People who have invaded and occupied the lands of others always complain loudly when it happens to them. Just noticing. At what point does the newest occupant get to say “This is truly mine!”Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 2:33 am AJ,
In response to your most recent message to me:
Your definition of historical "revisionism" assumes that the "unrevised" history is the perspective held at the time by those who invaded the lands of others. This self-servingly leaves out the perspective of those whose lands were invaded. Can you explain why you preference the one over the other in what you seem to intend as some sort of objectively correct ("unrevised") history?
I know, it’s a conundrum…
I do not so much preference one view over the other. In your case, and that of a prevalent school of thinking today, I only want to point out that it is a strange form of revisionism and reverse-engineering.
Also in your case (if you will permit a bolder statement without offense) you undermine your own right to be in the land you say was got through injustice. It is not just you though. It is millions of people who tske up that view. The anti-white movement turns virulently against itself. Psychologically I can think of nothing more strange. Myself, I do not want to live in such a state. So I entertain the sort of ideas Bowden talks about and therefore other sorts of perspectives.
You have embodied a self-consuming existential philosophy that you seem to totalize. I seek an antidote for it. And it is a big ‘it’. It is an immense psychological edifice.
To me this is proof of its unrealness. It is therefore a genuine or an absolute idealism. The Cat Bird’s seat of sheer idealism. I am not unsusceptible to this way of seeing though. So I acknowledge that that is the case.You further go on to imply that tribal conquests of the lands of other tribes is somehow problematic to my view, suggesting as a resolution to this supposed problem that those like myself could 'say something like "Well, that is internecine struggle"' - but, for me, this is not even a problem in the first place: land theft is simply wrong whoever commits the offense, whether tribe from tribe or European from African.
Since that is so you will by choice be always on the outside of understanding something crucial to and about our present.I'm not especially interested in Marx's supposed influence in this area, because right is right whoever affirms it: in general, it is simply wrong to steal from others that which they legitimately possess (right, hq?).
I agree: misguided as in running against the common current.I had a bit of a read (though incomplete) of the speech by Jonathan Bowden the YT video of which you linked to. I think it's pretty misguided, although there are aspects that seem sane, such as his objection to US warmongering in the Middle East.
He reveals his true colours in his objection to Barack Obama as POTUS on the basis of his race. That's a great segue into this:
It was truly a just and proper act that Obama was elected. His presidency, oddly enough, began the shattering in evidence today. Again: just noticing. Who can say where it will all lead. So simultaneously it heralded the beginning of the opening of cracks in the social fabric. This is part of my point (and note I voted for him the first round): the righteous act, the thing that seems ‘right & good’ does not lead to that outcome. It leads to other outcomes, not those desired. That is the point where I, personally, begin to consider the arguments of those of more conservative ideological orientation: Weaver, Guénon, Evola. I have to turn against that internal structures established in me.
To entertain their ideas is, it seems, to turn against entire ‘edifices’ in ourselves. But don’t ask me what the right ordering (of culture, of the world) is: I am uncertain and undecided.
Cheap shot! I only have so much energy and time available.You quote me asking you: "Are you brave enough to come out and express [the motivating views of yours to which you only vaguely allude] explicitly?"
You respond: "I believe so."
Only to the extent of referencing the speech of another man, it seems.
In fact my life (that is my intellectual and spiritual life) is dedicated to trying to understand things better. I feel — no I am certain — that I’ve been in deprogramming processes and I have observed that they take so much time.