Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 81

Thread: Ideas on The Occident

  1. #31
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Saturday, December 11th, 2004 @ 10:23 AM
    Location
    The Land of Cowboys
    Gender
    Politics
    Right side up
    Posts
    166
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post

    I believe on a cognitive level humans tend to gloss large and small differences. A family argument with a brother-in-law takes on the same emotional load as antipathy directed at larger external threats. For this reason, I suppose, in-family violence (action to war) is not exactly uncommon.

    When looking at fellow Europeans we can, and do, dwell on relatively small differences. But the extended family differences between Latin, Slav, Teuton and Briton are miniscule compared to the differences, and the threat, represented in Islam or the Orient.

    It's true that local evolutions in Europe were largely isolated up to about the 18th Century. But truly pan-European, shared experience arrives with a vengeance in the 20th Century. The 20th C sees all of Europe embroiled in family feuds. The salient events are naturally WWI, WWII and Cold War restraint.

    With the USSR gone and the EU rising, the corrective expression is not of our preferred European brotherhood, but of pacifism and universalism. We are, I think, beginning to see the stirrings and pan-Europeanism. By internalizing what was the external competition, alot of people are beginning to see the BIG differences and the common enemy. The EU may well be laying the groundwork for a new matured nationalism in Europe.

    This said, I don't believe Europe has to come to grips with 'Islam within'. Islam and anything else that can be labelled alien is precisely the galvanizing fodder needed. Historical AND present animosities with Islam are identity-building on just the grand scale we would like to see.

    But, I certainly do not cast Bush's adventurism in the role of 'clash of civilizations.' Neo-conservatism is Zionism cloaked in American motifs. And Zionism holds little interest for Europeans. Unfortunately, there's also little role for western Christianity. It a weak, possibly dying, religion. Islam, however, is no replacement, but the perfect enemy.

    The glory of it is they can't help themselves. They will play into 'Holy Wars' over and over. They will continue to firebomb British pubs, take Russians hostage, deface poor little synagogues, stab the mayor of Paris, gang rape white girls, persecute Serbs, threaten Catholic clergy, and generally cooperate in fostering pan-European, neo-nationalism.

    "The Enemy of Europe is Islam". Step 1. Check.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    12 Posts

    Post

    Onion Peeler; "The extended family differences between Latin, Slav, Teuton and Briton are miniscule compared to the differences, and the threat, represented in Islam or the Orient".

    Moody Lawless; Differences, granted - but "threat"?
    This is the language of the Bush administration [which really means, in THEIR CASE, not yours, 'threat to Israel'].
    I do not regard other cultures as a "threat" per se.
    I try to harness my paranoia!

    Siegfried; "The glory of it is they can't help themselves. They will play into 'Holy Wars' over and over. They will continue to firebomb British pubs, take Russians hostage, deface poor little synagogues, stab the mayor of Paris, gang rape white girls, persecute Serbs, threaten Catholic clergy, and generally cooperate in fostering pan-European, neo-nationalism".

    ML; I think that's a cynical view - the suggestion that Islamaphobia should be used to foster European identity. I do not believe that anything healthy can be founded in negativity.
    Also, the instances you give are disparate, ranging from racial conflict, independence movements to downright criminality.
    None of these things promote the foolish equation;"The Enemy of Europe is Islam".
    When I spoke of taking a reality check, I was directly referring to Aloysha's idea of expelling the population of Albania to somewhere around the Black Sea!
    Such talk may sound big, but it doesn't address the REAL problems.
    So I advise you both to take a step back - and you still haven't shown that Islam [which is a religion, not a race, I might add] is the "enemy of Europe".
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    10 Posts

    Post removed uncivil elements

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Onion Peeler; "The extended family differences between Latin, Slav, Teuton and Briton are miniscule compared to the differences, and the threat, represented in Islam or the Orient".

    Moody Lawless; Differences, granted - but "threat"?
    This is the language of the Bush administration [which really means, in THEIR CASE, not yours, 'threat to Israel'].
    I do not regard other cultures as a "threat" per se.
    I try to harness my paranoia!
    Then you definetly need to check out East London or turn on the TV next time a city in your own country explodes in race riots. Hell, I counted six two years ago, I haven't been paying much attention since.

    Siegfried; "The glory of it is they can't help themselves. They will play into 'Holy Wars' over and over. They will continue to firebomb British pubs, take Russians hostage, deface poor little synagogues, stab the mayor of Paris, gang rape white girls, persecute Serbs, threaten Catholic clergy, and generally cooperate in fostering pan-European, neo-nationalism".

    ML; I think that's a cynical view - the suggestion that Islamaphobia should be used to foster European identity. I do not believe that anything healthy can be founded in negativity.
    Also, the instances you give are disparate, ranging from racial conflict, independence movements to downright criminality.
    None of these things promote the foolish equation;"The Enemy of Europe is Islam".
    When I spoke of taking a reality check, I was directly referring to Aloysha's idea of expelling the population of Albania to somewhere around the Black Sea!
    Such talk may sound big, but it doesn't address the REAL problems.
    So I advise you both to take a step back - and you still haven't shown that Islam [which is a religion, not a race, I might add] is the "enemy of Europe".
    ROFL. There are fourteen million MUSLIMS in France, they have taken over hunderds of towns and are administraing Sharia law, kickstarting riots and gang warfare in Paris, pack raping white French girls, skinheads and white gangs in Germany fight muslim Turks, I know - for a fact, from a Swiss exchange student I went to school with last year - that Bosnian muslims cause massive problems in Switzerland, the crime rate skyrockets in your own country whenever the Muslims congregate in large numbers, civil war rages in south European Russia between white Slavs and Chechen Muslims, Albanians start civil wars in Macedonia, Serbia, Greece and Kosovo, and you're telling me Muslims AREN'T the enemy of Europe? WAKE UP. Islam isn't a race, I know this - it's the ideology of multiple colonist populations, and it is a threat to EUROPE. Albanians were moved from the other side (eastern side) of the Black Sea by the Turks, at the time they were known as the Shiptars, and colonised a section of the Balkans under Turkish protection. They are not, and never will be, Europeans, racially or culturally.

    Now, to respond to the earlier post:

    Wrong; Mohammed created Islam as a simplification of the Christianity that covered the Middle East during his time. If you've read the Koran you'd know that Jesus is considered a Prophet therein, thus making Islam the final stage in the Abrahamic religion.
    The initial Moslem conquests of the Middle East meant that many countries previously Christian were lost to the West.
    So Islam can only be seen, every step of the way, as being a reaction to Christianity/the West.
    Nyet. Mohammed couldn't read, and the Bible had not yet been translated into Arabic at that time. Islam is the final stage of the Abrahmaic religion, and it was flooded with will to power, and it turned on Europe. As it is current doing again. Islam did not start off as a reaction to Christianity and was hellbent on annihilating Byzantium/Europe because it was a great power. It also did the same with Iran.

    Europeans are on Muslim territory also.
    Might makes right. I'm not one to advocate capitulation. Besides that, I've already explained why the Russians can't afford to let the Chechens get away with it. By the way, another bomb went off in Moscow five days ago (http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/2...terrorism.html), by Chechen terrorists. Just thought I'd let you know.

    If that is your idea of a serious policy, then it would need to be consistent - prepare for a huge upheraval in Europe folks, as all those peoples go back to where they came from!
    Then we Atlanto Meds can enjoy Europe in peace once again!
    No, it's my idea of solving a problem that is tearing apart south east Europe, that is kickstarted and driven by Islamic and Albanian terrorist expansionism. Maybe you didn't notice how the Albanians managed to carve a chunk out of Kosovo and then pour across into Macedonia to start a campaign there a while ago. I did.

    While it is true that the first Mohhamedan victories over the Eastern Empire helped to create Christendom by limiting it to the Western sphere, it is prepostorous to suggest history will repeat itself in this way in Europe.
    Why? Because the message of the Church itself is INCLUSIVE, and Europe has been pluralistic and secular for too long.
    Take a reality check.
    The Church of the crusades was not exactly inclusive, but it is now, and there is no reason to believe it won't change back when the world economy falls even further apart and racial-religious tensions across Europe tighten up.

    ML; This is a European version of the Judaeo-Christian stance of Bush/Wolfawitz in the USA today. It is a disasterous policy as it centres apocalyptically on Jerusalem, and views the world in the black and white conflict model.
    Surely Europeans want peace after their experiences in the 20th century.
    Please show me a map that says Jerusalem is in Europe. Oh, by the way - you seem a bit willing to compromise on the fact Islam is inside Europe, devouring it from the inside. This is a bigger threat than faced Charles Martel because they are already inside our borders, they are going to have far better weaponary than they did last time, and European Governments are being slightly accomadating towards them. Europe might want peace but it had better remember what the sounds of war drums mean if it wants to see the 22nd century.

    I thought you agreed that Americanism encourages race-mixing?
    Of course. Americanism is a cultural wave that dismembers morality and ethnicism (nationalism doesn't cover it quite as well, because nationalism is political) and makes it permissable. Islam is what provides the material. To draw an analogy - Americanism = freedom, Islam = power.

    Then you are alive to a mass of contradictions - you howl at the Jews and yet read their ideas with a nodding respect!
    No, what I take from Marxism is techniques, not utopian models of society. Should I explain what I've gained from each of the Marxist writers mentioned? Gramsci - Hegemony theory and subgroup politics. Mao - National liberation warfare. Lenin - vanguard party and revolutionary consciousness as opposed to compromise politics (you really should read 'What is to be Done?'...).

    That has no relevance to the question of Islam and Europe, so it is pointless making straw dogs on that one.
    Hardly. What did I gain from Marxism? Technique and ideas for social analysis that work. Now, what did Europe gain from Moorish Spain? Science and some philosophy. I'd say it's highly relevant. It adapted the tools of another culture for its own purposes, exactly as I'm doing with another school of thought. Yet Europe is not Islamic and I am not Marxist.

    Now you really are sounding like a European version of Bush Junior!
    George Bush serves kikes and doesn't give a damn about European racial, spiritual and cultural preservation. He's a neoconservative. I happen to hate them passionately.
    Last edited by Moody; Tuesday, April 27th, 2004 at 08:21 PM.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    10 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Are you seriously suggesting that a movie adaptation of a book is more important than the achieving of political power!
    I believe you were supposed to put a question mark at the end of that, not an exclamation mark. And I'm suggesting advances on the cultural front are more important than direct political takeover, yes, because culture unites a population far better than guns do.

    A philosophy must RULE, otherwise it will be consigned to the margins.
    You of all people should recognise that it always has an always will be consigned to the margins, and Nietzsche would believe that so it should always be - the 'plebianisation' of philosophy is something both he and I find undesirable.

    Hollywood movies do a great job of absorbing dissent and then marketing it!
    Is this an objection?

    Any 'cutlural revolution' [if we must use such leftist terms] needs to come to power the sooner the better.
    Cultural revolution is what's required if political revolution is to last at all. Alternatively I pose the question as to why Kryuchkov's coup d'etat against Boris Yeltsin's puppet Jew-Government failed.

    Only on the basis of power can a culture be made in the mass sense, anyway.
    Provide evidence.

    To achieve political power so that our race and culture can be protected and nurtured.
    Arm the white population and cut the rules altogether. If they don't protect themselves they don't deserve the effort.

    Are we really meant to wait until everyone has seen Lord of the Rings and agrees with its cultural sub-text before thinking about power?
    The unconscious pulls the strings of consciousness. First principle of psychology.

    Are you happy with a multi-culturalism where Tolkien and Eminem can rub shoulders in the movie world of Jewish Hollywood?
    Do I care? Eminem is a representation of the problem, not a problem himself. Indeed, I'd say he's the other side of the coin, a reflection of the massive depression in the collective unconscious of white America, and that's why his music (yeah, I'm calling it music) reaches so far and wide - because it is a reflection.

    And lastly, do you really think that any state can survive without a form of 'secret police'?
    That says it all, doesn't it? Can a gang of thugs really survive without employing terror to subdue its population? Here's a better question: why should I want it to?
    Last edited by Jack; Monday, December 1st, 2003 at 12:11 PM.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    12 Posts

    Post

    Aloysha; "I believe you were supposed to put a question mark at the end of that, not an exclamation mark. And I'm suggesting advances on the cultural front are more important than direct political takeover, yes, because culture unites a population far better than guns do".

    Moody Lawless; No, it was meant to be an exclamation, not a question.
    Emphasised because I don't regard Jewish Hollywood as 'culture' at all!

    Aloysha; "You of all people should recognise that philosophy always has and always will be consigned to the margins, and Nietzsche would believe that so it should always be - the 'plebianisation' of philosophy is something both he and I find undesirable".

    Moody; I was actually referring to Nietzsche there; a philosophy should rule, because a ruling philosophy will express the Aristocratic idea.
    It is the plebeians who are to be ruled. The act of ruling does not 'plebeianise' those that rule [if it does, then they are not a real ruling caste].
    Indeed, all political forms reflect an underlying philosophy, so philosophy is NOT something to be "consigned to the margins".
    Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Vico, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hegel, Nietzsche etc., all had their ideas expressed in politics - they even wrote explicitly OF politics - this was no 'plebeianisation'!

    Returning to the original point; as I've said, Hollywood does not represent a High Culture, or an Aryan culture, anyway. It does, though, represent that 'plebeianism' you speak of; and that Judaism as well.
    It is the perfect medium for those who adhere to International Finance: it is 'Big Business Art'.

    The Folk Art of great peoples begins by telling of the deeds of great warriors and great kings/kingdoms etc.,

    Aloysha; "The unconscious pulls the strings of consciousness. First principle of psychology".

    Moody; Whither the 'unconscious'? If it is really 'unconscious', then how can we know anything about it?
    I know that it's hard to answer my question;"can any state survive without a secret police?"
    Of course, such a state without a secret police force would be at an extreme disadvantage and would be easily toppled.
    This brings in the question of the whole utopianism of anarchism etc,.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    10 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Aloysha; "I believe you were supposed to put a question mark at the end of that, not an exclamation mark. And I'm suggesting advances on the cultural front are more important than direct political takeover, yes, because culture unites a population far better than guns do".

    Moody Lawless; No, it was meant to be an exclamation, not a question.
    Emphasised because I don't regard Jewish Hollywood as 'culture' at all!
    Define culture...

    Aloysha; "You of all people should recognise that philosophy always has and always will be consigned to the margins, and Nietzsche would believe that so it should always be - the 'plebianisation' of philosophy is something both he and I find undesirable".

    Moody; I was actually referring to Nietzsche there; a philosophy should rule, because a ruling philosophy will express the Aristocratic idea.
    It is the plebeians who are to be ruled.
    Are these plebians whites who hold jobs and want to work to buy stuff they want, raise families and live normally? You want them to be ruled, to be lorded over by parasites who produce nothing of value whatsoever and thieve and murder in order to keep themselves where they are?

    The act of ruling does not 'plebeianise' those that rule [if it does, then they are not a real ruling caste].
    My mistake. I seemt to have confused the idea of a 'philosophy ruling' with the idea that such a philosophy should be disseminated amongst the population. Of course, we know what Nietzsche thought about that idea, don't we? Quantity tends to degenerate quality.

    Indeed, all political forms reflect an underlying philosophy, so philosophy is NOT something to be "consigned to the margins".
    Not every man is or should be a philosopher, if he does not lean towards it, but he should be free to try to learn what he can. Or not?

    Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Vico, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hegel, Nietzsche etc., all had their ideas expressed in politics - they even wrote explicitly OF politics - this was no 'plebeianisation'!
    This is not exactly what I am talking about.

    Returning to the original point; as I've said, Hollywood does not represent a High Culture, or an Aryan culture, anyway. It does, though, represent that 'plebeianism' you speak of; and that Judaism as well.
    Amongst other things, yes. The people seem to like it, and what are you going to do? Shove a gun in their face and wait for an alternative to show up? But what is culture, and what is high culture?

    It is the perfect medium for those who adhere to International Finance: it is 'Big Business Art'.
    The irony is that with the expansion of wealth there is more and more art, both good art and bad art.

    "...It seems lost on the artistic critics of the market that commercial and artistic culture can and always have existed side by side. Truly, capitalism does make low art more accessible, just as it makes everything more accessible to the masses, including high art. Thanks only to the market are recordings of two millennia of great musical compositions available to anyone through online ordering. Thanks to the market, the literature of the world's most brilliant writers is available in books, online editions, and audio versions, at prices that range from high to zero. Thanks to the market there are more millionaires in a position to fund art and performance that would otherwise find no commercial market..."
    - Economics Lost in Translation, Matthew Hisrich.

    The Folk Art of great peoples begins by telling of the deeds of great warriors and great kings/kingdoms etc.,
    And?

    Moody; Whither the 'unconscious'? If it is really 'unconscious', then how can we know anything about it?
    Inner certainty, wants, desires, fears, the emotions - the sources of drive and motivation and behaviour. That is the unconscious. And it really isn't hard to reach into it and understand it.

    I know that it's hard to answer my question;"can any state survive without a secret police?"
    Of course, such a state without a secret police force would be at an extreme disadvantage and would be easily toppled.
    Great, because I don't want a State that has to resort to terror against its population in order to keep them in line.

    This brings in the question of the whole utopianism of anarchism etc,.
    Anarchism is by no means 'utopian'. It is the idea that the individual is sovereign and he ought to have final decision over his own life and all aspects of it - economic and political.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    12 Posts

    Post

    Aloysha; "Define culture..."

    Moody Lawless; It's meaning should be obvious to anyone following this thread.
    You suggest that 'culture' is that which "unites a population", and you had given a Hollywood movie as an example of this.
    Of course, this 'uniting' in your case, is of a diverse 'multicultural' population - a population of atomised individuals.
    I reject this view of culture, as I see culture as the direct expression of a certain Race and Nation.
    Now, Beowulf [the book] is for me an example of my idea of culture; it speaks directly to those who have the Anglo-Saxon Race Soul.
    Now, Tolkien took that material and popularised it; he made it for a world that was beginning to be multiculturalised.
    Likewise, Hollywood has taken that a step further.
    Hollywood is the great DEculturating force as it makes possible the multicultral world of individualistic libertarians and their worship of the greedy dollar.
    *Note that Tolkien was always against a film being made of his books.

    Aloysha; "Are these plebians whites who hold jobs and want to work to buy stuff they want, raise families and live normally? You want them to be ruled, to be lorded over by parasites who produce nothing of value whatsoever and thieve and murder in order to keep themselves where they are"?

    Moody; That's rich coming from a self-avowed Capitalist!
    You used the term 'plebeian' in connexion with what you called the 'plebeianisation of philosophy'; how that relates to "whites" who "live normally" is beyond me - why use a term yourself in the first-place, if you have to ask me every time afterwards what you meant by it?

    Aloysha; "My mistake. I seemt to have confused the idea of a 'philosophy ruling' with the idea that such a philosophy should be disseminated amongst the population. Of course, we know what Nietzsche thought about that idea, don't we? Quantity tends to degenerate quality".

    Moody; Nietzsche called his Zarathustra a book for 'everyone and none'.
    He knew that all great philosophies end up as the Zeitgeist.
    Today, everyone has heard of 'superman' - that doesn't mean that everyone understands what Nietzsche meant by that; still only a few [or none] do.
    So a great philosophy exists on a number of levels.

    Aloysha; "Not every man is or should be a philosopher, if he does not lean towards it, but he should be free to try to learn what he can. Or not?"

    Moody; You can take a whore to culture, but you cannot make her think.

    Aloysha; "But what is culture, and what is high culture?"

    Moody; I was contrasting the sort of plebeian 'culture' of Hollywood; call it pop culture, mass culture etc., etc., with High Culture.
    The former is usually escapist, low-brow, multicultural and based on capitalist marketing.
    The latter is profound, elitist, a provenance of a particular race and nation and based on aristocratic principles. It is Aryan, in short.

    Aloysha; "The irony is that with the expansion of wealth there is more and more art, both good art and bad art".

    Moody; What do you mean by "expansion of wealth"?
    I am talking about the ultimate concerns and values held by a society.
    A society based on the 'mighty dollar', and the espousal of Internationalist Capitalism and MULTICULTURALISM is detrimental to High Culture.
    There is more PRODUCT, more bad art; but very little, if any, good art [Aloysha's next reply:'define good art']
    The only 'good art' is the High Art of the past; such art is only produced in monocultural/monoracial, aristocratic, theocratic and generally absolutist, Heroic Ages.
    The modern Capitalistic West has no contemporary art which can be called High Art.


    Aloysha; The 'unconscious' is: Inner certainty, wants, desires, fears, the emotions - the sources of drive and motivation and behaviour. And it really isn't hard to reach into it and understand it.

    Moody Lawless; Probably 'subconscious' would be a better term for what you describe.

    Aloysha; "Great, because I don't want a State that has to resort to terror against its population in order to keep them in line".

    Moody; Who said 'terror against its own population'?
    You have to face the reality that a 'secret police force' [the term used] is necessary if you are going to have any kind of security.
    Any political groups without such will fail fairly immediately.

    Aloysha; "Anarchism is by no means 'utopian'. It is the idea that the individual is sovereign and he ought to have final decision over his own life and all aspects of it - economic and political".

    Moody; Anarchism does not have the last word on individualism. It is fairly utopian to believe that people do not need, do not want, do not DESIRE, leadership. It is utopian to take individualism so far, just as it is naive to trust everyone so implicitly that you will not need a secret service of some kind.
    No wonder anarchism has never taken of!
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    10 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Aloysha; "Define culture..."

    Moody Lawless; It's meaning should be obvious to anyone following this thread.
    Let's suppose it isn't.

    You suggest that 'culture' is that which "unites a population", and you had given a Hollywood movie as an example of this.
    Lord of the Rings is part of culture, yes.

    Of course, this 'uniting' in your case, is of a diverse 'multicultural' population - a population of atomised individuals.
    Doesn't follow. There are different degrees to which each ethnic/race section of the US population can relate to a type of culture/subculture. Individuals do not relate to different parts of culture equally.

    I reject this view of culture, as I see culture as the direct expression of a certain Race and Nation.
    Races and Nations don't produce things, their leading elements do.

    Now, Beowulf [the book] is for me an example of my idea of culture; it speaks directly to those who have the Anglo-Saxon Race Soul.
    Fantastic, but entire aggregates of individuals don't have single souls.

    Now, Tolkien took that material and popularised it; he made it for a world that was beginning to be multiculturalised.
    Likewise, Hollywood has taken that a step further.
    Ok.

    Hollywood is the great DEculturating force
    No, it isn't - individuals in Hollywood work together and manufacture whatever will appeal to the masses on whatever level they can understand. People are still free to buy copies of Beowulf or CD's of classical music and women can still buy corsets and men can still buy top hats.

    as it makes possible the multicultral world of individualistic libertarians and their worship of the greedy dollar.
    Bits of paper don't have minds. Nor do individuals 'worship' the dollar - the dollar is a symbol of value which those who view it contain. If you do not believe money to be of any importance whatsoever it will not have any value for you. The dollar is a tool, Moody. I'm surpised you made such a strange statement as '... worship of the greedy dollar' as that's the same sort of statement people make when they say 'worship of firearms' or some other inanimate intrinsically valueless object.

    *Note that Tolkien was always against a film being made of his books.
    Fantastic. If he had've put that in his will it might not have happened.

    Aloysha; "Are these plebians whites who hold jobs and want to work to buy stuff they want, raise families and live normally? You want them to be ruled, to be lorded over by parasites who produce nothing of value whatsoever and thieve and murder in order to keep themselves where they are"?

    Moody; That's rich coming from a self-avowed Capitalist!
    'Rich' is not a term I would apply, but yes, I am a self-avowed Anarcho-Capitalist.

    You used the term 'plebeian' in connexion with what you called the 'plebeianisation of philosophy';
    Sure I did. I willingly recognise that most people don't think or want to think about philosophy or other more 'academic' subjects, and I don't want to ram it down their throats if they don't want to hear it, and that they would much rather watch play football or listen to the Rolling Stones.

    how that relates to "whites" who "live normally" is beyond me
    It isn't beyond me. You want to use a philosophy to justify a class of unproductive terrorist (you think people pay their taxes voluntarily?) parasites (do they produce anything? No. but they do loot and thieve, under the guise of taxation) who live off those who are interested in supporting themselves and their families.

    - why use a term yourself in the first-place, if you have to ask me every time afterwards what you meant by it?
    Correction: I ask you what you mean by words. I know exactly what I mean by them.

    Aloysha; "My mistake. I seemt to have confused the idea of a 'philosophy ruling' with the idea that such a philosophy should be disseminated amongst the population. Of course, we know what Nietzsche thought about that idea, don't we? Quantity tends to degenerate quality".

    Moody; Nietzsche called his Zarathustra a book for 'everyone and none'.
    He knew that all great philosophies end up as the Zeitgeist.
    Today, everyone has heard of 'superman' - that doesn't mean that everyone understands what Nietzsche meant by that; still only a few [or none] do.
    So a great philosophy exists on a number of levels.
    I am referring to the outright indoctrination that occured amongst the Russian population after the Bolsheviks siezed power. Everyone has heard 'God is dead' but few understand it. I am not interested in forcing people to understand it.

    Aloysha; "Not every man is or should be a philosopher, if he does not lean towards it, but he should be free to try to learn what he can. Or not?"

    Moody; You can take a whore to culture, but you cannot make her think.
    Your point in that statement?

    Aloysha; "But what is culture, and what is high culture?"

    Moody; I was contrasting the sort of plebeian 'culture' of Hollywood; call it pop culture, mass culture etc., etc., with High Culture.
    That's a matter of perspective. Some people will listen to Eminem and scoff at Wagner.

    The former is usually escapist, low-brow, multicultural and based on capitalist marketing.
    Your classical composers didn't produce their music for free, Moody.

    The latter is profound, elitist, a provenance of a particular race and nation and based on aristocratic principles. It is Aryan, in short.
    Music, art, etc. is not consciously based on aristocratic principles. Also, you have yet to refute the fact that Capitalism brings more art, both good and bad, and widens the ability of those not amongst a political elite to acquire this art.

    Aloysha; "The irony is that with the expansion of wealth there is more and more art, both good art and bad art".

    Moody; What do you mean by "expansion of wealth"?
    Currency, when used properly, can be used to buy up resources, hire labour, designers, and technicians, manufacture products, sell those products, make profit, pay higher wages to skilled workers, who can then buy products and afford to have more free time to listen to music, view art, etc. The expansion of wealth is the expansion in productive capacity, rising education, acquisition of resources, and rising standards of living.

    I am talking about the ultimate concerns and values held by a society.
    The ultimate concerns and values held by individuals who associate together, produce, trade, buy and sell, and live? How are you going to change those values, Moody? Force a dictatorship on them and force them to pay for its maintainence?

    A society based on the 'mighty dollar', and the espousal of Internationalist Capitalism and MULTICULTURALISM is detrimental to High Culture.
    We do not have Capitalism presently, and multiculturalism is a symptom of Jewish culture distortion via the State, and you have provided no grounds other than personal opinion to distinguish 'High Culture' from 'mass culture'. Your 'mighty dollar', 'greedy dollar' rubbish I have refuted earlier in this post.

    There is more PRODUCT, more bad art; but very little, if any, good art
    Then go out and get a high paying job and comission an artist to make some good art for you. No one's stopping you.

    [Aloysha's next reply:'define good art']
    The only 'good art'...
    In your opinion.

    ...is the High Art...
    Undefined concept.

    of the past;
    Give a date before which supposed "High Art" reigned above "mass art", please.

    such art is only produced in monocultural/monoracial, aristocratic, theocratic and generally absolutist, Heroic Ages.
    i.e. when those with the wealth would like it produced.

    The modern Capitalistic West has no contemporary art which can be called High Art.
    The West is not Capitalist, and furthermore, could it be that what you have called 'High Art' (whatever that is - please do define it) is no longer wanted and somewhat different tastes have emerge amongst the population? How do you propose to remedy this situation? Loot everyone with more than subsistence wages and force artists to produce whatever it is you determine to be 'High Art'?

    Aloysha; The 'unconscious' is: Inner certainty, wants, desires, fears, the emotions - the sources of drive and motivation and behaviour. And it really isn't hard to reach into it and understand it.

    Moody Lawless; Probably 'subconscious' would be a better term for what you describe.
    Unconscious serves my purposes fine.

    Aloysha; "Great, because I don't want a State that has to resort to terror against its population in order to keep them in line".

    Moody; Who said 'terror against its own population'?
    What is it that you think a 'secret police force' is?

    You have to face the reality that a 'secret police force' [the term used] is necessary if you are going to have any kind of security.
    Sure I am. I'll have a gun in my own home and sign up with the local militia which guards the property of those who sign contracts with it and pay it to.

    Any political groups without such will fail fairly immediately.
    That's obvious - there won't be any more State. Struggles are going to be waged on the cultural ground - the hearts and minds of the populace - not on the property and blood of the populace.

    Aloysha; "Anarchism is by no means 'utopian'. It is the idea that the individual is sovereign and he ought to have final decision over his own life and all aspects of it - economic and political".

    Moody; Anarchism does not have the last word on individualism.
    Ah, yes it does.

    It is fairly utopian to believe that people do not need, do not want, do not DESIRE, leadership.
    And you want to tell me what I do and do not want? The Bolsheviks thought they knew what was best for the Russian population - and you're using the same excuse.

    It is utopian to take individualism so far, just as it is naive to trust everyone so implicitly that you will not need a secret service of some kind.
    Sure, it's naive to trust everyone so implicitly to GIVE MY TRUST TO A BUNCH OF THUGS. No thanks I'll pay for my own security out of my own pocket of my own free will and have it arranged myself, thanks. No need to be so altruistic

    No wonder anarchism has never taken of!
    Anarchism has never taken off because States refuse to let it happen and hold their populations under their own control by brute force.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    12 Posts

    Post

    Aloysha; "Music, art, etc. is not consciously based on aristocratic principles. Also, you have yet to refute the fact that Capitalism brings more art, both good and bad, and widens the ability of those not amongst a political elite to acquire this art".

    Moody Lawless; High Art is that art which can be defined as being based on aristocratic values.
    I have not denied that Capitalism brings quantity, but it does so at the expense of quality.
    Art which has to appeal to the widest possible base such as you describe Capitalism as making possible, is not the best art - it is by definition popular art.
    Therefore, aristocratic nations tend to produce High Art, while Capitalism brings forth pop art.
    Capitalism favours 'democracy', and as we see, the 'democratisation' of society pushed by Capital tends to favour and patronise pop art/modern art [our current leaders are all fans of pop culture for example].
    This is all observable.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,820
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    10 Posts

    Post

    I have not denied that Capitalism brings quantity, but it does so at the expense of quality.
    People are stupid and they don't look for quality anymore. Capitalism offers people what they want.

    Art which has to appeal to the widest possible base such as you describe Capitalism as making possible, is not the best art - it is by definition popular art.
    If a man with $700 million or more (for example) in his bank account wants a Neo-Gothic cathedral complete with stained glass and sculpture, he'll get it - because out there will be someone who will specialise in it, and that person would most probably would like to have a lot of money in his pocket.

    Therefore, aristocratic nations tend to produce High Art, while Capitalism brings forth pop art.
    Doesn't follow - keep Jewish culture distortion away, deport racial foreigners and encourage positive eugenics and art and culture will become all the more aristocratic.

    Capitalism favours 'democracy',
    Capitalism favours minimalist Government if not the absence of Government, the masses and the Jews favour democracy.

    and as we see, the 'democratisation' of society pushed by Capital tends to favour and patronise pop art/modern art [our current leaders are all fans of pop culture for example].
    Victorian era Britain and the United States was closer to Capitalism than it is now - and where was the pop art/modern art?
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Office Ideas?
    By Vintersorg in forum The Hearth
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Wednesday, November 9th, 2011, 03:27 AM
  2. My view on the current situation of the decadent Occident
    By Agrippa in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, September 15th, 2005, 03:20 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: Friday, March 18th, 2005, 11:41 PM
  4. Redefining the Concept of Citizenship
    By Ederico in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: Friday, September 24th, 2004, 01:17 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •