What about them is biased? They are accounts from people who were actually there, and who were stalked and attacked by leftist mobs.
Often the instincts of hooliganism find easy manifestation and an excuse for outlet in ostensibly political situations and sentiments. A violent mob throwing bricks at police and burning cars and shops is a violent mob throwing bricks at police and burning cars and shops whether the most common underlying motive of the mob-member is general lawlessness and criminality or is politically-incited rage.
An instinct for freedom, individual responsibility and freedom from government and “big brother” is a natural instinct. As is the instinct to conform also natural, but increasingly Orwellian Leftist tyrannical governments such as ours in the west today will seek to make use of the latter of those two instincts because it breeds conformity and meekness, cowardice and “tolerance”. Indeed I think most people are naturally tolerant, i.e. have a natural libertarian bent (you leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone; let’s all be free to do as we please so long as no one is being harmed by it), but cultural Marxism has taken advantage of this basic human instinct and compassion toward others, particularly by co-opting the maternal instincts that are stronger in women than in men, for the purposes of social control and alienation. Real tolerance is good, the fake tolerance of the modern leftist is very bad. And these “tolerant” leftists are being made to tolerate their own demise, the loss of their minds, the rape and killing of their own children. That isn’t tolerance, it is mind-death.
The courageous ones are anyone who stands up against all that, at risk of public censure and attacks from the media and pop culture, indeed even at risk of personal safety. Anyone who stands for truth is by definition necessarily courageous.
And yet that is the exact opposite of what is happening in Northern and Western Europe right now, where they are committing collective suicide precisely to yield to the invaders.
I was referring specifically to how the nation state acts as a means of further disseminating and protecting culturally significant mythologies and psychological types and knowledge, as well as ideas and knowledge generally. The nation is a collective form of similarity amongst the people who share either a geographic and/or historical-anthropological space with each other, thus a kind of derivative structure of protection and an “outer shell” that allows culture in sum and individuals within cultures further means of surviving and thriving. Nations are philosophical concepts of unification that act analogously to what the individual personality and ego is for the sum total of the psyche of any one person: the psyche is vast and diffuse, heterogeneous, confused, conflicting, but the individual ego and personality appear as a principle of unification establishing sanity and individuality over the psyche as a whole. This exact same logic is at work in the nation with respect to the plurality, irreducibility, difference and heterogeneity of the people of a culture and society. Thus is the ontological explanation for what nations are and why they are important.
Having a nationless global state is impossible because humans are far too different when you extrapolate out far enough along geographic, linguistic, cultural-anthropological, religious, etc. lines. Nations naturally cohere a given size and shape over time and constantly negotiate that with themselves, and negotiate it with other nations too, but at the point a nation gets too large it destabilizes due to the failure of overlap between the legal-symbolic reach of the nation and the underlying peoples, cultures, geographies, values, etc. that the nation is supposed to represent.
Am I supposed to infer that with the Islamic third world (essentially what are largely medieval people by the tens of millions) conquering modern secular Europe is, you think, going to somehow end up being beneficial?
And yes I also noticed that you didn’t answer my question. But now your answer seems simply to be: ‘well maybe it will work out ok in the end.’ I really hope you’ve thought this through a little more than that. A defense of nationless globalism or of mass Islamic immigration into Europe is going to need a much stronger foundation (I believe such a position is indefensible, yet the onus is still on you to actually… defend it, or agree with me that it is indefensible in which case you would not be implying that the loss of nations is somehow a good thing.
I went into it above in this post, please use that.
That’s not what I’m arguing. I want inter-national cooperation and agreements, trade, alliances, common shared goals, but that doesn’t presuppose the loss of nations themselves and rather, obviously, requires nations to continue to exist.
Ideas are tested for being good or bad when the conditions for testing are present. In the USA this is done by way of the federalist system of the 50 states each of which is an independent semi-sovereign government, so that the people are free to move from state to state as the consequences of policies of one state may be seen and avoided by other states. In essence each American state is a mini nation, united under one federal government in which the 50 nations participate. I would very much like to see something similar appear at a global level, but it requires a strong affirmation of the principle of states rights in order to work. You can’t have two or more entities agreeing or testing competing ideas and values if you don’t have… entities. The loss or undermining of national sovereignty that the EU and neoliberal globalism represents is antithetical to the very conditions that allow human political thought to progress and evolve over time. Indeed, single states with absolute undifferentiated power become the most tyrannical, and what is the popullar notion of stateless globalism but, just like the delusion of stateless communism, except advocating the creation of but one State? The USSR found out what that is like.
Separation of powers is critical. At the geopolitical level that is achieved by, among other things, the principle of national sovereignty and the right of different peoples and cultures to have different nations, so that they may govern themselves.
There aren’t many. William James or Nietzsche to some degrees, but beyond that I don’t think there are others I can think of.
Then you’re demanding a standard of perfection that cannot exist. Nations, or religions, do as they are supposed to do, but they do it imperfectly. The idea is to keep improving these things over time, not give up on the entire project as you seem to want to do.
You’re conflating demography with skin color alone? What of age? A recent MIT study found there is no correlation between per capita GDP and an aging population. As for “whites”, European people ought to value their European ancestry and heritage, rather than be made ashamed of it as the leftists would like. Every race and culture (they’re not so easy to tease apart as we might like) on earth seems to be granted a right to be proud of itself, value itself and maintain an in-group preference, except for one: Europeans (and now spreading to Americans also, although America can be reasonably seen as an extension of Europe).
As for globalism, as I already mentioned I want more global cooperation s and agreements, so long as that doesn’t involve supernational global one world government that exists at the expense of the sovereignty of individual nations.
Maybe with my further elaborations here you can begin to grasp it now.
Sorry but I entirely lost the train of your argument or point here. Please clarify.
Then that’s a big problem for you.
Why not? I’m trying to get across the vast difference between proper thinking and improper thinking. Empiricism and analytic positivism are not philosophies, and certainly not religions even if they do try to usurp the void left by religion’s depowering in modern society.
Science is all well and good, but what we really need is philosophy. It isn’t for a lack of science that the west is falling, but rather from a lack of philosophy.
If you’re saying that populist nationalism rising in Europe and the US is inherently self-defeating, then I disagree. It is a proper check against the radical rise in Marxist leftist ideology. As even Zizek has noted, to his dismay, it is the political Right that seems to have aligned with the “common man” working class and its values.
I am very happy about Brexit, but very unhappy with all the stalling tactics the neolib and neocon globalists are using to try and prevent it.
Southern starts by saying that ‘people’ were attacked in the streets while the ‘whole town’ was devastated. Molyneux then invites Southern to tell if she was targeted by attackers, adding that people just standing and shooting photos were attacked. It seems that the targeting and attack was this: Southern wore an ‘Identitarian’ shirt (but she was not aware of what she was wearing…) and went out to watch the march of protesters; one single person, probably because he saw the shirt, yelled (in German) at her. Then a ‘mainstream media’ journalist working for Die Zeit (which then turned out to be false) took a picture and signaled her presence in Hamburg to the antifa via twitter. Since then she was actually tracked and had to hide. Moreover, one guy who unfortunately appeared next to her in a photo, was attacked. He stood kneeled on the ground his hands up imploring “I am not a Nazi, I am not a Nazi…” while, Southern says, “these people were hitting him and beating him”. A video clip of this should be available on heavy.com, I searched the site to no avail. I found this instead. It is reasonable to believe it contains the footage Southern refers to. That scene does not fit Southern’s description. One may say it shows intimidation, possibly threatening, but not beating and hitting as she said.
While the tweets exist (some are shown, I could not read them, also because they are in German), the footage Southern shows to support the claim of an active threat is not conclusive, you just see a backyard. And if she was constantly tracked, that becomes even quite mysterious, seeing that others were indeed attacked (and that seems to be the only documented instance of people attacked while shooting photos).
Now, that has to be absolutely clear: I am not attempting in the slightest to defend trackers and aggressors. There is one Sören Kohlhuber who is seemingly at the beginning of the chain of tweets: sue him. Frankly, it would be strange if they have not done it yet.
Having said that, in my view the scale of all this has been deliberately exaggerated, possibly also to show that the whole antifa complex is a criminal ‘leftist mob’. All ‘mainstream media’ sources stated violent confrontations involved about 10-15% of protesters, not all of them.
I think there’s a little abuse of the word ‘instinct’. If that is just a mere rethorical figure, then do as you like, but a natural istinct to "freedom from government and ‘big brother’ " must have remained latent for thousand and thousand of years, as there were no such things for a long time. The first forms of government probably took place with the Agricultural Revolution, roughly 12’000 years before 0 AD, while the sapiens were already roaming the planet long before then. And even with the Agricultural Revolution, I do not see a lot of exertion of this natural instinct… Then it seemed to me that you previously referred to an “artificial-socially constructed fear and sycophantism” in the case of conformism.
Anyway, how come we are infested by leftist governments and the Socialist and Communist parties are only seldom part of them? What is your definition of ‘tyrannical’? because that sounds kind of unconstitutional in most countries. It is indeed surprising to learn that all Western governments are such. Save at least the U.K., they are bravely brexiting, fiercely opposing to the “the stalling tactics the neolib and neocon globalists are using to try and prevent it”.
OK, if tolerance is “you leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone”, it may be as you say. I still think that it is however a convention, and conditioning, not a “natural libertarian bent”. The theory of the “long winters”, with which I suppose you are acquainted (Molyneux is), postulates that no one was left alone. The division of labour, which has been existing on a massive scale since the said Agricultural Revolution, does not really allow that. In the present, the overwhelming majority of us has a constant necessary exhange with other people. That too does not really allow leaving and being left alone.
I guess it implies that whoever oppose to the sacrifice “to the postmodern [god] of Tolerance” are the truth bearers.
Considering what you said above, about the “natural libertarian bent”, I suspect that the postmodern tolerance is something else. What exactly?
As I see it they are fading, not to yield to the invaders, but to their own… Well, it can be many things, probably all of them: consumerism, the dissolution of the traditional family, nihilism, boredom… It can be just the natural course of things. A herd too domesticated and with no shepherds (though I see that some research for them is going on). Or maybe not. It might become the end of a civilization, but not necessarily. “What does not kill me, makes me stronger”. It seems that this is what you are devoting your energy to in the end, believing that identitarianism, or something like that, is the way to fix it. Yes, I think it is self-defeating. Everything that it is totally backwards ends that way.
But would that be the only way? Considering that even the identitarians appear to be a multi-national community that tends to act globally, some doubts may rise, unless you are implying that the whole West is one nation. Surely, about the dissemination of knowledge, there Identitarians have a problem in my view. Until now I have seen them disseminating only conspiracy theories and flawed economics.
How the U.S, or Canada, or Australia are possible then? Russia is still multinational. I guess Putin is OK, is he?, so… it’s just because of him that it works?
If that is all you can retain of what I wrote, yes.
You can manage this thing, and resist this ‘conquest’ (which is not such). Australia, Canada, even UK and Germany, do that, with a mainly opportunistic attitude, but who cares, “beggars can’t be chosers”. Yet you can’t unmake it. We can discuss as long as we like about the philosophy of the nation, yet the fact is that these nations are dying . This is also the clarification requested, it’s not all of it, but I don’t want to get into more general views.
(By the way, their Middle Ages were a lot better than ours).
No.
There may be, and there should be, a separation of competences (possibly according to the infamous “principle of subsidiarity”). As for the rest, it is exactly what the US got rid of in order to become… the US.
And that applies also at how the EU is faring now.
I still see a difference between a “a standard of perfection that cannot exist”, and being no longer able to the execution of its office.
I don’t get the initial remark. Age is indeed the problem, and not excluvely for the economy.
I don’t know this study, I’d like to consult it. Anyway, I confess I am not surprised that the GDP per capita stays the same, or improves, for a while. There can be adjustment in productivity, and automatization is indeed doing that, and you can deny retirement until a very advanced age. However, that is just kicking the can. Eventually these people will need replacement. If there is not a sufficient stock of active population, there will be a contraction of the economy.
You can have a look at this if you wish.
I don’t discern the difference “between proper thinking and improper thinking” by decreeing what is ‘spirit’, wisdom and depth, personality and gravitas. I would ascribe those characteristics to what finds an echo in my most intimate thoughts, and I don’t want to get personal (“our deepest insights must - and should - appear as follies…”).
Ah, the old quote Hamilton trick, how tried and true.
Sorry man, but I can’t be bothered to respond to you. Maybe some other time, but it’s clear to me you have a vested interest in shutting down your mind, you seem like a typical academic, well used to rhetorics tricks and cherry picking and selective doubt, anything to avoid using language to actually… know something. At least to know something beyond the sphere of the accepted status quo (which concept I believe you rejected, right?)
Another dirty trick is equating the EU with the US federalist system, when in fact the various European countries are nothing analogous to the various American states. I actually have some great text on this issue and the economics of Europe and America with regard to “federalism”, if I ever feel motivated to respond properly to you I’ll post it.
But yeah, my loathing for academic dull newspeak and sycophantism far outweighs my desire to write a legitimate response here. I realize that’s unfair of me, so maybe I’ll bother writing one at a later time. But to be honest, I spent a good hour writing the last response to you, and you basically breezed by most of my points without so much as a glance toward the actual content there. Quoting Hamilton, and only Hamilton, is simply dishonest, that’s cheap NPR stuff. Making false equivalence between the EU and the US is also cheap anti-intellectualism. So no offense but I think I’ll take a pass for now.
All EU countries are typically ruled or co-ruled by Socialist parties.They don’t always carry the term, but their policies are invariably relentlessly top down regulative of peoples morals and money.
This is precisely why Europe has turned into an intellectual ghost world. There is only “Care”, which means prevention of freedom.
Italy and France are typically robustly Communist. Holland has been ruled by the proudly Socialist PvdA since after WWII. All of Scandinavia is Socialist, isn’t it?
Germany has the most Socialist policies of all, and of course it is where Socialism first took hold.
Switzerland has Socialism, so does Austria. People live off Welfare there even if they can get work because it is so easy to get the welfare. Natives as well as immigrants.
Which country in Europe is not socialist? Arguably, England has some non socialist tendencies, for the rest we d have to look at Monaco, of which I don’t know the laws, and Liechtenstein and Andorra.
As far as political thought goes, as long as this hasn’t been understood, nothing else ever will be.
I can assure anyone that no first order European population will be able at this point to produce consensus among its populace as to what the nation is and as to whether it still really exists - much less if it should exist.
Most Europeans will say no to state borders if asked, simply out of fear of what they’ve been told they are, if they would even think about wanting state borders. Fascism is utterly total there. People have no more heart to speak, but even, they have no more heart to think, to cognize, even to be aware of each other.
Its a dead zone. This is what Socialism is, always ends up in: the end of all human virtue, which basically means the end of human sentience.
Put a European next to a monkey and surely the monkey will usually be the more spiritually active one.
So fuck Europeans. Fuck Joker and his testicular cancer as well. Fuck his cancerous wife, too.
Basically the communist cancerindusrytestdummies that Joker and his family are along with all these socialists and pill poppers, are already beyond the end of the west. Obvioisly they are quite… dead.
I no longer worry. There isnt anything to lose. if Joker dies of his cancer, or if Joker dies in the streets, or if his girfriend dies of cancer or through gangrape, its all just western postculture.
If these self-crawling pee-poo-puss jokes stay alive that is even crueler, both to them and to the west. There really isnt much for the west to survive for, looking at these “people”. They are forms of walking death, arent they?
To call Joker a cancerform is a bit unfair to people with cancer, not all cancer is as sick as Joker, of course. Its not like all cancerpatients “have Joker”. That would suck.
I get your whole act now, you’re the first generation of a conservative multiracial form of civic nationalism. Please note, I’m not a national socialist. I do support ethnic and cultural identity however.
I’ve already stated that every race-culture, including European and American, has a right to take pride in itself for what is actually good about itself, and that this doesn’t imply hatred of other races-cultures than one’s own. “Civic nationalism” is simply the default position we already have in the west, whereas “ethnic nationalism” is a tribal throwback to pre-western society, something Hitler tried and failed to achieve.
History doesn’t generally take kindly to going backwards.
And the stupidity of ethic nationalism doesn’t means that race doesn’t play a role in culture and society, in “civic nationalism” of the west, of course race plays a role. If you overly disturb and alter the racial makeup of any society then it will change drastically in response, which is why relatively low immigration rates are manageable but relatively high ones such as are happening in western and Northern Europe right now are not manageable. It has to do with how in group preference and a commonality of culture between people forms a backbone for the structure and strength of any society.
So you’re not a Nazi? I don’t believe you, but I can see why you would want to disavow it, since the position is indefensible.
So in group preference isn’t based on ethnicity? Ethnic pride is good but not ethnic nationalism? What about ethnic pride/nationalism without any “hate” or resentment towards others, is that good then?
He’s apart of the new conservative civic nationalist group, in their eyes it’s ok to have ethnic and cultural pride just whatever you do don’t demand your own ethnic cultural independent sovereign territory.
I’m not part of any group, and civic nationalism isn’t a new idea anyway, it’s the idea that the United States was founded on. All men created equal, all under the same law. Not that hard of a concept really.
If you want to found your society instead on tribal racialism then you’re moving away from equality of law, because ethnicity supersedes law. It had to for ethnic nationalism to work, which is why everywhere else in the world that has governments and societies based primarily on ethnic groupings is going to be a failed state.
Ethnic identity is important, and it is important not to invite the whole third world into your first world country. If we were to invite the whole of the intelligent, educated, sane third world into the west that wouldn’t be problematic in the least, so that tells you something about how the real priorities are. The issues with mass immigration are more about medievalism, poverty and stupidity of the people coming here, and not about their “ethnicity”.
And it’s also about religion, because to take the case of the Muslim third world coming into the west, Islam isn’t an “ethnicity” but is an ideology. Taking in a bunch of poor medieval Christian Africans would also be a bad idea, they might not declare jihad and suicide bomb us but they will certainly burn ‘witches’ and engage in slavery and rape and other barbaric practices of medieval societies that take 2000 year old religious texts literally.
Literalism is the real problem. And because Islam never has a Reformation, and also because the globalists have deliberately radicalized and destroyed the Middle East, Islam is far more entrenched in barbaric medievalism than is Christianity, although as I said there still exist barbaric medieval Christians too, just that they represent a smaller percentage of overall Christianity than the radical literalists in Islam represent of overall Islam. Imam Tawhidi claims that most Muslims in the world are medieval literalists.
Then on top of that (there are multiple layers here, which is why simplistic linear and lazy thinkers won’t understand any of this and will instead default to the ideological stupidity of things like “ethnic nationalism” aka Nazism) you have the fact that the west is culturally rooted in Christianity. So if you import enough non-Christians then you’re fucking with that cultural foundation. But educated and more secular Muslims and Christians have far more in common with each other and can get along in the west just fine, it’s just that as I said in Islam those people represent a very small percentage of overall Muslims in the world.
The issue is multifaceted. Not exactly something that your “nice guy national socialism” is capable of grasping.
Or to use the words of the globalist in self-denial:
Or this lovely flailing -
Ethnic identity is important, except it is not, it’s about IQ, I mean it’s not IQ, it’s muh shared values…and so on…
What’s really going on here is that Void is justifying the hoodwinked clan’s idiosyncrasies.
Homosexuality → good
Mixing races → good
Value the narcissist → good
Accept my vyleness → good
‘Secular’ Islam babes → good
Have to say that this reminds me of middle-aged catladies cheering for Muslim immigration to get laid and paid for by the state for adopting a Middle-Eastern boytoy.
As I said, the situation is multifaceted and far too complex for simple ideological thinkers (e.g. ethnic nationalists aka Nazis) to grasp.
When you attempt to see the world through such a small mental lens, as you clearly possess, things simply appear as “opposites”, such as you elaborate as your perspective above. A black and white ideology able to reduce all differences into binary categories so that your feeble mind is able to actually form some (pathetically small and warped) relationship amongst the various aspects, is the only idea you are capable of having.
Thanks for voluntarily presenting yourself as a case study in pathological stupidity. How nice that I didn’t even have to ask.
If you’re a great representation of the alternative right versus the traditional old right I don’t see why the liberals are bitching, you’re practically controlled opposition for them.
