It’s just race. In homogenous polities it is class. In heterogenous polities it is race. The experiment is over. Democracy lost. National Socialism (fascism) won.
Theme: Class
-
National Socialism (fascism) Won.
It’s just race. In homogenous polities it is class. In heterogenous polities it is race. The experiment is over. Democracy lost. National Socialism (fascism) won.
-
THEY AREN’T PROGRESSIVE BUT CONSUMPTIVE I mean if you call the right conservativ
THEY AREN’T PROGRESSIVE BUT CONSUMPTIVE
I mean if you call the right conservative and the left consumptive, then you have the correct terminology.
Conservatives are in fact – CONSERVATIVE.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 20:41:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059908686339076096
-
THE CURRENT ORDER UNDERSTOOD by Daniel Gurpide (must read, important concepts) M
THE CURRENT ORDER UNDERSTOOD
by Daniel Gurpide
(must read, important concepts)
Man’s taming of the living world occurred in parallel to the taming of the mass—by the elite. This historical phase—initiated with the Neolithic Revolution and concluding today with the passage into the so-called ‘Biopolitical Revolution’—is extremely important. It is not difficult to recognise in it what was called by Karl Marx ‘the end of primitive communist society,’ by Sigmund Freud ‘the killing of the primal father,’ and by Claude Lévi-Strauss ‘the separation between Nature and Culture.’
Significant testimony to this period has been preserved in Indo-European mythology, thanks to the story of the formation of the society of the gods—as related, for example, through the Aesir-Vanir War.
The Aesir and the Vanir represent two different ways of life. During the founding war—which set at odds, in symbolic form, the lifestyles of the great hunters and the farmers that emerged out of the Neolithic era—Odin-Wotan, as the pre-eminent god of magic, ‘domesticated’ the Vanir with his magic and assigned to them an harmonious position in the organic tri-functional society, where the ‘domestication of nature’ was completed. This myth signifies the transition from a generic instinctive human subject to a specific conscious human subject who exercises magic power over other men, thereby engendering the conditions for social stratification that are the distinguishing feature of every post-Neolithic society.
Society is now organised into two castes, two social groups. One, which is the dominant class, assumes sovereign and warrior functions; the other assumes the economic function. This structure is reflected in the society of gods, whose genesis the myth, in its own way, reveals. The new society is constituted by the superimposition and domination of ‘magic’ above religious man, of predator above producer. The myth of the Aesir and the Vanir, like that of the Romans and the Sabines, highlights the respective characters of both social groups or families of gods. The former—‘preying’ gods who continue the activities of the First Man as self-domesticating man—assert themselves by virtue of the binding magic of their chief, Odin/Wotan; the latter, ‘producing’ gods, carry on the activities of the First Man as ‘self-domesticated’ man. They must and do submit to the former, despite the power deriving from their ‘wealth’ (symbolised by Gullweig’s gold).
This social-divine dichotomy derives from a particular world perception that may be found again, remarkably, in the structure of the Indo-European languages, with the sharp separation between subject and object. ‘Man-subject,’ who continues to exercise ‘magic’ on himself (self-control), begins to exercise it now on the other type: ‘man-object.’ The domesticating ‘magic’ is exercised on man-object from without—and the canons are fixed by other-than-him. Liberated by this ‘religious’ bond from the need to domesticate man in himself, he can now dedicate himself fully to ‘domesticating’ nature: that is, to the production of goods.
The coexistence of these two social types in a harmonious society takes place by synoecism—contractual arrangement—following a ‘war of foundation.’ The sovereign god among Indo-Europeans is always both a terrible god—exercising a ‘magic’ constriction—and a beneficent guarantor of ‘contracts.’ From the Indo-European origins there was always a clear conception of this social contract, which found its most accomplished expression among the Romans.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 16:51:00 UTC
-
( Diary: Class View: When we were young, I think, to afford to pay for the busin
( Diary: Class View: When we were young, I think, to afford to pay for the business, my parents bought a downmarket (smaller) home, so that they could make payments on both home and business at the same time. My father ‘needed’ to be an entrepreneur just as I did, just as his father, and his fathers before .. ad infinitum. That choice made us the equivalent of what today is house + business poor for quite a while. I have done the same multiple times. Its how you fund a biz. Anyway, You do notice these economic things as a kid but I didn’t give it much weight. I don’t remember wanting for anything except during the oil crisis. But it’s possible that’s the reason I was in so many fking fights all the time with these kids, and that I’m aware of these differences between classes when I wouldn’t have been otherwise. So it’s possible my upbringing influenced me a bit since in my worldview pretty much everyone was ‘an idiot’ (zombie) that shouldn’t be allowed to run with scissors (or get too near me). I would have reacted differently to life if we had moved somewhere around the lake with people whom we shared more similar values. I mean, my father was a spoiled brat with full time nanny, a 40-50s prep school upbringing, and a small liberal arts college, and that returned from europe with a sports car to be a show off. (My mother a very attractive but very naive farm girl). My grandparents were very well off, had multiple homes, and were well educated and my great grandparents also. Everyone had plenty of inheritance money so to speak. So I mean, dad was not happy about the circumstance, but I don’t think in the early 60’s anyone expected the late 60’s and early 70’s to be the utter fking chaos it was. So he sort of ‘bought at the wrong time’ I think. So yeah, I mean, I assume it did frame my thinking for a bit. But entrepreneurial class is what it is. And thats my frame of reference. Difference is that my family is also historically (a) military, and (b) puritanical. And from what I can tell it’s freaking genetic all the way through. I mean, I can read Doolittle’s Epistles from london in 1700 and that man’s mind and mine are wired identically.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 16:46:00 UTC
-
THEY AREN’T PROGRESSIVE BUT CONSUMPTIVE I mean if you call the right conservativ
THEY AREN’T PROGRESSIVE BUT CONSUMPTIVE
I mean if you call the right conservative and the left consumptive, then you have the correct terminology.
Conservatives are in fact – CONSERVATIVE.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 15:41:00 UTC
-
The Current Order Understood
THE CURRENT ORDER UNDERSTOOD
by Daniel Gurpide
(must read, important concepts) Manâs taming of the living world occurred in parallel to the taming of the massâby the elite. This historical phaseâinitiated with the Neolithic Revolution and concluding today with the passage into the so-called âBiopolitical Revolutionââis extremely important. It is not difficult to recognise in it what was called by Karl Marx âthe end of primitive communist society,â by Sigmund Freud âthe killing of the primal father,â and by Claude Lévi-Strauss âthe separation between Nature and Culture.â Significant testimony to this period has been preserved in Indo-European mythology, thanks to the story of the formation of the society of the godsâas related, for example, through the Aesir-Vanir War. The Aesir and the Vanir represent two different ways of life. During the founding warâwhich set at odds, in symbolic form, the lifestyles of the great hunters and the farmers that emerged out of the Neolithic eraâOdin-Wotan, as the pre-eminent god of magic, âdomesticatedâ the Vanir with his magic and assigned to them an harmonious position in the organic tri-functional society, where the âdomestication of natureâ was completed. This myth signifies the transition from a generic instinctive human subject to a specific conscious human subject who exercises magic power over other men, thereby engendering the conditions for social stratification that are the distinguishing feature of every post-Neolithic society. Society is now organised into two castes, two social groups. One, which is the dominant class, assumes sovereign and warrior functions; the other assumes the economic function. This structure is reflected in the society of gods, whose genesis the myth, in its own way, reveals. The new society is constituted by the superimposition and domination of âmagicâ above religious man, of predator above producer. The myth of the Aesir and the Vanir, like that of the Romans and the Sabines, highlights the respective characters of both social groups or families of gods. The formerââpreyingâ gods who continue the activities of the First Man as self-domesticating manâassert themselves by virtue of the binding magic of their chief, Odin/Wotan; the latter, âproducingâ gods, carry on the activities of the First Man as âself-domesticatedâ man. They must and do submit to the former, despite the power deriving from their âwealthâ (symbolised by Gullweigâs gold). This social-divine dichotomy derives from a particular world perception that may be found again, remarkably, in the structure of the Indo-European languages, with the sharp separation between subject and object. âMan-subject,â who continues to exercise âmagicâ on himself (self-control), begins to exercise it now on the other type: âman-object.â The domesticating âmagicâ is exercised on man-object from withoutâand the canons are fixed by other-than-him. Liberated by this âreligiousâ bond from the need to domesticate man in himself, he can now dedicate himself fully to âdomesticatingâ nature: that is, to the production of goods. The coexistence of these two social types in a harmonious society takes place by synoecismâcontractual arrangementâfollowing a âwar of foundation.â The sovereign god among Indo-Europeans is always both a terrible godâexercising a âmagicâ constrictionâand a beneficent guarantor of âcontracts.â From the Indo-European origins there was always a clear conception of this social contract, which found its most accomplished expression among the Romans. -
Diary: Class View.
( Diary: Class View: When we were young, I think, to afford to pay for the business, my parents bought a downmarket (smaller) home, so that they could make payments on both home and business at the same time. My father ‘needed’ to be an entrepreneur just as I did, just as his father, and his fathers before .. ad infinitum. That choice made us the equivalent of what today is house + business poor for quite a while. I have done the same multiple times. Its how you fund a biz. Anyway, You do notice these economic things as a kid but I didn’t give it much weight. I don’t remember wanting for anything except during the oil crisis. But it’s possible that’s the reason I was in so many fking fights all the time with these kids, and that I’m aware of these differences between classes when I wouldn’t have been otherwise. So it’s possible my upbringing influenced me a bit since in my worldview pretty much everyone was ‘an idiot’ (zombie) that shouldn’t be allowed to run with scissors (or get too near me). I would have reacted differently to life if we had moved somewhere around the lake with people whom we shared more similar values. I mean, my father was a spoiled brat with full time nanny, a 40-50s prep school upbringing, and a small liberal arts college, and that returned from europe with a sports car to be a show off. (My mother a very attractive but very naive farm girl). My grandparents were very well off, had multiple homes, and were well educated and my great grandparents also. Everyone had plenty of inheritance money so to speak. So I mean, dad was not happy about the circumstance, but I don’t think in the early 60’s anyone expected the late 60’s and early 70’s to be the utter fking chaos it was. So he sort of ‘bought at the wrong time’ I think. So yeah, I mean, I assume it did frame my thinking for a bit. But entrepreneurial class is what it is. And thats my frame of reference. Difference is that my family is also historically (a) military, and (b) puritanical. And from what I can tell it’s freaking genetic all the way through. I mean, I can read Doolittle’s Epistles from london in 1700 and that man’s mind and mine are wired identically.)
-
They Aren’t Progressive but Consumptive
(FB 1541536882 Timestamp) THEY AREN’T PROGRESSIVE BUT CONSUMPTIVE I mean if you call the right conservative and the left consumptive, then you have the correct terminology. Conservatives are in fact – CONSERVATIVE.
-
The Current Order Understood
THE CURRENT ORDER UNDERSTOOD
by Daniel Gurpide
(must read, important concepts) Manâs taming of the living world occurred in parallel to the taming of the massâby the elite. This historical phaseâinitiated with the Neolithic Revolution and concluding today with the passage into the so-called âBiopolitical Revolutionââis extremely important. It is not difficult to recognise in it what was called by Karl Marx âthe end of primitive communist society,â by Sigmund Freud âthe killing of the primal father,â and by Claude Lévi-Strauss âthe separation between Nature and Culture.â Significant testimony to this period has been preserved in Indo-European mythology, thanks to the story of the formation of the society of the godsâas related, for example, through the Aesir-Vanir War. The Aesir and the Vanir represent two different ways of life. During the founding warâwhich set at odds, in symbolic form, the lifestyles of the great hunters and the farmers that emerged out of the Neolithic eraâOdin-Wotan, as the pre-eminent god of magic, âdomesticatedâ the Vanir with his magic and assigned to them an harmonious position in the organic tri-functional society, where the âdomestication of natureâ was completed. This myth signifies the transition from a generic instinctive human subject to a specific conscious human subject who exercises magic power over other men, thereby engendering the conditions for social stratification that are the distinguishing feature of every post-Neolithic society. Society is now organised into two castes, two social groups. One, which is the dominant class, assumes sovereign and warrior functions; the other assumes the economic function. This structure is reflected in the society of gods, whose genesis the myth, in its own way, reveals. The new society is constituted by the superimposition and domination of âmagicâ above religious man, of predator above producer. The myth of the Aesir and the Vanir, like that of the Romans and the Sabines, highlights the respective characters of both social groups or families of gods. The formerââpreyingâ gods who continue the activities of the First Man as self-domesticating manâassert themselves by virtue of the binding magic of their chief, Odin/Wotan; the latter, âproducingâ gods, carry on the activities of the First Man as âself-domesticatedâ man. They must and do submit to the former, despite the power deriving from their âwealthâ (symbolised by Gullweigâs gold). This social-divine dichotomy derives from a particular world perception that may be found again, remarkably, in the structure of the Indo-European languages, with the sharp separation between subject and object. âMan-subject,â who continues to exercise âmagicâ on himself (self-control), begins to exercise it now on the other type: âman-object.â The domesticating âmagicâ is exercised on man-object from withoutâand the canons are fixed by other-than-him. Liberated by this âreligiousâ bond from the need to domesticate man in himself, he can now dedicate himself fully to âdomesticatingâ nature: that is, to the production of goods. The coexistence of these two social types in a harmonious society takes place by synoecismâcontractual arrangementâfollowing a âwar of foundation.â The sovereign god among Indo-Europeans is always both a terrible godâexercising a âmagicâ constrictionâand a beneficent guarantor of âcontracts.â From the Indo-European origins there was always a clear conception of this social contract, which found its most accomplished expression among the Romans.