Chadnet Forum

Chadnet
Home | Log in | Sign up


Back Go to bottom

No. 1037 by g-gundam
Caribbean Rhythms with BAP - Episode 105 - Group Being Rayp
https://glycineputler.libsyn.com/caribbean-rhythms-with-bap-episode-105-group-being-rayp

>I sperg out again about identity and in fact whole idea of "group belonging" and this whole apotheosis of "sociality" that is promoted by the postliberals, and which i find empty and depressing. I also talk what is great in man, and on last segment I review The Last Duel Scott Ridley; next installment movie show to follow soon I think.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsfrnujB9Ps

No. 1038 by g-gundam
>>1037
https://twitter.com/LatinxPutler/status/1510185305634226178

>Caribbean Rhythms 105 on emptiness of "group being" for its own sake; I attaq Hazony, "postliberals," and ethnic COMMUNITAY farthuffers of all kinds. Praise Crusoe.

Also review Last Duel!

No. 1039 by g-gundam
>>1037
https://files.catbox.moe/jtmtez.jpg

No. 1040 by john
>>1037
this is good episode i havent finished yet but i enjoy

No. 1042 by john
>>1039
someone wore green gloves

No. 1096 by g-gundam
>>1040
The biggest insight that I took away from this episode was that the left should not have a monopoly on universalism. I haven't heard anyone besides BAP say this, but I think he's right. We're often preoccupied with drawing lines and distinctions between groups, but there is value and power in big universal ideas that apply to everyone. Truth itself has a universal quality to it.

No. 1191 by <<< Sol Aeterna >>>
I was making notes/summary of the segment from 1:05:00 to 1:22:30 that talks about founding a secret society and what that entails; I thought it would be especially pertinent to successfully founding a RWBB compound, and thought I'd post it here. Although as it's probably not included in the publicly available first half, hopefully BAP doesn't see this as transgressing his Intellectual Property. These are stimulating thoughts (my notes are added in parenthesis):



Group identity (or foundations for cooperation with or attachment to others) cannot be weak bonds of mere social association,

What does it take to make a secret society? What kind of member does this take?

Want highly capable, personally proud, self-contained and not insecure,
joins because of total near-fanatic devotion to the higher cause, to completeing certain tasks,
bound by friendship and loyalty that emerge as part of this fight and develops loyalty to the society as practical necessity in the struggle (idealistic, voluntary teamwork, self-imposed)
genuine belief

Do not want "groupie" people who are "exploring their identity" (naive/unmoored) and are shiftless, care for social approval, lonely/deprived, want to be part of something, feel like
nothing without a cause; (no principles)


But group pride in an exclusive fraternity or mafia is normal and usually not found in new groups (whose prestige has not yet been formed)
"inverse relationship" between the narcissistic pleasure gained from group membership and "their actual value to the group"

Don't want people that "want to be part of something" trendy, a movement, but people that believe in what they do and want to fight for it alongside their peers (no people needy of social validation)
Don't want people that were swept up in "excitement, or media attention" (commitment must not be based on fleeting emotion but eternal principles/ideals rationally and even instinctively/spiritually/superrationally arrived at and voluntarily chosen to

No. 1192 by <<< Sol Aeterna >>>
embody/defend and sacrifice for/worship)

No ego involved; such people often turn out to be backstabbers
Humans have such an overriding self-interest that even if a secret society/mafia were to be founded, like Assassins or KGB, and full of ideologically committed, highly intelligent fanatics,
you still have to have a threat over their heads: betray us and you or your family get the blade or the bullet. You still have to do this or KGB doesn't work (i.e. membership for life)

That is what man is like: vicious, faithless, changeable (malleable, distracted, hypnotized, manipulatable, emotional)

Utilitarian/moralist right wing thinkers try to take scientific arguments from evolutionary biology or sociobiology on group selection and make out of that a human morality or prescriptive moral law

This doesn't work! You can't take insights about group selection and the supposed biological basis of altruism and observation sabout how certain animals act - not felines, for example -
and then say you have a duty as a man to do such and such for the sake of the group's survival or the spread of genes.
This doesn't make any sense; nobody will be convinced by that, no one will give up their own or their children's advantage for such a public justification.
If you cannot compel a man to give up his own self-advantage, life, or part of his family's life, you don't have a moral law of any great weight, do you?
Abraham was prepared to sacrific his son, why? Because God told him. And why did Agamemnon sacrifice his own daughter? And in Roman history many stronger examples of self-sacrifice and
even sacrifice of one's own sons (for example the 'devotio' I learned about from Julius Evola's RATMW)

No. 1193 by <<< Sol Aeterna >>>
Men of the right are not into this, many frens believe in the self-directed and sovereign individual - Locke isn't my thing, it's not the answer - but the attack on liberal individualism
specifically as the greateset cause of problems of our time - that attack is suspect, it's suspicious. It's the mark of racially dubious types. Non-Anglos, including those that cannot
get the Anglo spirit. Like Joseph Conrad I (BAP) admire Anglo spirit. They cannot imagine a Robinson Crusoe; to be self-directed offends them.
To me and many of my frends, the core tenet of any right-ism is extreme elitism and discrimination and valorization of soul and blood aristocracy. Very rare men who can actually do something without party permission or approval
Faustian man is his own reason, I take irresponsible delight in this intrepidness. No man is an island, maybe - maybe not - but only some men can tame an island, and for this they will
never be forgiven by the conjuries of undifferentiated men, or girls usually.

This annoys me (BAP), this lame liberal girl talk of 'we are social beings', 'man is a social being' (projection, I'd say, absolute men are self-contained unique and naturally indifferent to others)
'we all need to feel wanted, we all need to belong to something, our thoughts are entirely conditioned by language with social interactions' etc
This empty sociality for the sake of sociality (herd dithering) I've repeatedly said that this is the devolution of mankind to pre-Aryan muck existence, celebrated by tranny directors of Matrix and their unholy Zion
I like Christianity of a kind, because Jesus stands alone against the mob, that's how I like to see Christ - a man against the world, do you understand?

No. 1194 by <<< Sol Aeterna >>>
One of these ditz girls can't get her mind around that, to her Jesus is an incel (as if men heroically standing on principle just need to be tamed/cajoled/sucked into the abyss of sex),
not only because he didn't reproduce, but because the idea that you stand against the many, the authorities (the slaves and slave masters as opposed to free men) - God forbid, against status, and against status-vanity and such,
that you are ousted for society and willing to die for your beliefs - to them that's an incel, it's become shorthand. Robinson Crusoe! Imagine what a redditor would think of Robinson Crusoe!

These are heroes of mine, Robinson Crusoe, Heraclitus, men who are a world unto themselves. And now you can criticize me or those like me and say 'this is not a social theory'
you can say, 'this is very nice but cannot be the basis for a group or nation or such thing'... Maybe yes, maybe no, but I think it can, because if properly spelled out - all the
consequences of this universe of ideas - it would lead to other idea of rule of the strongest, or rule by contest - including by duel and physical contest, which is a state of things I'd agree to,
and any man who agreed with these things would also agree to it. Even if I knew I wouldn't win that contest. Because the logic of the agon is fair and noble.

No. 1195 by <<< Sol Aeterna >>>
But leaving aside this extreme elitism and love of Robinson Crusoe and Achilles - okay, you don't have to go that far, but you can certainly recognize universalism, cosmopolitanism, science
and love of natural discovery these are not necessarily the same things as leftism, liberalism, or so-called individualism, if by that you mean a situation where you become an atomized plaything of the state or its proxies.
It doesn't mean egalitarianism in deed or ideal. You can have a scientific, or science-loving, imperial state with a universalist (transcendent, natural) morality or believe that
is nothing like what we have now and does not have any of the pathologies the world has now. It might have other pathologies, but not these ones. It would look maybe like a modern update of
the Roman Empire, or of the Russian Empire if it was not run by apefricans, but it'd be something like a Roman Empire that acknowledges biological facts, biological differences and hierarchies
both between races and within, that would subsume economic life to some extent to the power of the state, in particular to the grand projects (sounds like NSDAP's profit sharing policy - see 25 points of National Socialism)
of the rulers of this state that would promote human excellence and would promote order and hierarchy, but not the haphazard hierarchies from historical cultures based on religions,
but on the true ladder of values as discovered by science and biology (demonstrable superiority and measurable qualities) - the queen of the sciences. And none of this would imply economic
destitution of working class or the social atomization or ennui of intellectuals, or the breakdown of the family, of manners, of cleanliness in all its aspects. None of it would imply racial or even national balkanization
or even Babylonian mixing - these are all non-sequiturs, these are all pathologies that I believe come from quite different sources. And I believe that until such a state can be founded...

No. 1196 by <<< Sol Aeterna >>>
I hope one day, at least, some of us, in near future, with my frens we can found fortresses on edge of world, where we will be the armed party of truth, of science and nature, where we can embark ourselves on great
ventures and experiments these pathetic community center nations of broken self-regarding fart-huffers can no longer tolerate. They can suck themselves off, while we explore moons of Jupiter and ocean under Antarctica.

This is why I have great problem not just with identity talk but with entire idea of group belonging as that thing that defines man - man defined by empty sociality is subhuman. I believe in a race of Armed Heraclitus



(Most social bonds are bonds of mere convenience; inertia of undifferentiated masses and family relations; petty and temporary ties based around 'interests' or 'addictions' or to share in each other's misery)


(Must be inner devotion; religious belief; intimate association)

Go to top