Myth, Aesthetics, Realism

GuessedWorker has a new contribution to the myth debate. It is based on this article by Madeline Bunting which addresses the political implications of new research in neuroscience.

I don’t see how this in anyway undermines O’Meara’s position. If the reigning liberal understanding of human nature is ultimately exposed as an elaborate myth, which it most certainly is, then that would only provide further evidence of the power of mythization in Western culture. The Left will respond to the new science by either 1.) attempting to suppress its findings (as in the case of sociobiology) or 2.) adapting the facts to service their own narrative. The Right (in all of its manifestations) will act in the same opportunistic way.

There is an element of self deception involved in presenting old fashioned British nationalism as  based on the latest cutting edge developments in neuroscience, sociobiology or political theory. Like any other version of nationalism, the mythic ideal (and the discourse surrounding it) existed long before Salterism and the like appeared on the scene. The heartfelt desire of British nationalists to return to traditional mores really isn’t based on any collection of data points.

I don’t think there is a scientific argument to be made for, say, enjoying the experience of consuming an English breakfast, preserving and cultivating the English language, or feeling a sense of rootedness in a particular place. This has more to do with one’s aethestic sensibilities than empiricism.

In the U.S., there is no shortage of empirical commentators on race relations. Anyone who wants to parse GSS data or review racial differences in intelligence or crime statistics can easily find ample resources that address this subject matter. The other road is a less travelled one.

4 Comments

  1. I couldn’t agree more.

    Most of what motivates us is innate preferences. Rational explanations only justify these preferences. The fascination with explanation is often misdirected energy, although it may give the rational mind comfort.

    What I want is to be with more people who share my innate preferences for land, culture, beauty, and conduct. This is because of something that I cannot really explain by quoting science. It is a story contained in the blood of my ancestors – which doesn’t really ‘make sense’ but is no less true for that.

  2. The article by Madiline Bunting suggests that a great mathematician or a great artist is made and not born.

    Blaise Pascal was BORN. Salvadore Dali was BORN.

    This is not science, it is dogma.

    Furthermore, her article reinforces the LIE that modern democracy cherishes “ideas such as self-expression, a sense of autonomy and a distinct, self-authored identity?” and that we actually live in a culture “which reinforces all these ideas.” But we don’t, we live in culture of repulsive manufactured identites. We live in a culure where if you are a White Man can’t call a nigger a nigger or a faggot a faggot without getting arrested. We live in a culture that smothers White self expression and automy from the first, a culture that works feverishely to erase history of all the examples of those BORN.

  3. “Furthermore, her article reinforces the LIE that modern democracy cherishes “ideas such as self-expression, a sense of autonomy and a distinct, self-authored identity?” and that we actually live in a culture “which reinforces all these ideas.””

    Yes Lena that is, as the British would say, total bollocks! Just ask Ernst Zundel, David Irving, and the Heretical 2 who have clearly had their ideas about self-expression violated by the coming ‘New Stasi’!!!

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Myth, Aesthetics, Realism | The Occidental Quarterly

Comments are closed.