Disclaimer:

 

Nothing within this page or on this site overall is the product of Panagiotis Kondylis's thought and work unless it is a faithful translation of something Kondylis wrote. Any conclusions drawn from something not written by Panagiotis Kondylis (in the form of an accurate translation) cannot constitute the basis for any valid judgement or appreciation of Kondylis and his work. 

IF YOU WANT TO READ KONDYLIS, AS YOU SHOULD, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME READING THIS PAGE!!!

(If the ruminations on this "Translator’s Page" have any value, it is to show explicitly the difference in level, content, comprehensiveness, depth,... of analysis, and in style, of Kondylis compared to someone of average ability trying to be “smart” like a typical “blogger”, for instance... the chasm, the gulf is truly VAST, but it might be worth exploring in the constant struggle for self-improvement before mortality has the final say...)

It's so easy to lapse into Normativism, one's own Identity, Cultural and Aesthetic Preferences, Prejudice, Misrepresentation, Error,... Fantasies of Power,... In fact, it's Natural... [if there are errors, as most certainly there are, then they'll need to be identified and corrected...]



Dedicated to my Parents, with Respect:

"You can uproot the Flesh, but You cannot uproot the Spirit with

 Strong, Long Roots"...










Political typology in the West under the gaze of Panagiotis Kondylis




Original Greek:

Πολιτικὴ τυπολογία ἐν τῇ Δύσει ὑπὸ τὸ βλέμμα τοῦ Παναγιώτου (Χαλκο)Κονδύλου














INJUSTICE!

Given that Reinhart Koselleck, talking about (his student) Kondylis (who dedicated Conservatism (Konservativismus) to Conze) after Kondylis's death, thought of Werner Conze as "our common teacher in social history" [1], and if one begins to read some of Conze's historical-scientific work, it becomes patently clear that someone's scientific life work cannot be judged (exclusively or even primarily) based on what regime someone lived under (for a certain period of time) and what regime, along with its ideological programmes and policies, he may or may not have supported, and whether he may or may not have made errors in some of his historical studies (he was a human after all)! If Reinhart Koselleck is one of the greatest or most important historians of the 20th century, which obviously he is, based on his historical-scientific work, then Werner Conze is arguably the GREATEST historian of the 20th century only for his substantial involvement in the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland (macro-historical interdisciplinary approach; the founding and distinguishing of a concept vis-à-vis content, other concepts and different understandings across time, etc.), and his positive influence on the historical science practised by Koselleck and Kondylis. (Both of my grandfathers, whom I never met, were murdered by or died because of the regime in question and one of my great-grandfathers died in the World War prior to the regime in question because of certain countries' imperialism, and my other direct ancestors, whom I also never met, were all extremely adversely affected (including hunger, illness, extreme pauperisation, etc.), and died prematurely, like millions and millions and millions of other Europeans in the 20th century, but that does not preclude me from judging scholarship as scholarship). ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! END OF STORY.


[1] Reinhart Koselleck, «Παναγιώτης Κονδύλης», speech given by Koselleck, 20 November 2000, at the Goethe-Institut, Athens, Greece, translated from German into Greek by Kostas Koutsourelis in: Κονδύλης Παναγιώτης, Μελαγχολία και Πολεμική. Δοκίμια και Μελετήματα, Θεμέλιο, Αθήνα, 2002, p. 16. 


(Another example: Yasujirō Ozu participated militarily as a conscript in the Japanese occupation of China, from 1937 to 1939. Who knows what crimes, atrocities and abominations he may or may not have witnessed, turned a blind eye to, or even participated in? Whatever the truth, what relevance could his military service possibly have in relation to, in my opinion - and not only in my opinion - cinema's greatest artist and most emotionally sensitive story teller, particularly of the family drama or saga?)... 













"...in particular, Weber seems to me above all to be a lofty example of intellectual(-spiritual) ethos, grounded in a passion for the truth, even when its price is psychologically high, because it means the detachment from every hope fed by illusions". 
















If the task of the "observer of human affairs" or absolutely consistent social scientist is to dispassionately describe and explain social(-historical-cultural-civilisational-political-anthropological-ideational-ideological-philosophical-etc.) phenomena and facts, as Kondylis did in more than 5000 pages of (densely packed) written work, then why would such an observer of human affairs care about whether Hellenism survives or not, and not e.g. the very short, or relatively tall, pygmies of the Congo? The answer lies in the fact that the observer of human affairs has specific "existential bonds" too, including descent, cultural inheritance, (differentiated but nonetheless clearly ascertainable) cultural identity, etc.; yet even in his relatively few writings about Greece and Hellenism vis-à-vis Turkey, E.U., U.S.A., Kondylis's tone remains strictly descriptive and prescriptive in a general hypothetical sense ("if x state threatens y state militarily under these circumstances, then y state needs to consider, inter alia, z option in undertaking a pre-emptive military strike..., or, if y state wants to not fall very far down the rankings of (nation-)states (perhaps to the point of eventual non-existence) in the planetary era, then it must do a, b, c, and, d, e, f,...")... it goes without saying that the observer of human affairs can also - when he is not acting strictly and solely as an observer of human affairs - have certain cultural and artistic preferences, but as far as Kondylis is concerned, these were never specifically referred to apart from the fact that his "thoughts world" was generally eurocentric, again, due to specific "existential bonds", though he also referred a number of times to insightful observations made by (historically) non-Westerners such as Indians, Chinese, Arabs and even Africans... (shedding “eurocentrism”[, “misogyny”, “homo(transislamonegrorefugeespecialabilitiesxenoOther)phobia”, etc., etc., etc.,…], if that is what someone wants to do, might make one “less European”[, “less toxically masculine”, “less (crudely) racist”, "more egalitarian and much more humanitarian", "more open with fewer boundaries and borders", “less hateful” of those who were once known as “the (half-human) weaker (fairer) sex, abnormal, contra naturam, mentally ill, lunatic and retarted, deranged and sick, exotic, barbarous, Barbarians, half-caste and mongrel, (sub-human) Apes, invaders, hordes of savage colonists, handicapped and spastic", etc., etc., etc.,…], but it won’t make an iota of difference to the social-ontological and anthropological constants which characterise all humans, explained and referred to in various Kondylisian works…)…





























If Kondylis’s thought, but more pertinently, the volume and scope of his work, could not have been possible without (relatively white) (Western) European civilisation, particularly in its multifaceted evolution from antiquity until the decades before and after WWII, and if such civilisation is “doomed” to extinguishment by not retaining a sufficient number of its key elements (regardless of whether it remains nearly fully or mainly or partially relatively white or not – relative racial and or religious homogeneity is not a prerequisite of relatively high social cohesion and social order, even though such relative homogeneity (homogeneities) could well be, but never necessarily are... – totally irrespective of personal aesthetic judgements and preferences regarding (relative) homogeneity and (relative) heterogeneity), then Kondylis’s thought and work is “doomed” even in the relatively short-term to what nihilism ultimately is: nothingness – unless other civilisations pick up the slack, so to speak... and want to know about humans and their affairs (at a macro or general level), to the (almost) full extent it is possible to know, even though there is no need to... on the other hand, if “whiteness” were to make a successful long-lasting and dominant comeback, whether in one, a few or many (different) ways, it would probably do so in a manner which would be intensely normative, and hence without any need whatsoever for the relatively free, naked observer of human affairs. [Kondylis NEVER wrote about "whiteness", but about "Europe", "the West" or even "Hellenism", and "exoticism", the non-European (i.e. (North) African, Middle Eastern[, and presumably Asian and Central-South American]) population explosion vis-à-vis European demographic decline and vis-à-vis North America, as well as the uncontrolled migration of peoples and "human rights" as universalistic ideology and until now – if not necessarily forever – as unfulfillable practice,... and also about terrorism... and terror... the acute danger of anomie, social disintegration,... and conventional sovereign statehood, given the present constitution of world society, being the only means to effectively combat anomie...].


A matter of (personal) taste… but mostly also once recognised as classic… 











For as long as Western mass democracies operate on the basis of “obsono, ergo sum” (“I shop, therefore I am”), and not just for the (very) few, the various fringe or larger groups contained within them will at best constitute friendly societies, beer-drinking and or book clubs, bands and or gatherings of trouble makers, agitators,... and other such organised collective identities with specific political (ideological, aesthetic, cultural, religious, legal, civilisational,...) aims, goals, ambitions, dreams, fantasies,... Societies in the West will be further transformed again, not just (perhaps) racially, religiously, sexually and culturally-normatively, but again (possibly or very likely) more broadly and more substantially, when these societies’ relationship with the overcoming of the scarcity of goods changes (including, possibly, technologically, and as to the state of the natural world). (Very) macro-historically, Marx’s schema of base-superstructure has always been partially correct. Just like Weber’s “protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism” as far as the “spirit(-intellect)” is concerned. The economy, just like “the spirit”, is a part of society, part of the social and (certainly in Western mass democracies) a (very important) part of the political. The Agricultural Revolution constituted a world-historical NOVUM. So did the Industrial Revolution. Next? More macro-historically, biological and spiritual(-intellectual) factors (presumably) play a more important role than the relatively static “hunting and gathering” of the pre-agricultural past. At the end of the day, every situation must be examined specifically in order to determine what factors are playing what role(s) and to what extent, if such a thing is possible, and to the extent that scientific (empirically descriptive and (causally) explanatory) knowledge can be obtained. Those, i.e. the vast majority, of “scholars, social scientists, et al.” by privileging certain (often wrongly understood) aspects of society and people such as race, class, “gender” (sex), the economy, the ethnos, etc., etc., etc.,... will almost invariably do what (in terms of the great masses) all humans do: i.e. peddle and disseminate empirically unfounded belief(s), false consciousness, ideology,... One way of looking at Kondylis’s work, is that he put into practice the promise of Marxism of science as regards human affairs against all forms of ideology and ideolgical(ly tainted) understanding...

THAT INTELLECTUAL (inclusive, at most, of slightly or partly scientific knowledge) BEHAVIOUR, being peddled and disseminated, WILL NEVER CHANGE...   

[Kondylis never referred directly to Werner Sombart. He did oversee the publication of Sombart's Der Bourgeois in Greek. It is probably safe to say that some of the theses in Warum gibt es in den Vereinigten Staaten keinen Sozialismus? and Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben and in Sombart's many other works might have some validity. It is obviously a matter for serious historians and researchers]

 


 

 

Books proposed to be translated into English from Greek by (young) scholars with a sound knowledge of both languages, and who want to do something (epistemologically) worthwhile rather than simply regurgitating ideological rubbish:

 

 

Contogeorgis, George (Georgios) (Γιώργος Κοντογιώργης (b. 1947)), who holds Kondylis in high regard – his tetralogy on the “Hellenic Cosmo(s)system (World (Cosmic) System)” («Τὸ Ἑλληνικὸ Κοσμοσύστημα» (2006 (A); 2014 (B); to be published soon, 2017? (C and D)), and the related to that tetralogy: “Knowledge and Method. 29 questions about cosmosystemic gnoseology (theory of knowledge)” («ΓΝΩΣΗ ΚΑΙ ΜΕΘΟΔΟΣ. 29 ΕΡΩΤΗΜΑΤΑ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΚΟΣΜΟΣΥΣΤΗΜΙΚΗ ΓΝΩΣΙΟΛΟΓΙΑ» (2017)), and other titles such as: “Nation (Ethnos) and “modernising” modernity” («Ἔθνος καὶ «ἐκσυγχρονιστικὴ» νεωτερικότητα» (2006; 2017 (2nd ed.)); “Modernity and Progress. The Greek example” («Νεοτερικότητα καὶ Πρόοδος. Τὸ ἑλληνικὸ παράδειγμα (2001)); “Citizen (Politis) and Polis. The concept and typology of “citizenship (politeiotita: having full legal responsibilities and rights in the Polis)”” («ΠΟΛΙΤΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΟΛΙΣ. ΕΝΝΟΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΥΠΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΤΗΣ «ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΟΤΗΤΑΣ»» (2003))... all = source of many fertile ideas for both history and political science, even though a number of Contogeorgis’s positions are (historically and) empirically unsustainable. Also of interest is his Ph.D. and first book: “The theory of revolutions in Aristotle” = La théorie des révolutions chez Aristote, LGDJ, Paris, 1978 (= « θεωρία τῶν ἐπαναστάσεων τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλη», 1982).

 

 

Papaioannou, Kostas (Κῶστας Παπαϊωάννου (1925-1981)) – his book on (Soviet) communism, “The genesis (origin(ation), emergence) of totalitarianism” (« γένεση τοῦὁλοκληρωτισμοῦ»), first published in 1959 (current scholarly edition: 2017), constitutes a significant, perhaps even unnoticed watershed, moment in international scholarship (Arendt’s related book first appeared in 1951), showing inter alia, how (Soviet) “totalitarianism” (as mixing or fusion of “tyranny” and “dictatorship”, whilst also transforming society radically, and not just bringing about a revolution in the polity as e.g. in Roman times) arose from (massifying and atomising) industrial mass society in specific (geo)political contexts of (economic) development and underdevelopment, bureaucratisation (and militarisation), and by specific actions of specific individuals and (social, political-ideological) movements and Parties (all of which, as Progress and Modernisation (the “maturation” of vita activa as opposed to vita contemplativa with a Telos firmly implanted in material, This World, goals and aims), generally also applies to fascism and national socialism, and – albeit usually or often less intens(iv)ely and less blood-soaked – to the Western parliamentary “democracies”, notwithstanding any cosmetic, minor or substantial (country-specific) differences), by an interlocutor of the great Raymond Aron and the very likable Octavio Paz,... Papaioannou, like (most) other important and significant thinkers, was never carried away by idiotic (ideological) beliefs in “(good) culture” overcoming “all that is evil” in the “bad culture”, and nature, of and in, humans, since humans are both nature and culture and never just one without the other.... Papaioannou also authored a number of other interesting books!

 

Consideration should also be given to the translation into English of books by, inter alia:

Ioannis Th. Mazis (Ἰωάννης Θ. Μάζης)

Panagiotis Hefaistos (Παναγιώτης Ἥφαιστος)

 

 

 

 

Food for thought

 

Only – at least at the time of thinking and writing such things and if he wasn't just referring to himself – a narcissistic half-wit or intellectually overdeveloped retard could say something like “there can be no poetry or song after x, y or z massacre, mass extermination, torture and barbarism”... Obviously, such a person, blinded as he is by perhaps tribal and or particularistic loyalties, biasses, prejudice and (impulsive) reactions, and gross intellectual fetishisations (?and who knows what psycho-somatic disorders and disturbances?), does not know, or does not want to know, the a, b, c of humans...

[A truly great Poet in fact suggested that without Barbarians there can be no long-term vital (“high”) Culture; without (even the thought of) Barbarians and their Confrontation, all that remains is Decadence and Collective Suicide and Disappearance from History’s Stage... Many, if not most humans, if not nearly all of those who Lament, tend to Cry for their Dead; it’s their Dead they Honour... = basic human knowledge... that Odysseus, as a prototype of the “bourgeois individual” and not as any human in a struggle for (more) power, i.e. identity and the recognition of his identity, “cunningly and opportunistically” reacted to circumstances “instrumentally” through the use of “instrumental Reason” based on self-interest

(as if Reason can be anything other than instrumental and based on (the perception of one’s own) self-interest!!! and as if “objective Reason” is something to be determined by certain “philosophers” who decide what our “deepest needs and desires” are, what is (ethically and normatively) “rational and irrational”, what “critical thinking” is, what “freedom” is!!! – even though it is acknowledged that “scientific thinking” is somehow inherently “better” than “religious (superstitious, mythological) thinking”!!! ),

does not prove that Western Culture was from ancient times on the path to the mass-scale atrocities of the 20th century... (it is no mere accident that the operation of the “heterogony of ends” (regarding historical individual and collective action) is ignored)... but that Western Culture, just like any other Culture, is Human Culture, which consists of a whole array of “instrumental” and “ethical”, irrational and rational, thought, behaviour and action, notwithstanding the normative, cultural and aesthetical likes and dislikes of professional or amateur “philosophers” who want to prescribe to others how “alienation” and “false consciousness” can be “cured” normatively in terms of Ethics!!!... a certain philosopher of another Tribe and from a different philosophical starting point talked about “authenticity” – the thought structures are very similar... perhaps the mistress of the latter (for whom I have, probably begrudgingly, quite a bit of respect), who had a better sociological grounding, e.g. in Tönnies, made more useful observations, notwithstanding the conceptual problems arising from the term “totalitarianism” – e.g. how can a society be “totalitarian” or a “closed system”, and change internally, and disintegrate through either internal and or external pressures, just like all “non-totalitarian” societies eventually do?... Kondylis did not write about the Frankfurt School as such

(there is discussion of Horkheimer and reference to Adorno in “The new-times critique of metaphysics (Die neuzeitliche Metaphysikkritik (1990)” regarding an attack on 1) metaphysics (religion) which correctly ascertains there is no axiologically loaded Is (Being) and ontologically coloured Ought, BUT then does not proceed to draw the nihilist conclusions of La Mettrie and de Sade (i.e. there are no (non-man-made) values and anti-values), supporting instead (ultimately metaphysical!) forms of “liberation and critical thinking” (about which Adorno a few decades later was more explicit than Horkheimer) and believing in the existence of an, in accordance with his own normative values, “real Enlightenment”!; and on 2) “instrumental” positivism, which supposedly does not take into account historical change and “correct” or “rational” volition!),

just as Kondylis NEVER wrote about any kind of Tribe, though he did translate into Greek, presumably in his relative youth even though it was published much later, a long essay by Horkheimer (“Beginnings of the bourgeois philosophy of history”), and he did thoroughly cover issues of “rationality” and “irrationality”, “nihilism” and actual destruction, which were of great interest to the said School, and not only, of course, to the thinkers of that School; obviously, if Kondylis thought of Heidegger as being largely hollow, the “School” was not even worth mentioning within the context of the history of ideas and the substantial, important contributors to such ideas’ development and (re)cultivation, given that we are dealing with some kind of (second-rate) derivative fusion of Marx, Freud and Weber, et al.,... another interesting issue is how Tribal were, and to which Tribe did truly GREAT, if also (greatly) flawed, thinkers and or social scientists, historians,... like Spinoza, Marx, Durkheim, Simmel, Husserl, Cassirer, M. Ginsberg, G. Elton, and perhaps not so great or perhaps simply not so important “Tribal and non-Tribal” thinkers like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Barth, Jaspers, Buber, the Frankfurt School, Levinas and other such moralists, belong... hint: reality is often more complicated than what may first appear to be the case... and Tribes themselves, just like individuals, can be highly differentiated and complex identities and bearers of Power... the FACT that Kondylis never posed the question of the Tribe, at least directly, clearly shows it is the WRONG question to pose from a scientific point of view... at best, it creates many problems and misunderstandings, and at worst, it leads one far away from science as empirically verified and logically consistent knowledge...]...

On the other hand, such a person, is quite capable of making, and did make, many interesting or thought-provoking observations as well, hence, it is just as easy to under-rate as it is to over-rate thinkers...

 

 

 

 

At least, in part, Tongue in Cheek and in Nietzschean, certainly not (?) Kondylisian, mode (and leaving aside the great or at least interesting achievements one can appreciate coming from members of any number of (very or slightly) different(iated) (historical) Tribes)...

 

How dare someone of that Tribe, criticise someone of my Tribe, tell me what to think and what to do,... and get away with it!!!

If my Tribe has become a Herd, and is soon to be a Rabble, who but my own Tribe is to blame if it has lost the Will to Live, while other Tribes thrive and Act on their Will to Survive?...

The Heterogony of Ends ensures that History does not proceed in the long run in accordance with the self-understanding of the Tribes...

Tribes are groups or collectives that can (tend to be) more closed or more open, but NEVER set in stone for all time...

There is no such thing as individuals without some form of Tribe (society), just as there is no Tribe (society) without individuals.... BUT the Tribe COMES FIRST...


[NEVER SHOULD IT BE FORGOTTEN, EVEN THOUGH RACES, ETHNE, CIVILISATIONS, PEOPLES, NATIONS, TRIBES,... DO (AND MORE SO, I.E. MORE INTENSELY AND MORE RELATIVELY HOMOGENEOUSLY, HAVE) EXIST(ED) IN THE WEST, THAT: The philosophes maudits, from [Aristippus and] Machiavelli to La Mettrie and de Sade, existed or achieved (some) notoriety in, compared with today's West, racially and religiously relatively homogeneous kinship groups, communities, cities, countries, nations or civilisations, and were still ignored or ostracised. THAT: many, if not the vast majority, of civil wars, the family vendetta, have taken place in the context of relatively high degrees of racial and or religious homogeneity. THAT: Identity is plastic, malleable.] 








 

Leon Trotsky

 

Why write about Leon Trotsky?

Because I was under his spell for a number of years when I was emotionally very vulnerable in my youth, and after the torturous cancer-driven death of my sister, and after “moving on” from the, generally speaking, at least in part or even substantially, Common Sense of the left-wing ethno-patriot socialist George Orwell, to the “superior” realm of Lenin, and Trotsky.

Is Trotsky to be rejected outright just because nowadays his particular ethnic and visual attributes do not sit well with my own Hellenism-Orthodoxy and “natural sympathy” for Russian history and culture to the extent it was in part Hellenised through Orthodoxy?

By no means, NO. Trotsky was actually a successful extremely Power-hungry politician who co-operated with another extremely Power-hungry more successful politician, but this time of world-historical importance, Lenin, and was knocked off his perch by the “simpleton” extremely Power-hungry politician, Stalin, who nonetheless was a more extremely Power-hungry obscenely successful Politician, and whose “dumb” promotion of the Five Stages of History gets a mention by Kondylis as having a certain relevance to the REAL WORLD and not to the UTOPIA Trotsky and his followers planned (are planning) for, and which of course – even a bright teenager could understand – WILL NEVER COME (unless one takes Trotsky’s (and Parvus’s) “permanent revolution” as culminating in the post WW2 world order and subsequent post-Cold War planetary era (“neoconservative”) caricature of their Vision of Communism – which of course is not what they meant)... (The UTOPIA of the Trotskyists as thought structure is the same as the UTOPIA of the White Nationalists (Identitarians), as all the other UTOPIAS,... regardless of RELIGION, BELIEF, CREED,... – beautifully harmonic in their MINDS, perhaps or certainly a catalyst for ACTION, but NOWHERE to be realised in REALITY).

Trotsky also wrote some interesting books and articles, though, in retrospect, it seems that what survives as intellectually stimulating from that era is essentially some of Lenin’s writings, as re-interpretations and practical applications to a specific context, of Marx in the Age of classical European Imperialism...

At the end of the day, however, the Englishman of Common Sense perhaps had more to say of lasting value.

And, anyway, closer to me, when I wear the “I” hat and not the “Sc.” hat, ethnologically (linguistically-culturally), psychologically, and politically (albeit far off on some matters at least), is Pablo (Μιχάλης Ῥάπτης).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus spake the Voice of Value Freedom...

 

Oh! Where You stand today, You normatively lunatic savage disgusting Midget! I once stood. But one day, after many Moons of Suffering, I awoke, and from Your Territory, I departed, and journeyed into the realm of Science, and found Peace in a Cave, for all is ultimately Nothing... though we can (defend and) enjoy some sort of Culture along the Way, when we put on, dress up in, our (given and chosen) Identity...


Outside of the Cave of Value Freedom...

"What you are essentially telling me with your Vile Ethics in the name of the Common Good (of Humanity) is that You want to impose Your values upon My values, so that You can Dominate Me, you Power-hungry repulsive Maniac!"... 


Sermon Hatched in the Cave and Given on the Mount

And the monkey emerged from the swamp and he was the Swamp Monkey, of the Swamp Monkey Society, which then found Nature’s Sewer, and covered in Piss, Shit, Blood, Vomit and Tears, in huge Bursts of Violence, Agony and Pain, made Culture out of what was Interesting and in the light of Good (Lamb and Angel) and Evil (Wolf and Serpent), experienced Ecstasy and Fear, and therein was born Man. And Man was many Men and Women who with Language and Rationality Struggled, Loved and Hated, and Reproduced, and began to deal systematically with, and even clean, the Piss, Shit, Blood and Vomit, but Man could never stop the Valley of Tears, despite enjoying Humour, nor the Violence, even though the Violence, on the whole, began to Abate, at least from time to time and from Situation to Situation, and Man looked above and saw Gods and God and refined Ideology and felt He and his fellow-thinkers knew Everything (just as all the anti-thinkers thought), but kept being shaken by Conflict and War, Change and the Other, with and from and to whom Man mixed, learnt, mingled, stole, gave,... but also fought as he had always fought with Himself and other Men like Him, and whilst generally preferring Culture and its Cultivation, Peace (even most of the Wise Warriors amongst Man had such a preference), Man could never get rid of Conflict and War, always telling others of his Kin and Tribe and the Other, wherever he interacted with Him more than just in passing, what to think, what to do, and all that remained Constant was False Consciousness – since at times Man could not even Control his Women or his Deviants, the in-group Other, nor could he Control the out-group Other,... especially in times of Less Hunger and Disease – and all that remained Constant was also Identity, Meaning and Understanding, which changed their Content, including Colours, and the Strongest of Muscle and or of Mind and Spirit always won, regardless of level of Technology, the kind of Social Disciplining, the Culture and the Arrangement of the Colours, Always until one man lost and someone else won, and so on and so forth, until there were no Humans... and Power returned to Energy in Nature, the Universe, Nothing...

And the Retard was the only (Woe-)Man who was Present from the Beginning until the End... Amen...















When I told the Retard that I am a Greek like Achilles was a Greek and my Jewish friend Sam is a Jew like Abraham was a Jew, the Retard laughed.

The Retard also spake: “That is all nationalistic mythology and crap”.

And I looked at the Retard with Sadness as to how low the level of intelligence can be in a human and told him:

“See that Aboriginal over there, Retard! Relative to that Aboriginal, Retard, who is a human being, very much defeated by Time and the Other, Retard, the way I look and the way I think through my mother tongue and the way I worship through the Orthodox Church (Ekklesia) puts me in a group relative to Achilles (or in the case of Sam, relative to Abraham) that excludes the Aboriginal, as I am, relatively speaking, excluded from Sam’s group, and as my good friend Sam is excluded from mine, as we both are excluded from the Aboriginal's group, no matter to what extent myths, falsehoods, ideologies are mixed with biological, cultural, historical, factual realities – both the myths and the factual realities, however, do exist! And exist they must!”

And the Retard, because he was more Ideologue than Retard, and had half a brain, understood, and hung his head in Shame and left because he had been so Stupid, and never spoke to me again, for Retardism means company with other Retards... [By the way, I forgot to also mention my Indian friend Raj (and Vishnu-Brahma-Shiva), my Chinese friend Wang Wei (and Confucius-Mencius-Lao-Tzu), my very good Vietnamese friend Mr. Tai (and Trần Hưng Đạo-Nguyễn Du-Duy Khánh), my Italian buddy Giuseppe (and Dante-Garibaldi-Vittorio de Sica (e Sophia Loren, mamma mia!)), my Japanese friend Daisuke (and Bashō-Ozu-Mizoguchi (as well as my Angels: Setsuko Hara and Kinuyo Tanaka)), my Argentinian amigo Alfredo (and Piazzolla-Che Guevara-Maradona), and my Australian mate Bruce (and Captain Cook-Ned Kelly-Strop), but things would have gotten too complicated, and simplicity has its benefits...]

















You Sir! A half-breed self-described Comanche-Kraut! I, the Ghost-Dancer, salute your Nobility! For You know of Power and Power’s Ways and know that today’s Victory is tomorrow’s Defeat, and that the Arrogant and most Ascendant will eventually fall into the Canyon of their Doom!

 

“Sex” is a scientific term which refers to the biological basis for the two basic categories of humans across all races and for the human race as opposed to non-human animals: males (men) and females (women). “Gender”, could be thought of as just referring to masculine/ feminine/neuter in grammar, or as just meaning “sex”, but nowadays is used and weaponised as an ideologically charged mass-democratic term, launched in the 1950s, to ideologically-emotionally, and to a certain or great extent in practice, equalise abnormality and (mental) illness with biologically based normality and traditional sex-differentiated roles. Of course, human culture is, like human identity, plastic and malleable, so a whole society is quite capable of believing in a whole host of inanities (at least as they appear inane to the more Traditional Eye), and define normality and abnormality (sanity and insanity), or decency and bigotry, any which way it pleases, as well as participating in a whole range of social action unthinkable in the past or in other societies, as long as a particular normative programme and vision is served – the (potential) ways of humans as content, i.e. their behaviour and action in specific cultural circumstances, are literally innumerable, uncountable, infinite. Similarly, “islamophobia” was launched as a term of public political-ideological discourse in the 1970s-2000s because of certain U.S.-centred anti-Russian geopolitical goals in Central Asia, the Balkans and the Middle East (under the Spykman-Zbigniew Brzezinski doctrines or standpoints, with such U.S.-centred geopolitical goals intertwining with a comparatively very strong Israel lobby), as well as owing to certain immigration and other programmes. Again, the context of Western mass democracy was the key for the acceptance by politicians, the elites and masses of voters and or consumers of these terms. Science does not choose between normative programmes. The normative programme which prescribes e.g. that homosexuals can marry and that children can choose their gender from Primary School is just as describable and explainable as the normative programme which wants to expel all Mohammedans and ban all public displays of degeneracy...

 

If females are generally, but not and never absolutely and exclusively, apart from having less upper body strength than males, more interested from an early age in faces/people, and males in things, etc. etc. etc. (see or cf. Angus Bateman, John Maynard Smith, W. D. Hamilton, Robert Trivers (cited by Kondylis, but not re: sex), Simon Baron-Cohen, James Thompson, Stuart Ritchie, West Hunter, J. Peterson, C. Paglia, et al.), and if people in general are more inclined to relatively religious-emotional, rather than relatively scientific-dispassionate, kinds of thinking, then it is no surprise that so far over many years only a relatively small number of males, as far as I can tell, have contacted me regarding Kondylis’s thought. This does not mean that women, or people of mostly African origin (Negroids or Congoids as opposed to Mongoloids and Caucasoids) for that matter, who apparently have (personally, I know NOT) lower mean levels of intelligence (and impulse control, and higher mean levels of criminality, even when accounting for social status/class/ education disadvantages) than various sub-groups of non-Negroids (cf. A. Jensen, R. Lynn, R.J. Herrnstein, H. Nyborg, Ch. Murray, M. Levin, J. Ph. Rushton, et al.) [Question and possible Paradox: how can people of b race be less intelligent than people of w race when the former is undergoing a population explosion world-wide giving it the biological basis for surival for centuries or millennia to come, whereas the latter is partially, virtually or fully "genociding itself" out of existence (i.e. committing (auto)genocide (to and on itself)) within a century or two?], are incapable of appreciating Kondylis's thought, but it does seem to confirm my hypothesis that it is less likely a woman (or a Negroid) would be interested in Kondylis’s writings... yet again, there are literally millions and millions and millions,... of women and "black or brown and yellow non-Whites" and "Whites" who are far more intelligent than I could ever possibly be... [Kondylis never referred to "-oids", but did mention European imperialism's crude racism, whilst clearly indicating that races, peoples and ethne, though difficult to define, in fact (often) requiring a case-by-case, situation-specific analysis, definitely exist...]...



Value freedom (i.e. free of ethical and religious = all normative values) is not so much a question of higher or lower intelligence but more so a question of consistently separating Is from Ought... i.e. it is primarily a question of intellectual discipline...



Given that many, if not more than many... up to all, human matters (at least potentially) lend themselves to causal explanation, to the extent it can be proffered, including both social and biological factors, monocausal or any kind of reductionism is always a very real danger. There is much that history, sociology, psychology, political science, (socio)biology, etc. can offer - social ontology (which cannot exist without at least history) leaves it to other disciplines to make their situation-specific investigations. On the other hand, the disciplines at some point overlap to a great extent with, or even collapse into, one another because ultimately we are talking about human (social) existence as opposed to the existence of non-human animals. When the races, civilisations, nations, peoples, ethne were more separate, perhaps distinctions were easier to make and "stereotypes" had a more solid empirical foundation. Nowadays, in many instances social-cultural factors can play a determinative role in making up for biological and social-cultural differences that once seemed more apparent at first glance... on the other hand, biological differences, even if less obvious when investigating social-cultural phenomena cannot just be wished away through ideology. The constants, however, always remain: society, biology (nature), power, self-preservation, identity, meaning, Is and Ought, ideology, normativism, polemics,... description,... 1) the social relation both as to its (friend-foe) spectrum, and as to its mechanism (understanding, rationality, language), which bring about the endless types of (historical-)sociological content; 2) the political as the interaction of all interactions achieving social coherence and social order (social disciplining); and 3) the anthropological, whereby human nature is culture, with humans always being both natural and cultural beings, no matter how much culture can shape and control, rule or change nature,... that a society gives the factor of "race" or "gender" or "equality", etc., x or y, etc. importance and or a or b, etc. dominant generally binding interpretation is a matter for negotiation and or battle in the realm of the political within the social... what however one likes or dislikes aesthetically-culturally is ultimately a subjective and personal matter, notwithstanding that the liking or disliking is objectively limited to what is on offer... quantitative differentiation is a phenomenon separate to qualitative differentiation as to differentia specifica defining one genus or type from another within specific situational and historical contexts e.g. language as opposed to dialects,... and other languages, and dialects,... race as opposed to sub-races,... and other races, and sub-races,... as opposed to nation,... ethnos/ethne,... as opposed to class, caste,... as opposed to sex, gender,... as opposed to conservative, liberal,... as opposed to normal, abnormal,... etc., etc., etc.,... a concept which, however, cannot be clearly defined and becomes so slippery across time eventually loses any meaning as to specific distinguishing content and cannot be of any scientific use... e.g. if conservative nowadays virtually means nothing, or macro-historically seen, very little indeed, gender can just as easily become a matter for individual interpretation without being a social fact or phenomenon with group/ collective reference and application... wanting to be or being e.g. racialist, racist, a race realist, an anti-racist, a part-racist, a moderate racist, an aggressive racist, an ethnopatriot, an ethnoracial patriot, a plain patriot, a nationalist, a civic nationalist, a no borders globalist, a some borders globalist-part-national patriot, an internationalist, a religious warrior, a hyper-individualist, a rabid tribalist; a moderate, extreme, militant, situational, anti-,... feminist; a non-participant,... a pacifist,... or some combination of the above or something else,... etc., etc., etc., is ultimately a choice as to identity and the associated with that identity aesthetic and cultural preferences in the battles that take place more or less peacefully and or more or less violently within the political...     

 


The observation that most or many countries in the world today have a higher level of relative racial and or religious homogeneity than most Western countries might be, or actually is, correct empirically. The political programme, however, of seeking a return to similar demographic and or ideational relative homogeneity as existed in the Western world circa 1960, or even 1990, for instance, would probably, or certainly, entail a great deal of violence and violent upheaval. And in a climate of “I shop, therefore I am” and “Live, and let live”, such a political programme is bound to be frowned upon, and quite understandably so, at the very least...


Without being an economist, it seems to me that the problem of national debt is largely dealt with by means of a country's productivity, access to world trade and natural resources, the strength of a nation-state's internal market, exports, and perhaps above all, ultimately, militarily-geopolitically...  


Support for relatively open or fully open borders is a choice in favour of countries of the First World slipping further into the Third (Turd) World. Such a choice might be rational from the point of view of very Big Business, but constitutes for many a sure sign of total detachment from Common Sense, if not a conversion into a state of Full Retardism. Ideology is not only a distancing from Reality, but also a distancing from Common Sense. In extreme cases, it leads to the applauding of one's own Destruction and the Wiping Out of one's own Inheritance. Identity then splits completely from recognisable Continuity.  


The people who say they "love everyone" (but probably just really love their Narcissistic Selves), and define what "hate" is whilst singling out "those who hate", in actual fact hate, often to Extremes, those who "love less than everyone, i.e. groups and individuals as a Part, but not the Whole, of "everyone"", who happen to love and hate like (statistically speaking, nearly) ALL PEOPLE do (there cannot be love without hate, or hate without love). In other words, if someone is telling you what Hate and Hate Speech are, they are simply telling you they are Retarded, and or, (extremely) Power Hungry and want to Control you (My Love Speech is Your Hate Speech, etc.). Of course, there are a myriad of positions in between extreme love and extreme hate, including Indifference, but ultimately, one's love is the other's hate and vice versa. If I want to exclude X, and you won't let me exclude X, then You are excluding Me from excluding X [= an anti-racist is in effect saying that one particular race must cede ground to another race, so that the anti-racist is being racist towards that one particular race, apart from also forcing one to be racist to oneself, i.e. to one's own race,... anti-racism = auto-racism... if one's race (strictly or more loosely defined as people or ethnos) has 90 out of 100 people in a particular territory and becomes 89 out of 100 people in a particular territory through anti-racism, then one's own race is diminished through auto-racism, etc. etc. etc.... the question of social cohesion and social order, is of course, a separate matter... conceivably one could reduce one's race in a territory to 0, i.e. full auto-racism as full auto-Genocide and still have relatively high social cohesion and social order AND EVEN some kind of continuation of the Culture (but obviously not the aesthetic component of the Culture) which the race which has undergone auto-Genocide through auto-Lobotomy largely created or put together, notwithstanding all that was borrowed or "stolen" from other races (including sub-races, peoples, ethne, etc.), which of course have also borrowed or stolen from...]... If I want to speak ill of X, and you won't let me speak ill of X, then You are Controlling Me (whilst probably speaking ill of me too)... if I want to love Z passionately, then per definitionem I must hate A ((in part) rightly and or (in part) wrongly) passionately, and by trying to stop me from hating A passionately, you are trying to stop me from loving Z passionately... Dictator... Of course one way to "keep a lid" on Love and Hate is to successfully bindingly define what is permitted in the Public Sphere... a relatively stable society grips the Lid of the Pot well... a society which is about to Explode or Explodes, is losing or has lost its grip... Just because a society has a good grip, it doesn't mean that people are not dreaming of, and working towards, a different Stew... and plotting to change the Chef... or that those currently gripping the Lid, aren't going to grip it Tighter... so the question then becomes: "how long before the next Explosion?"... and it could be Very Long, depending also on what's happening on other Cooktops, and how well or badly the Kitchen is coping...

 

Personally, I would treat any human being, regardless of sex or race, with politeness and kindness if they were polite and kind to me. Generally, but by no means always, however, I seek the company of people of my race AND culture, and of men and women who know their place in accordance with Common Sense and Tradition. (From what I can gather, Kondylis was far more open to Strangers than I am, but then again our life experiences, although similar on some points, differ in other respects)... it is one thing to go to the Stranger with good or positive intent, and another to have the Stranger imposed upon you because your parents were not able or did not want to live in the country of their (and your) Ancestors, and realising your inherited Identity consists of a cultural and civilisational background and history which for you, after having to Fight, Struggle, Wage (Guerrilla) War to maintain and develop It, subjectively and aesthetically seen, is far SUPERIOR... on the other hand, the appreciation of one's own cultural (and racial, ethnological) inheritance is definitely improved (unless one chooses e.g. to spit on one's ancestors and to commit cultural autogenocide) by an appreciation of others' cultural (and racial, ethnological) inheritances... much can be learned and enjoyed from the Other... the Other is often definitely worth exploring, can be absorbed, assimilated, refashioned, synthesised,... even loved... and usually must be understood to be properly confronted, dealt with, destroyed,... kept at a distance... if the Other threatens... in reality or not...

 

A society of relatively loose morals will eventually become a society of relatively strict morals, which in turn does not have a claim on all of history, even though most of history knows of relative(ly more) poverty, austerity, cruelty, physicality, violence,...

 

Man, Woman or “Trans”... more intelligent or less intelligent... physically stronger or physically weaker... technologically advanced or technologically primitive... more or less literate... economically developed or economically un(der)developed... relatively purely bred or relatively miscegenated and out-bred... “beautiful, normal, ugly, revolting or indifferent”... the social mechanism, its spectrum and mechanism, the political, and Man as nature and culture, change not... are constant...

 

[Kondylis was aware of Wilson, E.: On Human Nature, Cambridge, Mass., - London 1978, and thus the discipline of "sociobiology" - it is listed in the bibliography of The Political and Man (Das Politische und der Mensch); but chose not to refer to it at all within the main text of his magnum opus...]...


If human society in and on nature has races and sexes and inequalities, and every concept has a counter-concept (counter- or other-concepts), every identity has a counter-identity (counter- or other-identities), i.e. human reality and thought proceed through categories and hierarchies, then there will always be racism and sexism and inequality (hierarchy) even if things are relatively equalised (sociologically democratised) or a particular race or particular "gender" or particular (social) class ceases to exist...


Ideology can be pleasant. Reality often isn't...


United Nations world population forecasts c. 2100 A.D. indicate that much of the world once known as the West could be racially, kind of, as it were, returning to its pre-written history, or rather pre-mythological, roots, i.e. “negrification and browning” through Africanisation and Arabisation (e.g. 500 million relatively old “whites” versus 5 billion relatively young “blacks and Arabs”), with non-Middle Eastern Asian populations getting relatively old too, but still comprising about 40% of the world’s roughly 11 billion. In other words, (pagan-)Christian (Greco-Roman-Italo-Hispano-Hiberno-Celtic-Franco-Teutonic-Saxon-etc.) Europe lost the Will to Live and handed its Lands over to the incoming African, Arab and Mohammedan hordes...

 

Conquering Others = Strong Will to Live...

 

Industrialisation plus (social Democratisation, the Death of God (as Hierarchy), secular Egalitarian Spirituality and “Colour Blindness”, and) Consumerism through Massification and Atomisation (Urbanisation and the undoing of rural-based Tradition) entails (extensive and or militant) Feminism, bringing eventually (the far less causally significant compared to Feminism) (legal and public sphere) Homosexualism, and the very causally significant (public and private) Otherism and SelfasrelativelyStrongContinuity-Denialism, leading to certain Racial Displacement or AutoGenocide through low-birth rates, low or no traditional-racial-ethnic-patriarchal-familial collective consciousness, massive population shifts and... the Heterogony of Ends. Of course, such an approximately two- or three-hundred year old course in History from e.g. 1800 (when Christian Whites of European origin were about 25% of the world population [in the Hellenic “Golden Age” c. 5th century B.C., on the way to becoming a regional-“world” Power with or under or through Rome, Hellenes were roughly 2-3% of the world population or 5-10% (?) of Europe’s population – and at least double counting the Italic peoples...] or 1900), to 2100 A.D. (when European origin Whites will be about 4-5% (2%-10%) of the world population [the Hellenic population, if any, will then be about 0.018-0.036% (or even up to 0.072% = best case scenario) of the world population]), is only a “problem” if one has certain values, including Ancestor-Worship and Love of History, with which one ties one’s Identity... That Identity, those Identities, though, is and are departing the World’s Stage and the other Identities will fight it out in a Struggle which does not bode well even for Them (world overpopulation, the deteriorating state of the planet’s environment, possible break down in (nation-)state relations and balance of power, along with the widespread existence and dissemination of nuclear, and other biological and chemical, weapons of mass destruction, etc.)... [Possibility of Error here: High; yet (relatively recent) past and current trends indicate that we are not being totally outlandish... however: the “good, or probably “best”, case scenario” of a still relatively stable World Order with a more “colourful” West, remains on the Table...]

 

What the “Alt-Right” (as White Nationalism, White(-European) Identitarianism) is essentially saying is: “if today’s Israel could be founded as an ethnocentric nation-state based on a small minority of the total population in the relevant region c. 1940, and if there can be relatively racially based ethno-states or relatively non-Other states today like Japan or Korea (to a greater extent) and China or Cameroon (to a lesser, but still significant extent), then why can’t we have what we had up to the 1960s or even 1990s (now that we are still e.g. 60% of the total population)?” In other words, what is operating psychologically, apart from (possibly) fear, is jealousy, and certain views of how social cohesion could be best attained, as well as certain aesthetic preferences. The task though of achieving such a Vision in today’s West would necessarily entail the most horrible, terrible, terrifying of Nightmares. So the question then becomes: “what is to be done, if anything? Or: will matters take care of themselves...?”  


If one has as paramount consideration (a particular) collective identity and historical continuity (collective rights) then a, b, c values ensue. If one starts with individual identity and change (individual rights) then x, y, z values ensue. There are also of course a myriad of positions in between the possibly most collective and the possibly most individual, as well as e.g. the collective in the light of universalistic principles regarding "humanity" and its billions of individuals. At the end of the day, both the collective and the individual exist, and social cohesion and social order via social disciplining and the political is a matter of trying to maintain and or create the at the moment "appropriate and right" balance. 

 

There is no Love without Hate, no Friendship without Enmity, no Hope without Despair... Your Hate is my Love, My Love is your Hate,... RETARD! (Or: Mad Dog barking furiously, Frothing at the Mouth; if only you would vanish into thin air, or put down!!!)...



It's simple, or, a Tale of Two Hats, or really One Hat

Hat A: What you are (which itself can change or be "under negotiation"), and what roles you play depending on whom you are interacting with. Don't have to be Fanatical, but often Ideological.

Hat B: Observation of Human Affairs, i.e. Science of the human (social) world - ONLY description and explanation based on empirical evidence and absolute logical consistency (Hat B in effect can come under Hat A's "roles you play depending on whom you are interacting with"). Need to be an absolute FANATIC, including always being on the lookout for errors and always correcting them. Necessarily Ideational, but never Ideological.

 


Personally, I don’t want to offend You and your Sensitivities, but Reality does... or more precisely: Reality does not Care...


Notwithstanding that the vast majority of known Hellenes, Rhomaioi (Romioi, Rom), Greeks, were relatively white peoples (Pelasgians, et. al.) from greater Southern Europe, Asia Minor, Eastern Mediterranean, Pontus, etc. (as well as there being Hellenised Middle Easterners who were never a majority or the main population of Greeks), and that the vast majority of Great Hellenes throughout more than 3,000 years of history were relatively white (as opposed to relatively black or relatively yellow or even, at least more often than not, relatively brown) too, I would never object to people of mixed Greek-Arabic, Greek-Asian, Greek-Persian, Greek-Armenian, Greek-Slavic, Greek-African, Greek-Hebraic, etc. descent from being called "Greeks" if they had a fully active Hellenic consciousness and mode of living, and I would always make an exception for someone with no (and certainly half) Greek descent who has proven himself to be a great Greek... e.g. Philo or Saint Romanos the Melodist (the Hymnographer) or Digenes Akrites or Nikephoros (Nicephorus) I or John I Tzimiskes or Manolis Angelopoulos, et al., et al., et al.,... (what a State does as a matter of Law is another matter and it does not concern me here)... the racial basis of an ethnos might become looser and expand over time, and theoretically it can alter totally, but the reality is that major historic European nations do have a relatively homogeneous racial and non-Mohammedan or non-Hindu etc. religious core (relative to other non-European races and sub-races or ethne and often as between themselves), over centuries and millennia, and that's a fact no matter how painful such a fact might be to various, very many unfortunately, Retards... (whether someone cares about relative racial, religious and or cultural Continuity or not, or whether that Contintuity takes place, and to what extent it takes place, on a non-racial and non-religious basis, is also another matter, pertaining to the Now and the Tomorrow of Collectives, and not to the Fact of the Yesterday of centuries (or even millennia) of relatively non-black, non-yellow, non-very brown, non-Mohammedan, non-Hindu etc., racial-ethnic-cultural-civilisational European identities... - even if ethnos is defined narrowly as applying only from the advent of the Westphalian State or the French Revolution, there were always relatively Frankish, Hispanic, Celtic, British, Italic, Greek, Germanic, Slavic, Bulgarian, etc. civilisations and cultures of Extended Ethnic/National Families, with all their local and regional Variety and truly Beautiful or at least Interesting Diversity...)... Personally, as a matter of taste, I might find a Norseman or Anglo-Saxon or Scotsman or Teuton just as optically distasteful as an Arab, Jew (Semite), an Indian (Pakistani-Bangladeshi) or a sub-Saharan African, but that's personal (and it doesn’t stop me from appreciating or loving thinkers or artists such as Hamsun, S. Johnson, A. Ferguson, Umm Kulthum, Spinoza, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Satyajit Ray, Louis Armstrong, and many, many others,... also, I fully realise that I'm probably very distasteful to look at to others, including people of my own race and or ethnos)... and the aforesaid aesthetic-cultural personal taste is no compelling excuse to be impolite, unkind or cruel to people if they are polite, kind and nice to me...



The price of Fame, or even just fame, is certain misunderstanding, definite misrepresentation, wholesale confusion, and quite possibly deliberate sabotage and vilification too. There are advantages in not becoming more widely known, even within the relatively small communities of scholars and intellectuals...


It seems to me that, realistically, "the best" that Western mass democracies can hope for, almost certainly in vain, is (the continuance or reinstitution of) relatively high degrees of freedom of speech (including the right to offend but not to slander and or cause specific, concrete physical, monetary, etc. - but not emotional - damage), full freedom of association with no kind of coercive integration, the rule of law as single legal system under One Law for all citizens, the ending of all programmes of "affirmative action" which discriminate against MERIT and relatively indigenous relatively white (male) populations, the strict protection of borders (including the full expulsion of anti-Western illegal immigrants or invaders and their offspring) with strict programmes of legal migration if certain countries want and need such migration, and government-backed programmes to boost the birth rates of the historically core relatively white peoples of every nation of the Western mass democracies (with ethno-centric and pro-patriarchal family values promoted in Education systems without ethno-chauvanism towards other ethne apart from stating (historical) facts), etc.... All talk of a "return" to some perceived demographic and cultural Golden Age c. 1960 or c. 1860 etc. is just as likely to come to pass as ever-lasting multi-racial and multi-cultural harmonious Paradises in a "Borderless One World". The geo-political and global-economic situation and man's relationship with the Environment ultimately, most likely, will constitute the telling framework within which Western mass democracies may or may not survive, prosper, decline (further and further) or lose their distinctive features completely and become something else (which (very) long-term will happen anyway, one way or another, as history teaches us, "must", or at least is very likely to, happen...).


All humans are equal in so far as they are humans and not non-human animals; otherwise the differences, i.e. inequalites between groups and or between individuals never End, even if legally-socially-ideologically a historically relative equality is practised - at least at a certain level... The dominant ideologies of Western mass democracy are just as valid forms of social disciplining as the dominant ideologies of Western (racial) ethno-Nationalism and Imperialism, Feudalism, etc., etc., etc.. Equality, including that of "Atheists", is no less a God than God Himself. It permeates all aspects of Thought and creates all kinds of Retardism and Retarded Belief without Correspondence to Reality: "You are Racist! You are Sexist! etc." replaces "You are a Heretic! You are an Atheist! etc.". Yet Equality as relative Sameness within a Group has never guaranteed or achieved perpetual Friendship and Peace... From "I have a Dream"... Heterogony of Ends... the mass Apeing of the Ape (as has always been the Case, albeit in different Colour Schemes...)... to... "It's Over!"... "The Joke's on You! Sucker!"... Men, Women, the Other not in their Place = Men, Women, the Other which will put things back in their Place... The New Beginning as, in some respects, the Repetition of the Old (and Same), and, in some respects, as possible Return to Being closer to the State of Nature, and further from the state of relatively higher or relatively advanced Culture... especially if the State of Technicisation falters, wobbles, alters or destructs... irrespective of under what Pressures... Culture = Power in, on, against and constrained by Nature...

 

St. John saw the Apocalypse... which has begun... [= non-scientific depiction of something which actually might be (sort of) happening, and would be confirmed or disproved if we lived for 200 or 300 or more years, like in the Old Testament, rather than for roughly 80, on average, years]...


Getting through a book by Kondylis is like living through Beethoven’s 7th conducted by Toscanini (or C. Kleiber) and Mozart’s “Jupiter” by B. Walter... (or Caruso singing Verdi and Puccini, N. Milstein playing Bach’s “Chaconne”, Cortot playing Chopin, Knappertsbusch conducting Schubert’s 9th and Wagner (esp. Parsifal), or Edwin Fischer, Glenn Gould and Pablo (Pau) Casals playing whatever, but above all Bach and Mozart)... humans might and do do it differently, perhaps they are capable from time to time of doing it equally well, but they don’t and can’t do it any better or any more perfectly...


Cultural critique (criticism) (the critique of culture), whether it has a (Judeo)(-Helleno-Roman-)Christian origin, a community-society or commodification(objectification, alienation, estrangement, exploitation)-emancipation(liberation) axis, etc., etc., etc., and regardless of whether it deals with the Other and or personhood (personage, personality), and or "true" mutual, reciprocal "humane" rather than "instrumental" relations, etc., etc., etc., and irrespective of whether in either "left-wing" or "right-wing" guise, is all about, ultimately, normativism and Utopianism (as (a kind of) metaphysics). The mass media (along with the vast (?) majority of academic writings in the humanities, philosophy and "social sciences") are also, very often, all about normativism, emotionalism as well as ((very) often) being (a form of) entertainment and not infrequently aimed at some sort of Utopia(nism), as was the case from the Pulpit or via "bread and circuses" when there were no mass media in the present-day sense. On the other hand, one can always expect to be surprised, because amongst the tonnes of Garbage, Truths are told. One may or may not like a particular society or social formation, but if one is in it and not enjoying it, Stiff! Learn to swim, or sink   


Strictly scientifically seen, i.e. social-ontologically in terms of social cohesion and social order, the only valid reason to object to or approve of Western mass democracy e.g. either c. 1950, c. 1990 or c. 2020, or any other social formation for that matter, is aesthetic - and that's purely and absolutely a subjective-cultural reason of preference, discrimination, segregation, prejudice, i.e. taste. 


The scientific validity of someone's written work is not tested by trying to find out or examining their individual, personal characteristics and preferences and prejudices, but against empirical reality and logical consistency...


It might seem like a Paradox, but it's not: the more one studies Sex and Race as Social (Nature-Related) Facts, the more Sexist and Racist one becomes, at least in one's thinking, but by no means necessarily as to one's Values... 


Science has no Holy Cows... none whatsoever...

 

 



Ὅταν κάνῃς παρέα μὲ τὸν (Χαλκο)Κονδύλη καὶ τὸν Καζαντζίδη, καὶ εἶσαι ΑΝΤΡΑΣ, καὶ ζῇς ὑπὸ τὴν καθοδήγησιν τοῦ Γέρου καὶ τοῦ Ὑιοῦ τῆς βιασμένης καλογραίας, τότες ἐρωτᾷς τὸν ποῦτσον σου, γαμᾷς καὶ κλάνεις ἀρχίδια...

https://descentintothesewer.wordpress.com/2017/12/08/other-not-so-impolite-and-very-rude-extremely-offensive-reflections-errors-and-valid-points-descent-into-the-sewer/?temp-new-window-replacement=true


 

Make a free website with Yola