The Gun is Good

Other than crying, one of the things that “we can do about it” is stop pushing higher crime nonwhite groups into white neighborhoods in the name of diversity and forcing people to defend themselves against nonwhite savagery. Is there some other reason people want guns? If not, then Mr. Kimmel is at least as responsible for Paddock’s rampage in Las Vegas as any of us who defend the right to bear arms. Do gooders and empty-headed virtue signalers like Kimmel will tearfully complain that we want the 2nd amendment upheld even when it supposedly puts us at risk for being mowed down by deranged boomers, but he refuses to recognize why people want it upheld. He refuses to recognize that the 2nd amendment is necessary in his multiracial, tolerant, vibrant multicultural utopia where Obama’s HUD could use section 8 to push violent nonwhite groups on unsuspecting, formerly safe white communities. The cause and effect is clear: Diversity is the cause. The effect is a white population that refuses to allow ZOG to take their guns.

Normies and the left need to understand that part of the real world cost of “diversity” is staunch opposition to any and all gun control measures because people have no other means of defending themselves in the 3rd world garbage dump of a society they’re hell bent on are creating. But of course they’ll never make this connection because nobody can draw their attention to it without being persecuted as a racist for having done so.

Kimmel, who no doubt can afford to buy his way out of state mandated cultural enrichment, acts like it’s less tragic when working class whites who aren’t as fortunate have their sons killed for their car keys because one of the left’s magical pet niggers was socially constructed into a murderous savage by the nefarious cishetero capitalist patriarchy, or less tragic when communities are permanently destroyed by people having to live in fear of it. This is “diversity” in the real world. If it was so important to Kimmel, he’d listen when people complain about higher black & immigrant crime. Clearly it isn’t important enough to him if listening means risking being called a racist. So they can save the fucking tears and theatrics. It’s meaningless.

People won’t give up their guns because niggers. There. The debate is over. To the leftist, the world is an exceedingly complicated place where everything must be turned into an autistic Marxist theory of sociology or political economy. But really, most of it can be explained with “because niggers.” Variations on this: “Because low IQ,” “because immigrants.” It really isn’t that complicated. There isn’t a single long standing policy debate which can’t be solved by simply refusing to talk about race in code.

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Incorrect. Niggers kill people. Racial groups with lower IQs kill people at higher rates per capita, therefore nobody will tolerate gun control.

Of course, leftists know this. That’s why they call you a racist. It’s also why they think they can win the debate, because they fully expect you to have bought into the egalitarian frame. So both of you are supposed to agree that racism is unacceptable while you tip-toe around the issue and the leftist plays Torquemada. “Check mate, racist,” thinks the smug leftist as he vomits up his unimaginative and predictable anti 2nd amendment boilerplate culled from Mother Jones while fully understanding that when you say “people” you mean “black people.”

You should be able to shut him down easily. He’s arguing that ordinary people on which he forces nonwhite savagery and violence shouldn’t have a means of defending themselves and their families. It’s indefensible, yet he doesn’t have to defend anything. It’s you who has to defend the 2nd amendment and try to fit white political interests into a false universalist framework because you’re unable to call a spade a spade. Pun intended. That’s why you’re prattling on about the founders and the Constitution while he can point to a pile of dead bodies and call you a monster for refusing to allow ZOG to confiscate your only means of defending yourself. Observe the actual track record of conservative culture war 4D chess. All it did was rob us of the ability to defend our interests, it robbed us even of the language we would use to do it.

The solution is to reject this frame and to impose your own, the solution is to defend “racism,” or the perspective of the gun owner who wants a means of self defense in a country where low IQ racial groups threaten his family. The strongest and most clever strategy is no strategy at all. It’s simply to tell the truth. Had conservatives done this from the beginning, we wouldn’t even be discussing it.

“But what about normies?” Why do you think archetypal, eternal normie would agree that ordinary people don’t have a right to defend themselves? Nobody would agree. The only reason it seems as if they would is because they don’t understand what the debate is about. The reason they don’t understand what the debate is about is because of your moronic 4D chess culture war strategy where you avoid explicitly talking about race. There isn’t any other reason.

You would have no reason to conceal your actual position unless you believed there was something wrong with it. There isn’t. You don’t have to apologize for believing that people should have a right to self defense in a country where we’ve refused to lock the apes up in their zoo cages.

Leftists love to point out that opponents of Muslim immigration are paranoid and misguided, since the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are low. Well, the odds of you being killed by a mass shooter are probably similar to the odds of being killed by a serial killer or a terrorist. The odds of you being a victim of random nigger violence, by contrast, can be pretty high, depending on where you live. So it’s perfectly rational for somebody to want a gun to defend himself because he’s worried more about random nigger violence than mass shooters, regardless of what race those shooters are, even if it were true that they were all white men, which it isn’t anyway.

This is a far stronger argument than blubbering about abstractions and the Constitution because you’re afraid of being called a racist. Leftists don’t care about the Constitution. And in the middle of a dramatic news cycle like this one, even normies are less inclined to care about it. We’re stuck in this position because we can’t connect our opposition to gun control to a legitimate and rational desire for a means of defending ourselves. Would we need to defend ourselves if the left wasn’t flooding our countries and communities with nonwhite savages?

If the left wants to discuss gun control, then they’ll have to give up mass immigration and forced racial diversity. There’s no discussion of it until then. “Gun control is a luxury that only racially homogeneous societies can afford.” That’s all you have to say, but in order to say it – to win the damn debate once and for all – you have to stop cucking on race. You have to make the implicit explicit.

Once we do that, it’s relatively easy for normies to see that there is no possibility of gun control for the same reason there’s no possibility of single payer: You’re flooding the country with low IQ nonwhites, making both impossible. Were it not for that, maybe we could reach a compromise & they could get some of what they want. It’s real fucking simple: People want guns because they have no other means of self defense when Obama’s HUD pushes statistically higher crime nonwhites into their formerly safe white neighborhoods. The left can sacrifice gun control for diversity just like everything else. Sorry, leftist, things like single payer and gun control measures are things that only homogeneous white societies can realistically achieve. I don’t know what to tell you.

The irony, of course, is that we really wouldn’t even need gun control were it not for nonwhites.

So every time the left brings up guns, you need to make the debate about race. No more talking in code, no more shibboleths and dog whistles. Let’s see how long it takes them to realize that their position in the gun control debate won’t survive a public discourse where we can acknowledge race explicitly. We got this. They have nothing. It doesn’t matter how horrific some nutter’s shooting spree is, all you have to do is blast them with the black gun crime statistics.

The overwhelming majority of per capita gun crime in the United States is committed by blacks. The white gun crime rate is on par with Belgium. We don’t have a gun problem, we have a nigger problem. Every time they bring up gun control, be as mercilessly explicitly about race as possible. The gun is good.

The Handmaid’s Tale Option

This hardly works as a cautionary tale when we basically live in a real world feminist dystopia that’s destroyed the most basic and important aspect of our social fabric, so much so that we aren’t even able to reproduce ourselves. Sorry, but the grass-is-greener politics of “gender equality” and the sexual revolution is no longer speculation. It’s no longer possible to believe that feminist social engineers are going to “liberate” us in the name of “progress.” Their revolution already happened. Take a look around. This is it.

I watched this scene and rooted for the cops. I have a hunch I’m not the only one. Read it racially, which is no doubt what the director intended: Oh look, white men – y’know, daddy who you depend on for everything and perpetually scapegoat while expecting him to apologize for himself – finally snapped and put a stop to it. I guess he finally gave the shit-testing feminists what they wanted all along.

There was probably a window of opportunity for the left to recognize its failures and step back from the brink, but that time has passed. Put people who think the way I do in power, and this is precisely how we’ll treat our enemies if we have to. It’s either this or we go under. Do what it takes to restore order or we have no future. I’m willing to be the bad guy. Fuck it.

The white working class who leftists and cosmopolitans like the author despise and demonize are now the only group of people in an industrialized country with a declining life expectancy. The “privileged oppressors” who haven’t seen a raise in 40 years of neoliberal “free trade” are being destroyed and cut off from their own future while the left mocks their suffering, celebrates their declining birth rate, attacks them violently in the streets, and persecutes them in the media and universities. Meanwhile the quisling globalist GOP makes excuses while they frantically try to find a new way to scam whites back on to the Republican plantation so that they’ll go on coughing up their sons to die for ZOG wars and rubber stamping their own dispossession at the ballot box.

At what point do they become amenable to hard right solutions like the kind in this book? How hypothetical is this scenario? Maybe the Handmaid’s Tale isn’t a cautionary tale, but a blueprint.

It’s worth it to take a serious look at the Iranian Revolution that inspired the Atwood’s book. Iran ousted a U.S. backed dictatorship and remains legitimately sovereign to this day precisely because it didn’t simply adopt a strictly republican model in which bourgeois political parties would have been subverted by U.S. and Israel. Part of what made that possible was Iran’s cultural revolution against westernization, in this case meaning Jewish “modernity,” what we now call “poz.”

We’re a Jewish colony. Our problem is identical to Iran’s in 1979. Something to think about.

Jordan Peterson & The Open Society

It just occurred to me that Jordan Peterson’s liberal individualism sounds an awful lot like Karl Popper’s “open society” from which George Soros’s foundation takes its name.

Peterson, like Popper, imagines liberal individualism as the last man standing after fascism on the hard right and communism on the hard left were vanquished. Popper’s argument was basically that any attempt to identify a universal mechanism of historical change is an invitation to totalitarianism because we would inevitably attempt to impose this abstract ideal on real world social relations which would then no longer be “fluid and emergent.” The existing development of society then would become a totalitarian self fulfilling prophecy, or “teleological historicism,” which can emerge from the right, as typified by Plato, or the left, typified by Marx.

So, unless I’ve misunderstood him, he’s basically arguing that we can learn nothing from history without risking the prospect of totalitarianism. So why study history at all? If what he’s arguing is true, then we should stop studying it immediately and burn the history books, since we risk gulags, tyranny, war, oppression, and millions dead.

What’s more, he’s assuming that existing societies haven’t already tried to discern for themselves what human nature or mechanisms of historical change are when they developed their institutions. But of course in any society we find attempts to answer these questions in their theology, philosophy, folktales, creation stories and so on. And we find institutional arrangements of various degrees of complexity reflect their conclusions. Therefore all existing societies are totalitarian and no “fluid and emergent” society has ever existed. And if we attempted to create this open society, we would be the totalitarians by his own definition because we would be attempting to remake existing social relations in the image of an abstraction which was invented and unconnected to real world experience. What’s more, isn’t he guilty of abstracting some universal law from history in interpreting it and deciding that all attempts to abstract universal laws of history lead to the prospect of totalitarianism?

Did he think that existing cultures and social relations developed out of thin air, at random, and that people had no agency in shaping their own institutional arrangements? Were we ants mindlessly building anthills until the latter half of the 20th century when we magically became self aware for some mysterious unknown reason? Maybe the publication of Popper’s book is year zero.

It would be interesting to find out what Peterson thinks about Popper’s critique of “historicism,” but we’ll never know since he’s too much of a coward to actually engage with our ideas.

Reaction vs. Revolution II

The left and cuck right have blown it so badly that for the first time since the 1970s, white society is beginning to doubt its commitment to racial egalitarianism. Not only are they doubting its desirability, but even its possibility. This is scary to a lot of whites who just want to bury their heads in the sand and defer to whatever mainstream middle class orthodoxy says. They flock to Peterson because he gives them an excuse to cuck. He erects this seemingly impassioned and certain defense of what is basically a failed but still safe and comfortable belief system. For this they shower him with cash. “Make it all go away, Jordan!” they cry. He seems to offer a way out, hence his cult of personality.

You can expect a lot more shit like this in the coming years. There’s a huge pent up demand among buyers for what somebody like Peterson is selling because a lot of normies with right wing inclinations just want a return to order. They want to get about the business of their lives, not launch a revolution for some utopian idea. And nor should they be faulted for this. This desire for order is healthy. It doesn’t make them stupid or cowards, it just makes them normal. They aren’t spergs sitting around reading Hegel, politics for them is entirely pragmatic, not a fashion statement. They don’t want this fight at all. They just want to lead normal lives and have families, which is struggle enough. People like Peterson offer a path of less resistance, one that he can falsely argue is a safer path given its successful track record during the post war period. It’s something which appears to be more like what we’re accustomed to than a supposedly unknown property which is an uncertain gamble. For this reason, it could be a serious mistake to write people like him off and assume his audience will eventually come our way.

The individualism peddlers’ ideas need to be ruthlessly dismantled and discredited because they’re creating a diversion for people who have been forced into breaking with a failed 20th century consumer culture liberalism. Their intent is to neuter criticism of the baby boom liberalism and draw the critics into a safe and non-threatening cul-de-sac where they can salvage as much of the post war order as possible.

Peterson would have his confused audience believe that SJW persecution and “post modernism” is some aberration which threatens the whole post war project. He doesn’t see it as the evolution of that project, its inevitable failed conclusion. He does this by invoking a misreading of history in which his “classical liberalism” has a long and proven historical track record with its roots in the Enlightenment. It’s identified as the origins of modern republican forms of government, the guarantee of an ever expanding list of “rights,” and so on. In reality, his classical liberalism has no relationship to what classical liberalism actually was. It’s a post war, 20th century reinterpretation history which sought to find justifications what was then the present in a reimagined past. The “proposition nation” and this consumer democracy individualism is a Cold War ideological abstraction, one that is quite new and has already failed, not some bedrock principle of Peterson’s mythologized “West.” What people like Peterson and Sargon are selling is the politics of a vanishing late 20th century consumer culture which attempts to turn identity into something that, as Mike Enoch says, must be purchased, a failed globalist ideology which attempts to replace countries with markets and real people with post-national, atomized, powerless units of labor and consumption.

Peterson sees “collectivism” in left wing identity politics because he doesn’t recognize the LGBT and feminist witch hunting he rails against as a form of individualism applied to the social sphere. Why else should Peterson be forced to recognize a tranny’s preferred pronouns? After all, we’re all individuals and it’s a tranny’s individuality, his precious “individual rights,” which are denied when we insist that sex is biologically determined rather than “culturally constructed.” It’s simply another way of saying that it’s something individuals choose and any attempt to deny this individuality in the social sphere – y’know, by making appeal to a collective and communitarian value system or a greater good – is “oppression” which “progress” will liberate us from.

Peterson fails to see that the failure of the post war Baby Boom’s project is the failure of competing liberalisms, competing conceptions of individualism, not a battle between collectivism and individualism. And when I say “liberalism,” I intend to use the word literally, as in a politics of liberalization. For the right, this took the form of a politics of “freedom” or “economic liberty,” and was applied to the economic sphere. The past is interpreted as chains or a prison which must be done away with in the name of the name of economic progress, all in the name of the “individual rights” of homo economus. For the left, this took the form of a politics of “equality” or “social justice” and was applied to the social sphere. The past and traditions like monogamous marriage or even gender norms of any kind were interpreted as chains or a prison must be done away with in the name of social progress, all in the name of the “individual rights” of the world citizen of an emerging post-national, post-gender global classless society. Peterson himself recognizes this inconsistency when he asks audiences if they really need more “rights,” if maybe we should start considering what we owe to our society rather than demanding what we believe our society owes us. How is that accomplished without a communitarian conception of a collective good, the very thing he identifies as collectivism, the invitation to totalitarianism and gulags? How is it possible if we can’t even define an “us” in the first place?

The alt right is not a politics of liberalization and because it isn’t, it threatens the moral justification for post war liberalism in both its forms. It puts in jeopardy the political, social, and professional ecosystem of people like Peterson who have spent their professional lives making compromises and excuses so they could go along to get along and win yet another paycheck to drop on their mortgage.

It’s important to recognize the psychological motivations behind populism historically. It’s not like the left. Populism is rooted in pragmatism not leftist ideological fads. The left will always have something to complain about because complaint and launching a perpetual revolution against this or that is the point of it. They will always be liberalizing in one way or another. It’s the fashion statement politics of the navel gazing outsider, the critic, who can’t create so he destroys. Its purpose is to negate because it has nothing to affirm. Populism, by contrast, is the pragmatic politics of insiders, of a majority who creates, whose identity and values are affirmed in the act of that creation. It will liberalize when it imagines it’s in a community’s interest to do so, as was the case when neoconservatives sold the white working class on liberalization of trade because lower taxes meant they weren’t subsidizing the children of welfare dependent nogs. But it will resist liberalization if it isn’t in a community’s interest, which is the case when it comes to mass immigration and the “economic liberty” of employers to flood the country with cheap labor Mexicans.

When populists appear on the historical stage, it’s because things are breaking down and absolutely have to be fixed, not because bourgeois college kids decided they’re morally and intellectually superior to dominant society and want to play revolutionary while sowing their wild oats before settling down in the suburbs somewhere when they decide to start adulting. It’s because there are real problems for ordinary people that have become intolerable. It has nothing to do with high minded abstractions and universal conceptions of “individual rights.” This is why we win. We always win. The post WW I uprising in the U.S. only ended when we got the immigration quota, for instance.

This strength of populism enables it to persist even if leftists and other bourgeois types regard it as unfashionable and vulgar, but it’s also a weakness because it means we can be bought off with consumerism and material comfort, as was the case during much of the post war period. Populists typically want the problem fixed so they can go back to their plow and get about the business of building their lives, contributing to communities, starting families and so on, so it’s really about who can divert popular discontent and in what direction. Peterson falsely appears to offer them a realistic way to do that which won’t require them to adopt ideas that the J-Baby Boom spent a generation turning into taboos. “Clean your room” amounts to magical thinking in which our “individual choices” and “personal responsibility” is somehow going to prevent post war liberalism from going over a cliff. No, cleaning your room is not going to set things straight. What’s going to save us is defining collective interests as a people and defending those interests. As more than a few alt right goys have said, “clean your country” and we can’t do that until we recognize who “we” are. Individualists need not apply.

It’s collective action and interest which is the return to the norm for the West. It’s post war consumer culture and radical individualism which is the historical aberration. The alt right is far better served if we understand that people are going to be drawn to us because we can offer a return to order and to connect that return to the West’s actual foundation in racial and national consciousness, in collective notions of identity and a common good. It’s reaction, not revolution. It’s about what is necessary in the pragmatic here and now, not some utopian romanticized bullshit off in the distance. The ethnostate, for instance, should be understood as a pragmatic historical inevitability and necessity. It either happens or we perish.

We’re not trying to remake white society into something which doesn’t exist, but defending the one that already exists. As Kai Murros says, “a nationalist loves his people, warts and all.” Utopian scheming and reorganizing is for the left and people who think history is about “progress.” You can take a right wing revolution and couch it in reactionary terms, but in the end, real popular support among laypeople is only going to be motivated by a desire for a return to normalcy. People like Peterson understand this while the left doesn’t. And that’s precisely why he shouldn’t be dismissed. “Classical liberals” will seem to offer that restoration of order to increasingly desperate and despairing young men and he can paint us as just another source of uncertainty and disorder like the SJW left who he and other CivNats are keen to conflate us with. So, in my opinion, we need to take the individualist critique seriously enough to destroy it and discard it. We shouldn’t assume it’s going to disappear because normies will find their way to ethnonationalism on their own.

Reaction vs. Revolution

I don’t agree that white identity should be explicitly revolutionary and attempt to break with American national symbolism or its legal/political traditions. Once you open the door to revolution, it’s pretty hard to close it behind you even if you win. I agree with Matt Heimbach on almost everything except this. I see it as the riskiest strategy and the path of most resistance, which of course is the least likely to yield success.

The National Socialists in Germany didn’t even do this. They adhered to legality and won power legally. They pointed to Germany’s history to claim legitimacy. They were repudiating Weimar, not Germany. And that’s how we should regard Cold War liberalism and the “proposition nation.” It’s like our Weimar. To repudiate it is a defense of America, not a revolution that seeks to end or replace America.

Irony & Modernity

Greg Johnson at Counter Currents recently opened up this interesting dialogue about the relationship of identity to irony which can be found here.

Unless I’ve misunderstood Heidegger, his criticism of Socratic irony which identifies it as a symptom of liberal modernity and decadence was already anticipated by Plato, but to understand and accept the rebuttal, you would have had to uproot the unconscious axiomatic assumptions of democratic modernity and egalitarianism and accept that the best of all possible states is the dictatorship of reason and that, no, we don’t all have equal capacity to be rational.

This is Plato’s critique of democracy (and therefore of the pretensions of the enlightenment, egalitarianism, etc) in a nutshell: Democracy assumes the possibility of a rational polity but polities only exist because perfect rationality is impossible. It’s a contradiction in terms if it can be argued that in a perfectly rational world there would be no politics, no states, no polities of any kind because these things would be unnecessary and therefore unknown entirely. Politics and power emerge out of the interaction between those who are more rational and those who are less. It is only because the rational polity, and therefore the democracy, is impossible that states or power of any kind exists at all. If politics is inevitable, then irony is inevitable.

Plato resolves the problem of knowledge, or philosophy, cutting us off from culture and identity in the return to the cave in the allegory. The philosopher, meaning the one who knows more, after having seen the form of the Good (the sun), returns to the cave, lit by the Good’s man-made and imperfect facsimile or imitation in the form of the fire. Plato’s fictional Socrates tells us that he must “take his old seat” in front of the shadows of ideology and see the world through the eyes of the prisoners of ignorance who confuse ideology with truth.

In other words, there is in nature a natural hierarchy with respect to intellect and those whose natures incline them towards philosophy and those who don’t. Our institutions, if they’re to be the best of all possible, should give formal institutional expression to this natural hierarchy, in as much as institutions should always seek to reflect nature via tradition (rather than attempt to change nature through “progress” and the destruction of tradition, as the left believes is possible). Otherwise knowledge of self and of society leads to the decadence of irony and all we can do is critique or analyze social convention from outside of it because we ourselves can never be part of it. We’re like Adam and Eve cast out of Eden and unable to find our way back, or like Pandora who can’t close the box once it’s been opened. The philosopher’s goal, according to Plato, is not to be the one who exposes convention as convention, but to be the author of convention, or ideology, for the benefit prisoners. If he were a priest, it would be his job to create a layman’s version of the truth in the form of a myth since the layperson’s nature hobbles his ability to grasp the truth by way of reason. If every layperson could grasp it, they would no longer be laypeople. There would only be priests. In other words, the rational polity would be possible and polities of any kind would cease to exist.

The philosopher can’t do this if he himself is a prisoner. He must step outside of identity to understand what identity is and he must return to those who possess that identity in order to author the myth on which their limited understanding of that identity is based. They too will, from time to time, step outside of themselves and reduce the self to abstraction. It’s up to the philosopher to supply the image they will see when they look at themselves. If we don’t do it, someone else will, and that’s especially dangerous if the ones doing that myth making are members of a hostile and competing tribe. The philosopher is the one who makes the models which cast the shadows the prisoners mistake for truth. He tends that fire which casts them, the man-made facsimile of the good whose symbol is found on the flag of the state. The fire is the axiomatic basis of a community’s moral reasoning, the popular conception of the Good, and this, like the myth of the self that the philosophers provide for them is necessary since the prisoners will never see the form of the Good, even though we try to get them as far along as their natures will allow.

Plato tells us outright that the reason all people can’t exit the cave and see the truth is simply that their “desires pull them in other directions,” and this is why they’re incapable of irony. It just isn’t in their nature to care enough to see the investigation through to the end and they will, at some point, simply fall back on conventional wisdom rather than seeking actual wisdom for themselves. So the question on the table here that Plato is answering is one related to the political economy of knowledge, or the proper relationship of the intellectuals to the rest of society that they stand outside of and apart from. If we’re confused by the paradoxical relationship of elites or intellectuals to populism, this is as good an answer as any.

If Plato were to weigh in on the question posed by Marx and Hegel as to what the engine of historical change is or on what foundation are the structures of power erected, he might have said that it was the struggle of those who are more rational to those who are less rational, whereas Marx believed it was the struggle of economic-social classes. If we’re racial nationalists who believe that the true engine of historical change is the struggle of racial groups and further believe intelligence is limited and determined by biology, then we can see how Platonism provides a foundation for modern National Socialism: To argue that the relationship of the more rational to the less is the foundation of social and political reality is simultaneously to argue that the relationship of more rational races to less rational ones is its foundation.

In any case, this is what irony is: It’s just those with greater knowledge or greater recourse to reason who don’t yet recognize that it’s their job to make use of that knowledge in order to author the culture or identity that they’ve been cut off from and stand outside of. How could they recognize this if they still assume that the rational polity is possible, as virtually everyone who can’t reason their way out of the assumptions of democratic liberal modernity does? They instead argue and try to convince people of the truth, always expecting people to at some point come around and exit the cave while despairing that they never do. If, by contrast, we accept natural hierarchy and jettison the assumption of the possibility of intellectual equality, then we can see that the answer to the problem of social convention that irony has cut us adrift from is to become the authors of convention, not to simply bang our head against a wall while trying to get others to see the origin or falsehood of existing convention.

In other words, the solution is for the intellectuals to get control of the state and use the military to impose rationally designed institutions which are justified and explained by way of myth that those who are most rational designed for the benefit of those who are less rational. That solution is possible when we recognize that power is and will always be nothing more than the relationship of those who are more rational to those who are less.

And this is how the one with knowledge reconnects to the prisoners, how he escapes being cut off from identity and his society and therefore overcomes irony. It’s through taking his proper place as the myth maker, or the one casting shadow puppets which the prisoners confuse with truth on the wall of the cave, that he becomes a part of that society again rather than simply its interpreter and critic. Is he going to smugly critique and sneer at his own myths? He would have no reason to do so, since they are in the closest accordance with the form they imitate if they are truly the products of philosophy rather than its imitation.

Capitalism & National Socialism

The NatSocs saw trade and markets as a means to a nationalist end. Those who we call “capitalists” today seem to think trade is the end itself. That’s really the difference. If trade contributes to the public (meaning racial) good, great. If not, regulate or do away with it. Capitalism wasn’t ideological for the NatSoc the way it is for contemporary libertarians or other market fundamentalists (or Marxists, for that matter). It wasn’t a set of normative ethics or a philosophy, but simply a policy tool that either produced useful results or it didn’t. Modern capitalism in practice is about radical individualism and using this belief system as a justification for bringing the state into the service of private capital. That’s a problem if private capital wants a global labor market and mass immigration.

We’re not against trade, markets, private property, meritocracy, etc., we just disagree that the market is the foundation of society. I think most national socialists would agree that the family is its foundation. The traditional family structure is the means by which the race perpetuates itself and survives so the defense of the race is the defense of the family. The family structure provides the foundation of civil society (including the possibility of private property rights), and civil society provides the foundation of the market.

In conditions of industrial or post industrial civilization, children and the traditional family structure are a net cost whereas in agrarian society they were a net benefit, so this foundation is crumbling. Ultimately the family and by extension our race and civilization will not survive. The purpose of the racial state then is to provide the foundation of the family in conditions of industrial civilization precisely because the market alone can’t provide it.

Birth Rates

The reason that birth rates are low in the west is because it’s prohibitively expensive to have children. Debt is out of control, housing is unaffordable, and work is increasingly precarious. These are hardly conditions in which people start families or are even able to plan for the future. Mass immigration compounds this problem, it doesn’t solve it, since it increases competition for both increasingly scarce work and public resources. But it does solve the problem for elites who would prefer not to have to invest in their own society or its institutions so that people can afford to have children again.

What this means is that we’re essentially a disposable population and that our rulers have decided it’s simply cheaper to import the 3rd world than it is to get about the business of actually governing and creating a society that is capable of recreating itself and its social fabric. The end result isn’t like ethnic cleansing, it is literally ethnic cleansing. The end result is a people cut off from their own future and marked for disposal.

Having families isn’t just about the birth rate or producing reliable units of labor and consumption because we have pensions to pay if the boomers expect to shuffle off into the twilight in the same luxury they were accustomed to for most of their lives. It’s also about structuring people’s lives in socially beneficial ways. Having children invests us in the long term success of our communities and gives us a shared future. What kind of society do we expect when this is no longer feasible for the average person? What kind of culture and politics does it produce? I guess we’ll get to find out.

http://disq.us/p/1j2jb3h

Reincarnation

William Heard said:

Do explain how reincarnation can occur in a purely natural manner? This implies a lack of soul, or other level of consciousnesses besides physical.

Well, in Platonism (and Pythagoreanism before it probably), the “soul” refers to consciousness. All things that exist, like an individual consciousness, a tree, a nation, a rock, or anything you can think of, are “imperfect approximations” of what Plato calls “forms.” For instance, if you took all existing snowflakes, you could show that they are all indeed unique, but each snowflake is still a snowflake, so if you removed everything that made each unique, you would be left over with the general snowflake, “the snowflake itself,” the form of the snowflake. In a modern vernacular we would refer to this theoretical or meta snowflake as an “abstract object.”

If each snowflake didn’t exist once, exists, then melts, then each can be said to “become,” or “come into being and pass away,” so none is permanent. No things of any kind are permanent, they are all transformations or processes. But even if each passes away, each has approximated the form of the snowflake, and so the form can be said to be “transcendent,” as in it transcends any individual, impermanent snowflake. It is “eternal.”

The “soul” or consciousness is no different. It is a form like any other. Even in an embryonic universe that was just a bunch of primordial suns that would later explode to create the universe we now inhabit, consciousness, like the snowflake, was a potential that was held within it, an abstract object like the tree that could be which is held within the seed it grows from before it’s been planted. It’s “eternal.” It’s not a supernatural concept.

So, if we approximate forms in our social becoming, in the process of living out our lives, both as individuals and as groups, we approximate forms. We approximate heroes, villains, fools, geniuses, our existence is a comedy here, a tragedy there, and so on. We approximate all those “forms” we find in our myths, religious allegories, and so on. That is why they are myths for us in the first place, because they spoke to what is universally experienced. So you can argue that Achilles “lives” again and again, he’s “reincarnated,” but this is just figurative speech. If we believe we’re talking about the supernatural, then it’s like taking the figurative literally.

All beautiful things participate in the form of the beautiful, all just things in the form of justice, all truthful things in the form of truth, and so on. We could simply personify each form, give it a face and name like we often do other ideas, and it could easily be confused with a supernatural deity. What’s really interesting is that it almost doesn’t matter if we understood it as a supernatural deity or as an abstract object.

Think about it this way. If people fought a war or built a city in the name of Allah, Vishnu, or Zeus, what would the practical difference be if they instead fought a war or built a city in the name of Capitalism, Communism, Freedom, or Equality? For all practical purposes, there is no difference and to ask if Zeus exists would be like asking if Truth or Freedom exists. If we act on our belief in an idea and “approximate” that idea in the real world through our actions, the idea is as good as real.

I suspect this is how Buddhists once upon a time understood reincarnation and the wheel of suffering. It’s this or something like it.

So, Reincarnation is a purely social/physiological rebirth?

Look at the Buddha in Zen Buddhism. He’s not a person, he’s an idea. That’s why there is always some version of the “kill the Buddha” sermon. You “become” the Buddha, not literally in a supernatural sense, as if he is reawakened or something. You approach the experience and understanding that the historical Buddha, if he even existed at all, experienced.

It’s not different from the way we understand history when it becomes myth. And this is true for biblical history just as it is any other history which turns into an epic or creation story. Real people who did real things historically are confused with their symbolic meaning to us in the present.

So yeah, reincarnation is real in this sense. But it’s not supernatural. It also doesn’t require religious faith to accept its existence.

Euripides showed that all dramas or stories have universal features. It’s how we make meaning out of chronologies of events. Even if we look back at our own lives, we’ll invariably discover those universal features of drama, and it’s not as if we scripted those events. The universals reappear within the particulars by way of spontaneous order. Reincarnation is the same.