all 46 comments

[–]shilldetector 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Keith Woods is completely J woke and one of the most consistent figures on this issue without coming across as a lunatic nazi, and for that reason I follow him. He does do the occasional childish trolling of Jews that's kind of a signature of the alt right, but he generally seems to understand what is going on and why. Still, 90% of his content is just irrelevant naval gazing to me. That's fine, I'm not anti intellectual, but at the end of the day most of it is of limited value in explaining or changing the world we live in today. I'm much more practical minded.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Woods is too idealistic and refuses realism in favor of idealism which is informed by his Christian socialist beliefs.

His debate against imperialism was really weak and demonstrated that he understood nothing about military matters or supply chains. His video about fine tuning of the universe and how that proves God is real is really weak as well. For the record, I believe in God as well but his arguments against fine tuning were really weak.

People like Woods and Joel fall into the pitfall of over-intellectualization.

This is an issue with DR intellectualism. Too many philosophy and humanities graduates, blabbering about impractical and abstract concepts while being ignorant of real things like warfare, history, and scientific concepts.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Too many philosophy and humanities graduates, blabbering about impractical and abstract concepts while being ignorant of real things like warfare, history,

History is humanities.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Every "argument" for the existence of God is weak in my opinion. They're pretty much all logical fallacies.

By the way, didn't Joel debate imperialism?

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I disagree with some of the things you say, but I must say, some of the positions he takes on imperialism and internationalism are strange. I have not watched his debate on imperialism, but in this video on popular sovereignty he briefly addresses imperialism. I think he makes some good arguments against imperialist rhetoric, since given the situation in the West today such rhetoric is completely needless and a liability, but at the same time, the anti-imperialist position that he has adopted seems just as needless. I had thought that his condemnation of imperialism was motivated by a desire to build international solidarity, but according to the statements in this video the point of taking this position is to build more popular support in the West. In that case, it is difficult to see the utility of actually taking a position on the issue at all beyond the typical isolationist arguments about the cost of military interventionism, because beyond that imperialism really does not impact the lives of Western people in any way.

This is an issue with DR intellectualism. Too many philosophy and humanities graduates, blabbering about impractical and abstract concepts while being ignorant of real things like warfare, history, and scientific concepts.

You do not consider these a part of the humanities? I suppose STEM is a separate field, but there is also the philosophy of science which is just as important. All these make up a part of the humanities. I would assume that the study of warfare is also a part of the humanities, as a topic in history.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

beyond that imperialism really does not impact the lives of Western people in any way.

Keeping shipping lanes clear is not imperialism?

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You make a valid point, but I do not think it is relevant to my argument. If we have to be realistic, modern Western normies don't really care about the war in Syria or Israeli imperialism in Palestine.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fair enough.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You do not consider these a part of the humanities? I suppose STEM is a separate field, but there is also the philosophy of science which is just as important. All these make up a part of the humanities. I would assume that the study of warfare is also a part of the humanities, as a topic in history.

History is a humanities subject and imo one of the only good humanities subjects left. Warfare is a very murky field because it doesn't fall into any specific categories. There are elements of science, humanities, and economics in it.

It's just that I was complaining about the oversaturation of philosophers in the alt-right, Keith woods, Joel Davis, Jay Dyer, Apollonian Germ, Richard Spencer, Tyler Hamilton...all bombarding us with their droll philosophering...trying to tie present-day western decline to some obscure intellectual fad centuries ago, be it nominalism, Christianity, humanism, liberalism, etc.

To his credit, Joel Davis does point out correctly that the real root of the problem lies in the years in the immediate run up to ww2 and the events during and after it.

The absolute worst of the bunch is Jay Dyer.

[–]NeoRail[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I see that you do not like philosophy very much. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. From the people you listed, I am only really familiar with Keith Woods and to a much lesser extent, Joel Davis. I have seen very little from Hamilton, since I don't like his work. For the rest, besides Spencer, I don't know anything about them. Personally, I don't consider Spencer a philosopher though.

It should be acknowledged that philosophy is not always useful, especially not when it is wrong. As with everything, a lot of people who engage with philosophy are wrong. It is not hard to understand why people dislike it. Still, I think there is merit in studying the meaning and history of ideas. To give one example, Freudianism was precisely an obscure intellectual fad limited to elite liberal circles, yet it has come to completely shape the popular understanding of the mind in recent decades. These revolutions in the way we understand the world are fairly frequent, and often have negative consequences. People who attempt to trace remote ideological causes for European decline typically do this because they believe that this can be helpful with returning to an original state of truth and health. I think that is a respectable mentality, although often there are all sorts of confusions and diversions.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's a good point.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Woods isn't Christian. I have a feeling Davis is just a Christian larper who decided to convert to Christianity because he finds the traditionalist Christian way of combating liberalism appealing.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

because he finds the traditionalist Christian way of combating liberalism appealing.

Why? It has failed for centuries now.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I hope I am not being too harsh to Davis, but I feel the same way. He does not strike me as an especially Christian man. In general, I think most of the political Christians don't really take Christianity seriously. For them, it's just a convenient tool to promote right wing beliefs, since instead of having to justify their views on abortion, sexuality, etc. through secular logic, they can just refer to the Bible instead.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

since instead of having to justify their views on abortion, sexuality, etc. through secular logic, they can just refer to the Bible instead.

Which is silly. Secular arguments are much stronger.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In this era, yes, certainly. There is also the fact that secular logic makes it easier for people to understand each other and compromise. It is difficult to imagine why a secular rightist would be willing to side with the religious nationalists on issues like abortion, for example, if anti-abortionist positions are justified exclusively on the basis of Christian doctrine.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This is a bit too long for my taste,

I haven't really enjoyed anything Keith has put out in the last 3 or 4 months. Maybe longer. Some of his interviews are ok but that's about it.

In my view, that is also what "popular sovereignty" put in practice in general tends to boil down to - manufacturing consent. In any case, we are dealing with a phenomenon which does not present an eternal truth and is neither inevitable nor constant, but rather precariously maintained, even as a fiction or an illusion.

Well said and I agree. Popular sovereignty feels like ethnic nationalism subverted and diverted into bureaucracy with contractual terminology.

Watching this video has convinced me that while there is indeed great value in philosophy, a broad, high-quality historical education would probably be a lot more useful to Rightists today.

Strongly agree but there's a good deal of overlap between history, philosophy and politics. I don't think you can completely understand any of them without spending time on the other two. As you get closer to modernity in your study of history you'll notice that political concepts and philosophy becomes more convoluted and derivative.

History, when examined carefully and from the correct perspective, allows us to understand where various ideas come from, what purpose and whose goals they served or continue to serve, and what ideas are correct and incorrect.

Hard work and honest evaluation of historical sources always brings you back to certain timeless concepts. There's a manipulative self serving way to approach history and an honest and fair way. Unfortunately I think the 'honest' way is often tragic. History looks quite brutal and repetitive the deeper you go. People don't learn their lesson very easily.

It is not easy to read history correctly

That's an understatement. Ultimately history is delivered to us by imperfect messengers. Ourselves.

One of Evola's main contributions was, in my opinion, a Rightist theory of history, and his work even provides some practical examples of that theory put to action, but I am not sure if there is any significant amount of historical literature written from that perspective.

When I think of a 'rightist' theory of history I think of anti revisionism. There was no right or left in the past because the Jew had not yet captured institutions and created the left. Most classical historians were already living under right wing preceps as they documented. We only strive for a rightist view because we are like a man held down under water struggling for air.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I haven't really enjoyed anything Keith has put out in the last 3 or 4 months. Maybe longer. Some of his interviews are ok but that's about it.

Keith is an intelligent and well-read man but he's a very dull speaker and boring presenter. It's easy to fall asleep during his videos as we drones about Hegelianism or some other impenetrable philosophical jargon. It's far more interesting to listen to history, war, material analysis or literary/film analysis than this stuff.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What do you mean by anti revisionism?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

After the Jews marched through the institutions they started putting out their own interpretations of white people's history. This normally gets called either revisionism or post modernism. Historiography itself is another weird jew domain so I'll try not to get too far in the weeds. Revisionism just means taking what's considered a standard historical interpretation and flipping it to mean something else. Revisionism can have a negative connotation. For example mainstream holocaust 'historians' call any historians doing research they don't agree on 'revisionists'. Which implies there's political motivation to do the research. Basically if you're outside the academy looking in and don't like what they're doing they call you a 'revisionist' and then once you are in the academy you're not one. Personally I think almost all modern historians are so tainted by Jewish loxism they are all 'revisionist' over my white history. I think there are so many layers of 'approved' jewish revisionism that our true history is deeply buried.

Post modernism is a little more complicated. I can try to explain it if people are interested.

So when I say 'anti revisionism' I just mean going back to white scholars, that don't hate themselves or their people, analyzing history in more traditional ways. Whites are basically one of the few racial groups in the world that try to tell history from a semi neutral position.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For example mainstream holocaust 'historians' call any historians doing research they don't agree on 'revisionists'. Which implies there's political motivation to do the research.

I'm not sure about this. The mainstream calls these people denialists (still), but they prefer to be called revisionists. The mainstream narrative itself has been heavily revised from the initial "survivor" testimonies and show trial accusations.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The mainstream calls these people denialists (still), but they prefer to be called revisionists.

That's true. Revisionism is the more respectable word but I've talked to professors that will use the word revisionism when dealing with holocaust denial literature.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think what is necessary is a new historiography. The original historiography of the modern West is a liberal one, and the one that is currently supplanting the liberal historiography is a leftist one. What would be most constructive, in my opinion, would be writing a Traditionalist historiography that remains sympathetic towards European history no matter the era. That would allow people to form coherent identities and learn from the mistakes and successes of the past.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I'm with you with the history bit, but

why one would want to affirm popular sovereignty over aristocracy in the true sense, namely government by the most noble and able, whose rule would be in harmony with the well-being of the populus not because of any popular or social theories but simply because of shared loyalties, transcendent traditions, and virtues.

Good luck in finding them consistently. History shows us that we should expect the worst from people, and craft the political system accordingly.

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I will admit that it is difficult to maintain a state of virtue, but I do not think that building a system designed for people without virtue is the better solution. "Expecting the worst from people" is reasonable only if we are talking about a cynical people living in a cynical era. The aim should be to triumph over cynicism, not regulate it.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Expecting too much from the people puts you in a situation like the city on the hill of John Winthrop. Which means that everything can fall apart the moment the old generation die. It's better to rely on the system by itself.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

That would mean that in your view, humans are the objects and institutions are the subjects. My perspective is different. I think that a virtuous people will live virtuously even if their institutions are flawed, and a decadent people will live decadently and bring even the most noble institutions down to their level. On paper, the American system also promises many things like due process, fairness, free speech etc. but in practice it does not deliver. Why? Because political virtue is lacking.

I agree that there is a great danger when one generation hands the reins over to another, but this danger is always present, no matter the system. If the people fail in raising the next generation to be worthy of succeeding them, then that people is doomed regardless of how effective their institutions may be.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I mean, on an ideal level I agree with you, expecially since it's pretty clear we share a lot of ideological influences, but I don't think it will work in real world.

Ninja edit: the raising process of the future generations is part of the institutional architecture, at least as I understand that. Since you can't reliably count on the goodwill of people, you are going to train them up.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I think the goal should be to find the best and most qualified people, train them, and then allow them to raise and train the next generation with whatever means and institutions they consider most effective. In my opinion, it is this process of passing down traditions and loyalties that ensures the health and continuity of civilisation.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Yeah, you are describing an institution. I think the best would be something like the ordensburgen system, but also the way Venice worked is a very viable option to ensure a loyal and invested elite.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Yeah, you are describing an institution.

Not exactly. Institutions are one of the things that are passed down. It is up to each successive generation to use them appropriately.

I dislike the Venetian system, but me and /u/Markimus have discussed the Ordensburg system extensively. Evola also wrote a couple of essays on the SS and their model for building an elite. He praised this model precisely for accounting for the human factor and contrasted it with the more mechanical, bureaucratic and inflexible structure of the Italian state.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You are speaking specifically about a cultural institution, which is entrusted to form the elite. The process you are describing, were the actual elite is tasked to train the next one, is an institution.

But anyway. The Venetian republic lasted more than 1000 years and it was pretty good in maintaining an healthy elite. Very patriotic aristocracy, extremely concerned with the health of the state, overall that's something it could work right now. The ordensburgen system is extremely good, which is why I cited it, but we really don't know how well it was going go.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You are speaking specifically about a cultural institution, which is entrusted to form the elite. The process you are describing, were the actual elite is tasked to train the next one, is an institution.

I think this is a flawed way of viewing things.

But anyway. The Venetian republic lasted more than 1000 years and it was pretty good in maintaining an healthy elite. Very patriotic aristocracy, extremely concerned with the health of the state, overall that's something it could work right now.

What do you like about Venice?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I couldn't finish the video because it's too dry and boring. These long videos require at least some amount of charisma and articulation that both -- especially Keith Woods -- lack. Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, and Mike from Imperium Press are much better at keeping the audience interested.

Anyway, I did read your post and agree with most of it, except for the idea that natural law is antitraditional. I'm pretty sure ancient Rome was based on natural law.

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Personally, I find Woods to be a very interesting speaker, so I can't agree, although I must admit that I have seen little from Spencer or IP, and nothing from Greg Johnson. For me, the selling point of Keith is his logical rigour, his insight and his perspective.

Anyway, I did read your post and agree with most of it, except for the idea that natural law is antitraditional. I'm pretty sure ancient Rome was based on natural law.

We could probably reach an agreement on this topic, but we would need to get down to the specifics and examine our definitions. I certainly do not think that the Romans subscribed to the form of natural law popular with Rightists today. For the Romans, the moral laws of the ancestors, the divine laws and positive law played a very important role. Authority was always attributed with a divine character, one example being the cult of the emperor and the idea of the numen.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Isn't Joel somehow affiliated with Imperium Press?

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Both Davis and Woods have strong connections with Imperium Press. I don't think they are formally affiliated, though.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes.