k-punk

YES YES YES- Miller is just ludicrous- goodbye and good riddance- when is he going to fuck off- the only thing i would argue though is that atheism is not essentially negative. To not believe in God is defined within a word because of the stupid fondation laid down by a theistic society- you are forced to define yourself in relation to something that you don't believe in. However, i find this utterly ludicrous- both worlds true and apparent are founded on a lie but why should i then have to define myself in relation to this lie. If there has never been a god, i am not rejecting anything. Its a bit like having to prove myself innocent of nicking my mates car that he never had. Potentiality, immanance- whats coming now- my atheism is technicolour glory.
In fact, yeah, atheism can go fuck itself too- i dont want to be defined within miller's shitty world- give me big bad beautiful zero.

And, really lookig forward to seeing the sapphire and steel vids i've just bought- mark- this blog of yours is totally fantastic- consider me a convert.

At least Gray learned from his mistakes, unlike most economists, who are brazen --- as he says economists didn't even have the concept of stagflation before it happened, still less were they able to predict it.

What's the objection to 'getting racial'? I don't see the agenda here.

Yes, Marx was a teleologist. That's something he inherited from Hegel --- needless to say, I don't accept everything Marx says, and the belief that history had an inevitable direction and endpoint is certainly one of many things about Marx I would reject. But it's Marx's scientism, not his failure to be scientific, that I would reject.

Fair play re, Marx, but the prob with getting 'racial' in this context is that it's undialectical: the 'European White Master Class' comprised both Tories -- hardly exemplifiying a belief in secular progress -- and Liberal-Radical-Whig 'progressives' who believed both in secular/humanist progress -- and in nonintervention overseas, the abolition of slavery, etc. And white European countries are hardly alone in their imperialism.

Perhaps you could elaborate, in a future post, on what you mean by "gnosticism"? That is, I take it that gnosticism, in your view, is the way or path to a "version of God" that is different from the "theistic deity" . . . . Also, as for "neurotic interiority passed off as the human condition," certainly it is the case, as Foucault argued, that the Discourse of interiority begins with the confession of sin and then turns, in the modern era, to societal preoccupation with sexual identity, etc, with reams of books, science, art, commerce devoted to the matter, but merely because this Discourse did not appear until, say, Augustine, and then take a radical turn with the advent of the novel (Austen, Dostoevsky, then Freud, presaged by Shakespeare and Rousseau), does not mean that "neurotic interiority" does not in fact constitute the human condition. The Greek thinkers may have thought sex a trifling concern, and likely did not think in terms of transgression, sin, or pleasure intensified by feelings of guilt and shame. For the Greek thinkers, sexual desire seems to have been of interest only as a metaphor for philosophic desire, a gateway to the pleasures of dialectical reasoning and the life of the mind. However, what we know of the Greeks, for the most part, is what comes down to us from the surviving works of Greek thinkers and poets. It is not impossible that most conversations in the agora revolved around sex and money . . . . Moreover, even if the Greeks thinkers viewed sex and the other appetites as a trifling concern, and so paid it little attention in their philosophic writings, Xian writers and then the Moderns were fascinated by the subject. Why did the subject exert such power over them/us? Is it because Xian and Modern culture are democratic in spirit, catering to what lowly fools find fascinating and/or are duped into believing important? Or, in the alternative, is it because sex and the self are truly fascinating, such that even if the concept of the self, or the concept of sin, are historical in nature, the concepts, once unraveled, retain their hold over us and, in so doing, define the human condition. Certainly we enjoy thinking and talking about our sins, transgressions, and neuroses. And despite evidence that people of other times and cultures did not dwell upon these issues, there is little evidence that we, our successors, and all who come into contact with these concepts will not remain under their spell. And if the spell retains its hold, then the spell can be said to suit human nature . . . .

errr, just read the post below, entitled "staying alive," in which you the trace the outlines of an anti-Creationist conception of God . . . . your words on the subject are compelling, so hopefully you'll write more in this vein

Lots here, but just briefly...

obviously 'getting racial' is undialectical... that's why it should be insisted upon ... dialectics is the master class discourse par excellence ... will elaborate on this and gnosticism (with assistance from dark prince of gnostic cold rationalism ray brassier) soon...

no sex please, we're post-monotheistic monkeys no longer getting high on transgression

okay, saying that a belief in progress is simply the ideology of the white master race is just plain wrong because much of said master race did not believe in progress.

'Progress' in the terms of liberal ideology towards some secular good is entirely different from the 'progress' of primogeniture. It's muddying the issue to say otherwise, and the idea that the white master class had a single monolithic ideology of progress is bunk, for the obvious reason that the biggest believers in secularist progress, eg John Stuart Mill, the biggest idealogues of liberalism, were also very much against slavery and empire. While some liberals were imperialists -- Chamberlain, for example, the Tories -- Salisbury, for example -- were not. Roger Scruton is the epitomyof non-progressive wmc-ness today.