time Judaism splinters into three types:

1- Original or Orthodox Jewry - spiritual Judaism.
Salvation through the annihilation of everything and everyone.
Sacrificing existence for a promised future, or beyond existence existing.
Standing out in dress and customs as the ones chosen to suffer and be saved.

2- Political Jewry - converting a one god, or god as one, to Money, or numerical quantity = 1.
Thy could hide their identity behind money, by exploiting weakness using its ability to compensate for genetic inferiority.  
They could, now, offer 'salvation' to alien tribes, and not accept into their midst their alien genes.
Zionism.

3- Cultural Jewry - not to dominate by imposing their weakness upon others, exposing their duplicity of power built on an identity of weakness exerting power over others, but to convert all into Jewry.
Instead of dominating others, converting others to the lowly slaves they are.
Gypsies (wandering, lost in the deserts of the real, homeless, with no Hestia), men without past, identity (unsettled) - a world of socially-mobile untouchables, rejecting their own heritage and compensating for this loss with money, or symbols, or words.

In Ancient Greek times, the Platonic heaven was not intended to be noumenal. The Platonic heaven existed "outside the stars", behind the heavens we see from Earth. This was told to me by a professor of mine. He also observed: what an easy place to put your ideological basis. Say that all the things you cannot prove are "out there" and you don't need to prove them. Whether or not the ancients thought this way, it's an apt observation of human behavior.

This kind of behavior works both ways: one can also say that the true reality is down to an unseeable thing. An atom. Atomism. (Also of fun note: the one modern neo-Platonist I know of, Ken Wheeler/Theoria Apophasis, is a staunch anti-Atomist.) The modern racial metaphysics did a similar move when they made the determinant for the reality of race to the genetic realm - where the common man cannot easily compete with the church of liberalism. Mandating social justice indoctrination is a way to maintain this political ideology within the realm of "experts", or the new preachers.