Friday, April 29, 2016

Counter-Currents In the News, 4/29/16

Some items.

Greg Johnson writes:

There are plenty of people in this movement who behave like cult members. The best way to appreciate that is to try to have a rational conversation about certain topics, like the importance of revisionism, and watch them descend rapidly into insults. Why? Because their views are essentially religious dogmas that they can’t question or defend.

Well, Greg is 100% right about that, but of course it’s not all about revisionism. A major point of EGI Notes is that a very large fraction of “movement” memes is nothing more than “essentially religious dogmas” that result in rage and insults when these are questioned. This blog questions those dogmas; much of my output for the last 15 years or so has questioned those dogmas, which is, I believe, one of the two major reasons my message has been poorly received by Der Movement.

In addition, one reason why Der Movement and HBD go along so well together, like peanut butter and jelly, is that they are so much alike: mindless dogma, a complete lack of reflection and self-criticism, an inability to question their own beliefs and to even consider the possibility of ever being wrong, straw man arguments, a stolid lack of introspection, an intolerance for anyone questioning the sacred beliefs, and their own quasi-religious pantheon of saints (Saint Adolf of the Swastika, Saint Dickie Lynn of the Altar of Asia). And Der Movement’s God? Well, Der Movement mocks the Jews with the (correct) claim that the Jews have made a religion out of worship of their own ethny. Are the quota queens of Der Movement any different?

Someone named “Slav” writes:

The moderates are attacking the radicals.

Quite right. Much of this is the mainstreamers “punching right.” It is mainstreamer aggression that provokes Vantards (such as myself, I guess) to “punch left” in response.

And then we have this majestic misunderstanding of how science works:

Evolutionism is sometimes a great epistemological tool, but it should not be used too much. There are at least four reasons to that. 
First, evolutionism itself is a progressive position. Cultural Marxism may reject the importance of genes, but the dispute between evolutionism and CM is an opposition between two progressive narratives. It is but a false alternative between two modern decoys. 

Whether or not “evolution” is true or false is independent of what some folks politically attribute to an “evolutionist” mindset. Now, perhaps the question is instead - “is evolutionary theory useful?” Well, one major point that racialism (racialism in general, NOT Der Movement) has on its side is that it speaks the truth. Being “evolutionist” is more speaking truth, and hence empowering, as opposed to going into traditionalist cul-de-sacs of esoteric nonsense.

Speaking of which:

We should aim at getting out of modernity, out of the pseudo-progressive narratives that negate esotericism, initiation, spiritual consciousness, and so on.

Which is all laughable nonsense, with no empirical basis, or appeal to the sorts of elites we require. And so on….

Second, evolutionism is necessarily false because, as said René Guénon, it is impossible that the superior appears from the inferior. 

No, retards like Guenon are “necessarily false” because evolution says nothing about “superiority” or “inferiority” (by human standards), it’s all about adaptive fitness in changing environments. In one environment (presence of the antibiotic), bacteria containing a plasmid that confers resistance to an antibiotic will outcompete those that do not; in another environment (no antibiotic), the bacteria without the plasmid will outcompete the others, as they will grow faster unencumbered by those extra genes (indeed, the plasmid will here be lost by the bacteria to increase their fitness). No values of “superiority/inferiority” need to be invoked.

Most critics of “Darwinism” (including Yockey) have a profound misunderstanding of that idea that they are criticizing.

Colours cannot appear from something that does not contain, at least, the potentiality of colour. Complex animals cannot appear from mere molecules. Only something which contains all the possibilities ever can be the true origin of complex beings and properties. Emergentism is but a modern position to not recognize the metaphysical truth.

As Pilate would say, “what is truth?’’ Is it the navel-gazing, solipsist mumblings of a brain-addled traditionalist, or is it objective facts bolstered by rigorous hypothesis testing? Metaphysics is religion. Get thee to a nunnery. Colors by the way are different wavelengths of visible electromagnetic radiation (light). 

Third, evolutionism does not allow for a true hope. If the world reduces itself to Darwinian competition, what can we hope for? The mere survival of White peoples? I would like something more.

Scientific validity cares not for what you hope for, you solipsist retard. Who are you to decide that your hopes determine reality? Oh wait, a typical Der Movement imbecile. Carry on. And why can’t “evolutionism” lead to the White race outcompeting others?

This comment is hypocritical as well.  What about the idea that the "superior" can never come from the "inferior?"  What about self-improvement?  Where is the "true hope" in that? The "inferior" are doomed! No hope!  No hope!  I would like something more.  Of course, the answer would be: "the inferior who improve themselves were truly superior all along, they just needed the stimulus to allow their natural superiority to express itself."  But of course. Der Movement is never falsifiable; it always has an explanation for every seeming contradiction.  Which is why it is a religion, and not science.

Four, Darwinism is ultimately antisocial. It implies that the essence of our world lies in competition, in perpetual struggles for life. 

Again, reality is what it is independent of whether it upsets our delicate sensibilities or not.

Darwinism exists too in capitalist markets, in the “economy of attention,” and if we trust Dawkins it goes down to each gene competing against each other. If we accept the world to be like this, how can we pretend to found a society? Societies only make sense in antagonisms against other societies. Pull that away and the antagonisms come back between individuals.

Dawkins is a fraud.

Everything we can hope for is perpetual struggle. This is not very tempting.


I think it goes without saying that I consider all this esoteric traditionalism, all the crazy house gibbering of Evola, Guenon, “Savitri Devi” et al., all the mumblings about Kali Yuga and the man who can’t tell time, ages of Gold and Iron (what about Tungsten and Tin?), etc . – I consider that all complete and utter nonsense. It’s religion, and religion is a fantasy for weak-minded people who can’t handle reality (or, more accurately, the extent to which humans can understand the objective reality they find themselves in).

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.