In this section, I will be dealing with the proprietor of Majorityrighs.com, a boomer going by the nom de plume of “Guessedworker.”
Like everyone, he is a combination of what would be thought to be “good” and “bad”, and “intelligent” and not so much.
To his credit, his line in critique of Christianity, for its negative impact on European peoples, is penetrating and deep.
His commitment to nationalism, what most of us would call “ethnonationalism” but what he would call “ethnic nationalism” in order to emphasize and maintain the differences among European peoples as well, is the morally correct, ecological position.
His willingness to brave the tabood subjects of political correctness, notably, the YKW question, in order to maintain this position, is admirable.
GW helps with an articulate stance against Nazism; it is mitigated by leniency to its over-sympathizers for his outreach; in futile effort to win them over, for a Germanophilia that he has, apparently for more than the usual share of German in his English DNA. But he’s not a Nazi.
And finally, his holding fast to “emergentism’ is no small matter.
I have learned from this, that some of the mistakes that I’ve made in life would have been corrected sooner and better or avoided in the first place had I had a better sense of emergentism and the importance of holding fast to inborn evolution rather than looking for answers in the social interactive realm as readily as I did.
I must hasten to add that I was never averse to this idea – it fits right into my platform, works perfectly well with the hermeneutic circularity of inquiry as I recognize it to work, with what would be that end’s empirical rigor and the “holding-fast” that was already on tap in this other anti-Cartesian aspect of Heidegger’s post modern project; whereas, I already engaged with Dasein, there being, as being a prompt back to interactivity with our relative interests, taking us back from Cartesian estrangement and into MidtDasein – there-being amidst our people and our relative interests; otherwise known as Praxis (the social world of our delimited people group).
However, while I would readily acknowledge, work with and integrate these few good ideas that Guessedworker brought to bear, he would not extend willing suspension of disbelief to the value of the post modern resource that I brought to bear, crucially refined for European interests though it was, against the machinations of our antagonists and our own blindness and ineptitude which leave modern and pre-modern variants of our philosophy susceptible to exploitation.
Emergentism is an eminently useful guide to hold us on course from Cartesian estrangement, but it is not infallible and hermeneutic’s liberation from mere facticity and social constructionism proper are necessary post modern resource for correctivity where we might be led astray of our people’s interests.
I have brought the array of post modern philosophical resource to bear as it is supposed to be crafted in our interests as European people; to be distinguished thus as “White Post Modernity” so as not to be confused with the da-da, hyper-relative, shallow “pastiche” irony, the misrepresentation of what Post modernity is supposed to do for peoples, including ours, as opposed to liberalism. A misrepresentation that I have called “Red Caped Post Modernity”, showing how it works to deceive, as corruption and misdirection of many ideas that would otherwise be not only good, but necessary to our group accountability, thus coherence, agency, thus correctivity and warrant in group systemic homeostasis, autonomy and sovereignty.
With an utterly conceited notion of his superior depth and intelligence, Guessedworker rejected important ideas, or attempted to mitigate the importance with a self serving but terrible purport of order, priority, relevance and non-adjustableness of unit of analysis; preferring instead to remain reacting to, chasing and attacking the red-capes of post modernity.
The reasons for his antagonism of good ideas are not good, as of course they could not be.
Even if he were to like the term “meta-modernity”, it still should be worked in as the positive side of modernity which is encompassed by post modernity; not mutually exclusive, but worked into to the more comprehensive resource of White Post Modernity, including its important epochal distinction from Modernity; to validate the reconstruction of the positive sides of tradition, and most crucially, of inherited forms.
As I said, the reasons for Guessedworker’s antagonism to ideas crucial to our people’s interests are not good, as they could not be, with a particularly virulent form of boomerism coursing through him, he could not find it in himself to acknowledge ideas that are good, deep, important to our people while not something that he could conceive as well honed by him in his arm chair, ultimately to be represented as his offering, not of the smartest living man, but apparently the smartest man EVER. William James? one sentence, dismissed. Aristotle? “Simply not relevant” … all you need is Guessedworker.
And then he would say that “the only right that people have is the right to fight for their survival.”
He’s said that repeatedly.
Is that the utterance of a superior intellect? Absolutely Not.
Even so, in Guessedworker, you find a man whose good sides are unfortunately overbalanced by an unmerited, gargantuan ego; which, when confronted with ideas better than what he’s come up with, at least inasmuch as they threaten his autobiography, cannot be honest – he does manifest something like the classic narcissistic personality disorder which flares-up in interface with good ideas that are not his and which he cannot assimilate into his autobiography – he would thus gaslight and strawman these ideas, sacrificing our people’s crucial interests for the sake of his ego and the autobiography which serves it.
I would not have believed his intransigence in this regard. His gasligthing and strawmanning was an incredibly obnoxious experience that I put up with for eight years, largely because he put me in editorial charge of Majorityrights and I saw it as a valuable site and audience for me to provide the best resource that I had available; while the strange curiosity of his objections were almost invariably so stupid that they only served to underscore the value of the resource that I brought to bear, the platform that I set-out.
Nevertheless, as this illustrative gas-lighting and straw-manning occurred over the course of eight years, I cannot just whip out a complete essay like that and capture why it is that I’d like to take a blunt measure to his head for my sake and yours. I will even move on to post new essays here at dnanations, while in due course, I will take my time and unfold various examples of Guessedworker’s virulent boomer gaslighting and straw-manning: “justified” with a self serving, utterly stupid notion of necessary order, priority, mutual exclusivity, unit of analysis, either/or and a compounding of fixity that he attributes to his straw-manning (as opposed to hermeneutic process of inquiry) – and You will then understand how I could be so angry with him.
Check in periodically if you are interested. The discussion of his worldview and autobiography, its problems, the correctives that he rejects by way of his gaslighting and straw-manning, will be informative and relevant to our interests.
…..
Let me begin by qualifying the reasons for this post.
If my reason was merely to counter the personal insult to me that GW rendered in his years of gaslighting me, straw-manning me, sprinkled with ad hominem attack, that would be petty.
James Bowery similarly distanced himself from Majorityrights also for Guessedworker’s insult, not only to his person, but for lack of appreciation for significant contribution; and I do recognize that, in Bowery’s case, GW was not granting the magnitude of certain components contributed by Bowery to our homeostasis; however, I believe that the case of Guessedworker’s gaslighting and strawmanning of the philosophical world view and theoretical broad strokes that I brought to bear is even more obstructive, if not destructive (if I let him get away with it) to the interests of European peoples – thus, important to correct for our well being, not merely for my own sanity and satisfaction.
…
Although I will be rendering some analysis along the way, my main concern at this point is to itemize Gussedworker’s contentions, so that I can draw upon, as need be, significant examples and patterns of what invariably amounted to straw-manning and a pattern of gaslighting as such, in order to deal with his evident will to misconstrue the concepts that I brought to bear and my own motives – and knowing the concepts that I brought to bear and my own motives accurately as opposed to his willful misconceptions and ad hominem attributions to me, will allow me to correct for proper understanding of concepts and provide an anchoring to understand his (shoddy) motives.
A good place to begin is probably his invitation to me to join him at “GAB”, as it is a clear indication of a deliberate strategy to treat me as a foil and to misrepresent me and the concepts which I bring to bear before a largely new audience on that platform.
Asshole might get a leg up and perhaps even be able to claim credit for deployment of some good ideas which he may fear could be used against him.
In typical novice, reactionary form, Guessedworker clings to a psychological perspective as his recourse. It was true of myself that under the harrowing assault of political correctness, I moved to recourse in psychology after I had begun with art and then moved to religion, only to find these worldviews insufficient to deal with the assailing of my concerns.
However, Guessedworker was not intelligent and educated enough to see the limits of the psychological perspective and his own psychology indeed has kept him at least partly (more like largely) stuck there, with its limitations; though it should be clear when looking at the issue of anti-racism, an attack on our people as a group which is the essence of what we are up against – not especially a matter of individual psychology, not even well characterized as a matter of group psychology. But as he remains partly stuck there, clinging in white knuckle reaction to the hope that he can control and establish an empirical foundation with that perspective, that his personal input as such is uniquely important; one weapon that he apparently feels that he can reliably draw upon with over confidence from the psychological bag of tricks is the notion of “projection.”
A person might be susceptible to project their own motives and liabilities onto another indeed, where they do not understand their own motives, concepts, are not especially conscious and articulate; where in fact they seek to attack someone personally, and are motivated as such.
But since I do understand my concepts and motives, which are not to compete with and destroy Guessedworker, but to address and correct matters of theoretical concern to European peoples which are in error, Guessedworker’s attempts to construe my offerings as “projections” come into high relief as bogus – strawmen and gaslighting; showing the bad will to be clearly from his side.
I tried once to find the few posts that Guessedworker made over there at GAB and my few responses, but I did not find them. If I do find them, I’ll enter them here. However, he was obnoxious enough so that I can easily remember the “projections” that he tried to attribute to me.
Based on my email, there is nothing to do with GAB prior to late 2016, so it must have been around then that GW invited me to “join him” and “the friends at GAB.”
It was not altogether a surprise that he was luring me into a trap, but this little ambush was even more obnoxious than GW’s usual efforts to seek and exploit anything that he could to turn me into his foil, to go one-up on me in incisive “triumph”, and that’s saying something when it comes to GW. But as I said, his conscious strategy and shoddy motives come into high relief as such, before what he takes to be a new audience, where he might hope to get a leg up.
But while GW’s antics discouraged me from participating at GAB, from what I gather, that is not an audience whom I choose to serve anyway. It’s proprietor, Andrew Torba, is apparently a Jesus freak who caters to Jesus freaks and other right wing reactionaries without sufficient social skill and thus seeking haven from mainstream media political correctness for their anti-social positions; gathering there in effect are social retards – neo-Nazis and Christians, not the audience that I serve anyway; quite the opposite. Christians are drawing on and prescribing a map that was conceived by the enemies of Whites to direct our people to self destruction as a people; and Nazis are, by definition, commending deadly antagonism toward most non-German peoples – serving to stigmatize our cause by association, instigating or instigated as it were, to the divide and conquer purposes of our enemies at very least; while pointedly, taking a position of lethal disregard for those Europeans conceived as being in the way of their hair-brained rule. So, let GW swim in that sewer. These are among the most significant adversaries of White people’s interests, enemies of European peoples as such.
Again, if I find the exact post, I will copy it here. But while I do not remember the exact phrasing, I do remember the exact catalogue of false accusations that asshole (Guessedworker) rendered against me to “welcome” me to GAB.
I don’t quite remember how he tried to introduce this barrage, but usually he tries to pretend that he’s trying to help me, only rendering an honest critique as such; in truth, it is nothing of the kind.
Reactionary: Asshole tried to project his reactionary politics and “philosophy” on to me, accusing me of being “reactionary.” In fact this is particularly UNTRUE of me, as I am always advocating systemic homeostasis, i.e., our people as a self corrective system, thus autonomous and sovereign – this is the opposite of being a “reactionary.”
Reification: One accusation that he made of me was being stuck in “reification.” – reification means to turn something into a stuck thing.
Part of why GW’s accusations, strawmen, are infuriating is because they are so remarkably untrue. It’s hard to get anything out of his baseless critique other than that you are not dealing with an honest man.
In addition to being untrue, I can add that the heremeneutics process of inquiry that I engage and endorse, is anti-reification by definition.
I may have suggested (correctly) that fixation on his ontology project ran the risk of reification.
He apparently tried to play this as a projection, again, inaccurate because he fails to realize that I am not like him, not competing against him personally; my efforts in correction are geared rather at theory, not his person; which I only deal with when he gets in the way of theoretical correction.
I don’t remember if he tried to misrepresent my concept of White Left Ethnonationalism as being in accordance with the red caped YKW marketing campaign as he has dozens of times and if he also tried to construe me as beholden to sociology and in the Jewish red cape of it, as he has dozens of times; but if he didn’t here, he has plenty of other times, forced me to shovel his horseshit strawmanning from what I am actually saying and its signifcance.
Only trying to win: In fact, one of the (true) criticisms that I made of him with regard to his stupid criticism, was that he was obviously not very concerned with truth and theoretical satisfaction but rather concerned primarily to win, to see himself as the winner against me.
In this welcome to GAB he tried to turn around and (falsely) claim projection, saying that I was only concerned with winning. The man is an idiot.
A quanta of intelligence beyond me: Next, GW would claim to have a “quanta” of intelligence beyond me… now that GW has defined himself as an asshole (again, who is competing to win against the other here, rather than attending to theoretical concern?), we might ask, what kind of intelligence? and we get a clue from his next claim.
How unsuited you are for abstract thinking: What an asshole. For now, I will ignore all he’s ignored in saying this, and add my (accurate) rejoinder of the time –
How unsuited you, Guessedworker, are to philosophy.
You are blinded by your concepts: this attempt at claiming projection was particularly obnoxious because I’d always been keen on advancing the idea of “rational blindness” for theoretical reasons, and it is important as such; I don’t recall having accused GW of rational blindness – though his objectivist aspirations would leave him prone to that and I suppose he was trying to accuse me before he could be accused. But in addition to not being true (I’m not blinded by my concepts and the projection thing doesn’t work because it’s an idea aimed in theory not at him) he is in a sense, co-opting an idea that he has neither the intelligence to conjure, the judgment to recognize the significance of, nor the decency to credit.
Now I gleaned this concept from John Shotter’s work. There is, of course, nothing wrong with my deploying good ideas for our interests.
But from the sick autobiography of GW, it is not possible that I exercise agency, judgement and discretion in how I use the work of academics, or anybody, for that matter, making my person thus, the vehicle, crediting what I use, qualifying and leaving aside problems with those whose work I use, as need be.
GW’s puerile autobiography in jealous and resentful antipathy to academics and academic humanities is committed beyond anyone else you’ll ever see. The man is utterly absurd. He is going to do everything in his power to make you (as in me, in this case) fit into the foil of his autobiography as hero against academic pretense. Thus, it is the case with Shotter, as any academic that I reference, historical or contemporary, that I have no agency, I am the passive receptacle, merely repeating what these “Marxist Leftist” academics have told me.
The man is a jealous idiot.
Any sentence, any paragraph that you look at coming from me will make it clear that his accusations of disservice to our people are not true; it is obvious to even those with the most mediocre skills of apprehension.
Instead of seeing that I am exercising discretion, agency and originality in deployment on our behalf, he calls me a “Shotterist” and accuses me of “Shotterism.” What a fucking idiot.
In fact, the first time I exploded in anger with GW was in a Skype call; I’ve discussed this episode before, but anyway:
I had just put up an article wherein my main concern was to introduce the idea of an analogy of European peoples (particularly northerners) to naïve species prone to invasive species.
I jumped around, deliberately, introducing other concepts as well, wanting the post to be a bit provocative and unconventional; GW, of course, missed the point, focusing on my style instead, saying that “people would stop reading” rather than seizing upon the idea of naïve and invasive species for elaboration in comment (Morgoth would develop the idea in one podcast of his).
Being the stupid boomer that GW is, locked in his effort to justify his egocentric world view, he tried to suggest that I was not serving the individualistic personality of European peoples. I rejoined that in fact, I discuss the very means of individuality by way of Harre’s work, in not only one respect but two: the corporeal and the autobiographical. I discuss the means of individuality by way of Shotters work and more, as well.
But Asshole tries to tell me that I should look only at the corporeal, be a mechanic in his service.
I try to explain to him that the autobiographical self is necessary to coherence, accountability (lets now add correctability), agency and warrant.
But according to him, I was supposed to only examine our problems from a sublime physicalist position. The idiot tried to tell me in that discussion that I’d studied the wrong thing; I guess that according to asshole, I was not supposed to look at group interactive concerns, but rather after brain mechanics (as if anti-racism is not a group interactive concern).
The man is an idiot.
In fact, this egocentric worldview, in holdover from modernity, is the pivotal criticism of the boomers launched by the initial literature describing the difference of Generation X – forsaken in the funk and wake of the boomer stampede, or swarm as it were, like a swarm of locusts that devoured everything of value in their path, leaving Xers in the funk.
Boomers don’t typically want to cop to this, their dumb luck and their part in the disaster for their unwillingness to acknowledge that their fortune is not all their personal doing and that their anti-social (anti-White social) position is a large part in the disaster befallen; they want to believe that their modernist, egomoniacal thing wasn’t done hard enough.
In fact, Guessedworker’s case of modernist boomerism is so bad, that he believes that the entire history of Western philosophy and academia needs to be “swept aside” – he has literally said this – in order to make way for the foundationalism of his “ontology project” – and what you are supposed to do is get high on his Zen farts wafting up from his armchair.
Asshole then makes the insane suggestion that I should elaborate a theory of accountability (apparently from a myopic physicalist perspective that does not threaten his autobiography and subserves his “ontology project” – he thinks that the self, particularly his egomaniac self and its “interiority”, is a foundational, prior concern) – this is after I’d posted an analysis of John Shotter’s work – whose life’s work was dedicated to this issue and had analyzed social accountability in a continual hermeneutic circle moving with remarkable rigor from chapter to chapter, paragraph to paragraph, sentence to sentence, word to word! And he wants me to get more anal than that, rather than attending to other matters? He’s crazy ignorant.
Ok, but since shoveling through eight years of GW’s horseshit is going to take time and require breaks, let me move on to post that analysis of Shotter indeed. I don’t mind putting it up before I put up my own philosophical overview, since GW cannot comment here, gunk up and derail matters; I will just flow from there at my leisure to set forth the theoretical / philosophical platform advanced here without the nuisance of his obfuscation; and come back from time to time to shovel aside GW’s horseshit.
Let me launch on to that with this piece of colossal assholery form GW:
All you have to do to set aside your ethno-nationalist party of one is to adapt your Shotterism to the existential. That will require you also to un-distance your nationalism from the people so, for example, the bloodless and unloving dictum of “white post-modernity” becomes a minor comment on history rather than an all-important destination. Ours is a politics of blood and love and Nature. Connect to it. That’s already your personal redemption.
In GW’s mind, I am having an “ethnonationalist party of one” and I need his advice.
“Shotterism” would be his neologism that he tries to apply to me as having an ideology in Shotter.
The man is an idiot – for trying to trivialize what is to be gotten from this work and for trying to belittle my having utilized his work (already have), selecting from it, and shaping and crafting that not ideologically, but pragmatically, for our cause.
My nationalism is not distanced from “the people”… but the accusation is GW’s way of saying that his autobiography is threatened, as he sees himself as the champion of the people against academic pretense and misdirection; not concerned, ever, that I do not pretend and misdirect.
He uses the word “bloodless” (in other places “blood and soil”) in order to stay in character as quaint, of the people, not so pretentious as to invoke the concept of DNA Nations here.
Asshole believes that when he makes these proclamations like “bloodless” and “unloving dictum” that it must be true.
“Unloving dictum” ?
What kind asshole is this? And what does this narcissistic personality disorder case know about being “loving”? Look at the way he talks, the spiteful dishonesty.
As ever, attacking any good and important idea. Because it is worse to him that it threatens to lessen any significance of his person and contributions by contrast, and so he must therefore trivialize what he cannot eliminate:
Thus, “White Post-Modernity” should become a minor comment on history rather than an exceptionally important destination.
GW, in his autobiography, is a champion of politics of blood and love and Nature (capital N) and I am Not these things (in the story of his autobiography).
The man is no small asshole.
He is a huge asshole.
He concludes,
“That’s already your personal redemption.”
He has the nerve to act like I need redemption and advice from him about how to achieve redemption.
He placed this as a comment under a personal story about my relation to my father and the rest of my family – a story which obviously I know well enough to know that I don’t need redemption. My story, “666 and the Final Grammar” was already kindly and redemptive in regard to me and my father, whose insane, explosive emotional cruelty I chose not to elaborate in its instances of delivery and impact, but chose rather to highlight the good side of this man who (like GW) was uneducated and dismissive of academic concerns of the humanities sort.
So, in this instance, where GW reads this as if I’m seeking or should be seeking redemption, I think, as I often do about bludgeoning his head, how satisfying that could be after eight years of this asshole placing his ego before concepts necessary to the interests of European peoples, obstructing as much as he could, invariably straw-manning and gaslighting for his ego project.
No, I am not the one who is in need of redemption here.
The reader may not fully understand my rancor at GW yet, but if you care to, you probably will in due course.
Time for a break before the “Shotterist” posts the “Shotterism” …oh what an asshole GW.
Ok, back. Before I go into that somewhat more protracted break in order to post the Shotter piece, let me note Guessedworker’s take when he’d finally succeeded in being obnoxious enough for me to start this site of my own; i.e., why he suggests that I had supposedly failed.
“The market has spoken.”
Classic modernist boomer wants to believe that “the market” is a sheer, objectively critical force, beyond social critique. Worse is the fact that the market had not spoken nearly so much as Jewish marketing had spoken – and I told him this; viz. the Jewish marketing campaign altercasting White identity to the right and more specifically than ever against a characterology of “the left” had spoken, and Guessedworker, dumb boomer that he is, self serving to him as this marketing campaign is, obliged.
For in GW’s puerile, reactionary autobiography, naïve/disingenuous world view, it is not only the market which must sort things out properly by invisible hand, but nationalism and European interests sheerly as well. Social accountability, correctivity and the unionization that would facilitate it are anathema to his gargantuan, unmerited ego project.
…..
This accusation of “activism” is a newer form that he tried many times, i.e., of his calling me and the resources that I brought to bear, “political,” as in, merely political – the suggestion being that he and his concerns are of a deeper, much more important philosophical nature by comparison. You can’t make this asshole up.
…..
This is a combination of arrogance, stupidity and error in judgment beyond belief on the part of Asshole:
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:12 | #
Daniel, I don’t know if you can break free from your island of gauche certainties. There is no “epistemological blunder”. There is only you trying to justify your own worldview by whatever means comes to mind.
And talk about projection…
As I said, wherever there is a good and important idea, in this case, eminently important idea (the epistemic blunder of Nazism), asshole will attack it and try to destroy it on behalf of his gargantuan, unmerited ego; and also, probably, his scientistic Germano/Nazophilic eggers-on.
Addendum January 2022: Against GW, I defend the concept of incommensurability as particularly useful in tagging qualitative, ecological niche differences which should not be looked upon as readily comparable, but rather incommensurable; and respected as such, avoid the false and disrespectful comparisons that can instigate reciprocally escalating conflict as opposed to a means for coordination in and between qualitative, niche evolutionary differences in an between groups.
While I have put off updates in address of the idiotic contentiousness of the narcissistic personality disorder case which is Guessedworker (as it could go almost indefinitely, spanning more than eight years as it has), another round has been necessary this late January 2022, as GW is up to his old thing – i.e., attacking any and every good and important idea, as it threatens his autobiography and unmerited, gargantuan ego:
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 06:42 | #
Go on to pursuit of more rigorous grounds for social sciences as you will, but please do not make the kind of mistake that Guessedworker is prone to, in trying to assert that I am anything like beholden to an entire program, let alone its distortions and abuses for political purposes, when I recognize significant value in a few ideas, viz. paradigms, comparability and incommensurability, for application in responsible handling (phronesis = practical judgment) necessary in the more messy, more changeable, less perfectly causal world of social interaction (as opposed to the hard sciences); especially as it is to be negotiated by us ordinary non-scientists.
That is to say, it may be possible to undertake an elaborate equation where people from a third world culture are comparable for their abilities or lack thereof, but for practical sake, the notion of “incommensurability” provides a useful, if not valuable heuristic; as in, “these people are evolved for a different niche, and have skills for entirely different purposes” (a different “paradigm”) which would not only be impractical, but destructive, unnecessarily disrespectful (provocative) and even dangerous to ignore – niche differences the sight of which may be lost, as might happen with comparisons pushed to an extreme, if not false comparisons made.
Think of the White nerd who behaves as if his higher I.Q. puts him on superior and safe ground across the board as opposed to the street black. The White nerd can be caught off guard for false comparison, not respecting incommensurable difference; which in the case of blacks is speaking a long pre-evolution to European differentiation; as you also know, comporting more testosterone, (comparatively hyper) assertion, less sublimation – short time horizon – and lack of compunction in impulse control that causes the White guy to come up short for the complacency of his nerd I.Q. and its logical rationalizations (“they are not so bad/dangerous to me”). Yes, these are scientific comparisons, but where the comparisons veer toward incommensurability is in the hubris of thinking that the niche evolutionary requirements for our circumstance apply across the board and render the other lesser in all significant ways.
Whereas this hubris which got the nerd caught off guard may have been staved-off by a bit of tribute to incommensurability and the necessity for paradigmatic separation. The sensitivity to niche differences that is proposed with the practical option of “incommensurability” provides the means for respect and coordination, not only between groups, but within, I might add.
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:01 | #
There is a marked tendency for Jewish intellectuals, because (to borrow from Kuhn) they operate within the historical paradigm not as interpreters and descriptors but as re-interpreters and inflectors, and because the historical paradigm anyway is not the same as the history of the practise of truth (“normal science”, to Kuhn), to expose their true ardour, which is for the controlling and directing power of the word. Obviously, in themselves words … the kind of words employed in science and most branches of genuine intellectual enquiry … have a certain state of philological innocence. “Paradigm” is, after all, a perfectly useful term. It does not carry the sign of a lower intent. That only enters with its artful and strategic incision into the living if not organic matter of our intellectual expositions and mores.
Another of Kuhn’s artful words was “incommensurability”, the effect of which was to undermine the structural integrity of realist descriptions of the world, and all it contains, by appealing to perspectivism. When he was challenged on the basis that his ideas led to relativism … something that should not surprise us in the slightest … he defended himself noisily and by turning to the individual scientist’s subjectivism and values overriding his vaunted and dispassionate attachment to truth. It’s pretty thin stuff, really. An accusation, nothing more; and a pessimistic judgement on Scientific Man, excising his better nature, his professional discipline, his stated purpose. But the eponymous culture warrior must do these things to escape the dread finger of suspicion.
Anyway, in the process he had to attack the role of “internal and external consistency” in the scientific method. What is there without the adequacy of consistency? The anti-relativists were completely right. James is totally right. The question – as always there is a question – is: where do we go from here?
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:45 | #
Incommensurability is not a merely artful term, but can be practically useful; a more clear example would be in the evaluation of the differences between the genders; in a word, it prompts that attention is best paid to a qualitative (paradigmatic) difference.
Go ahead and try to make social sciences like a hard science as you might, James is not completely right inasmuch as he (and you) would over extend application of science where philosophical judgment is called for; as ever, you have set up a false either/or. Glad to leave you behind.
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 16:08 | #
Actually, the term “incommensurability” came into the sociology lexicon from two Jews – Fleck and Kuhn – working thirty years apart, and the paedophile postmodernist Foucault. Its meaning concerns not sociobiology but sociological nomenclature. You, Daniel, are filching it off them, presumably from your uni days, and forcing it into an ill-fitted sociobiological service.
Foucault was right in one respect. What we are really talking about here is the problem of episteme … the problem of truth. One would hope that, rather than take lessons from the denizens of sociology departments either of the last century or this, thinking nationalists might attack the problem independently, without relying on correspondence or coherentism. Relationality in the forms of accretion and consonance might have some role to play.
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 16:29 | #
Don’t leave, DanielS.
Putting your differences with GW aside, the substance of your comment @1 is very spot-on and important. If only white ppl understood and acted on the info you presented, we wouldn’t be in the shape we’re in. Instead, whites are conditioned to think the differences between the races are negligible; small differences that integration and education can erase. Most whites simply refuse to acknowledge sub-Saharan negroes evolved to adapt to their enviornment in Africa … which is much different to how whites evolved in Europe—of course those evolutionary differences include emotional, intellectual and physical differences. It’s all built into the DNA. But the majority of whites are so thoroughly brainwashed/conditioned that they police their own thoughts; in doing so they discard any factual information that does not comport with or support their egalitarian/anti-racist mindset.
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:32 | #
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 16:08 | #
Actually, the term “incommensurability” came into the sociology lexicon from two Jews – Fleck and Kuhn – working thirty years apart, and the paedophile postmodernist Foucault.
Incommensurability is one of the few ideas that I’ve gleaned from a Jewish source; and I’ve applied it as it can serve the interests of White/European systemic homeostasis; in fact, so useful to our purposes (e.g., as opposed to looking at things as equal or unequal – and therefore tactlessly chasing the red cape “against equality”) that when a prominent Jewish academic gave a lecture criticizing the idea, it “confirmed” for me my mistaken belief that Khun must be non-Jewish. If a Jew is arguing against the idea, it only goes to show that there is something there.
I retain the value of the idea – as I apply it – not because I’m beholden to what professors told me, despite the fact that your puerile autobiography insists on that.
Its meaning concerns not sociobiology but sociological nomenclature.
As sociological “nomenclature” it can be a good, useful idea; and like any and every good idea, you will attack it because it threatens your autobiography and unmerited, gargantuan ego.
You, Daniel, are filching it off them, presumably from your uni days, and forcing it into an ill-fitted sociobiological service.
“Filching”? I never denied where I got the idea, and no normal person will presume, as you do, that if something was gotten during university days, that it must be bad; like anything that I’ve gleaned, I’ve fashioned it for service of our people.
Foucault was right in one respect.
In your idiotic remarks before, you ignored the distinctions that I make in post modern thought, in that regard, and pander to reactionary idiots (or go along with instigating enemies) who want to maintain associations that I have no use for – Derrida. And now you invoke Foucault, which I have little use for … though “biopower” is useful notion; perhaps “the use of pleasure” and a few other things, but not an important figure.
I am not trying to ill fittingly put incommensurability into sociobiological service, but recognize, rather, its utility as prompt to be careful about quantitative comparisons; particularly as deployed by the general population.
And like any good idea, you will attack it.
What we are really talking about here is the problem of episteme … the problem of truth.
Are you really?
One would hope that, rather than take lessons from the denizens of sociology departments either of the last century or this, thinking nationalists might attack the problem independently, without relying on correspondence or coherentism.
Relationality in the forms of accretion and consonance might have some role to play.
You can’t get over (stop reacting to) this red caping of sociology. Don’t care that I never took a sociology course in my life – your anti sociology club requires you to keep depicting me as a sociology student beholden to presiding Jewish charlatans. It’s your problem; I gave you the benefit of the doubt in thinking that there might be something positive behind your attacks on good ideas. There is no good reason, and you will never admit it; its just what you do because you are an asshole.
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:51 | #
Understand that I quite deliberately limited my discourse to “data-driven scientific discovery” knowing full well that there are other paths to truth. The reason for this limitation is the modern pretense that all is machine—the past determines the future through the present including our behavior as seekers of truth.
We expend enormous resources engaging in discourse over cause and effect, as though cause and effect are real—as though the flow of time is unidirectional. So long as we remain in this relation to our world, may we at least economize those resources?
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:07 | #
On commensurability/incommensurability, the concept simply does not mean what you want it mean, Daniel. It does not refer to the vulgar difference between entities (or paradigms) per se but between the unitary measure of their structure or unitary theory of same. That’s what makes it philosophy of (hard) science and not simple sociology.
Now, a saving grace, for which you will not be in the slightest grateful, is that the two philosophers of science who are in question here had an entirely predictable agenda which is not interested in science at all but in the negation of Truth. They really are only interested in refuting the possibility of knowing kind and Other, or they wouldn’t be doing this stuff at all. So it turns out that you have a point, as do all nationalists. But you are still using the wrong technical term. What you are looking for, even if you don’t know it, is something that goes to realism and naturalism.
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:25 | #
GW, you are a fucking idiot; as ever (you’ve done this countless times), making these proclamations, thinking like a queen that if you proclaim it, that “incommensurability/ commensurability simply does not mean what I say”. Shut up; and don’t tell me what I’m looking for as in accordant subject to your retarded rule.
I’ve explained this to the [expletive] countless times now (it won’t penetrate), that his being against sociology is like being against the telescope and saying only microscopes are good instruments. Ridiculous. It depends upon your unit of analysis. And, in fact, the sociological unit of analysis – the group – is most relevant as we are under attack as a group – i.e., a race, under attack by anti-racism (anti white group-ism). Sure, other units of analysis can be investigated, sometimes fruitfully, but I am not the one who is treating the other means of inquiry as mutually exclusive to anything worthwhile.
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:04 | #
Daniel, “the unit of measure” isn’t “the unit of analysis”. That latter is the object measured in some respect. If that respect is, say, general intelligence then the unit of measure can, for example, be the Intelligence Quotient. But someone like Howard Gardiner may construct a protest on grounds of incommensurability with other bases for measurement which he perceives to be as important as general intelligence.
Get it now?
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:53 | #
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:04 | #
Daniel, “the unit of measure” isn’t “the unit of analysis”.
Asshole, that’s a strawman. I always understood that you are trying to compare and measure things. I did not say that things could not be compared and made somehow commensurable.
Get it now?
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:55 | #
I.e., there is a difference between “incommensurable and incomparable” – I didn’t suggest the later could not be done.
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:02 | #
..and I began by saying that this idea could abused, e.g., red caped, and I suggested that James neither chase the abuse as you invariably would nor insist that I was (or should) follow Khun’s entire program because I see one idea as useful (and use it in a benign, if not helpful way, a fact which you will invariably ignore).
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:24 | #
“Incomparability” means something else again (from set theory, I think) and is not what Kuhn was talking about. And “straw man” indicates a weak argument advanced so it may then be knocked down. OK, knock down my argument @ 13. Or, alternatively, cut your losses and retire gracefully.
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:57 | #
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:24 | #
“Incomparability” means something else again (from set theory, I think) and is not what Kuhn was talking about. And “straw man” indicates a weak argument advanced so it may then be knocked down. OK, knock down my argument @ 13. Or, alternatively, cut your losses and retire gracefully.
Fuck you douchebag. Did I say that I was using the term exactly the way that Khun did or did I warn Bowery that you would try to keep me beholden to his entire program verbatim because I glean and idea from him and craft it for ethnonational purpose?
“A straw man” is also an argument that the interlocuter is NOT making, set up to avoid his real argument and you do this constantly.
Along with your proclamations, which you presume makes them true; the only saving grace being that they are so stupid as to be easily set aside. Classic GW proclamation: “Aristotle simply is not relevant.”
Time for you to retire GW. You’ve been enough of an obstruction.
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:45 | #
So, Daniel, you are not, in fact, going to knock down the argument that you have labelled a straw man. Because it isn’t a straw man, is it? You only said it was because you are flailing away with anything that comes to mind, and flailing is more important to you right now than precision. I could ask why and in what way vulgar argument is more important than intellectual discipline. But I won’t get an honest answer, will I?
Anyway, let’s return to the practicalities. Whatever you think you meant by your use of the word “incommensurability”, the truth of it is that “these people” who “are evolved for a different niche, and have skills for entirely different purposes” can be compared to Europeans on the basis of shared traits which can be measured. There is nothing incommensurable there, even using the term, as you say, heuristically.
Our point, then, is that Kuhn is dishonest and wrong, just as Boas was fifty years before him and Gould thirty years after. But for some reason known only to yourself, you dragged in his dishonest and wrong if typical example of Jewish artfulness and plonked it down in the middle of your ideology. As a result you find yourself excuse-making on the basis that an heuristic utility justifies a given usage even when it is demonstrably wrong in substance. Now that usage has become untenable, maybe even incommensurable in some mysterious, not to say, heuristic way. Don’t defend it. Change it.
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 04:26 | #
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:45 | #
So, Daniel, you are not, in fact, going to knock down the argument that you have labelled a straw man. Because it isn’t a straw man, is it?
I have observed your argument as a strawman and it was a strawman.
You only said it was because you are flailing away with anything that comes to mind,
I have not “flailed away”, I have knocked away your strawman by being consistent with what my meaning has always been.
and flailing is more important to you right now than precision.
“Flailing” is a projection of what you do in chasing red capes and attacking your straw men.
“Flailing” is what you call practical judgment, a working hypothesis as opposed to your retarded, reactionary desperation to over-apply and misapply your STEM over-valuation of precision to the social world.
I could ask why and in what way vulgar argument is more important than intellectual discipline. But I won’t get an honest answer, will I?
I’ve given you an answer (and have, many times, but you are impervious) – phronesis (practical judgment) / working hypotheses (I can add, specificatory structures) – which are not vulgar argument and comport the intellectual disciplinary end of accountability, correctivity, operational verifiability and warranted assertability.
Anyway, let’s return to the practicalities. Whatever you think you meant by your use of the word “incommensurability”
Yes, lets return to that, asshole. Not that anything ever gets through your narcissistic personality disorder.
What I mean by “incommensurability” as I have indeed explained, is a tag that is well applied to an issue to be investigated, and the tag says “warning”, important qualitative differences between two paradigms (niche evolutionary functional schemes) that you are about to compare. You can compare them, maybe even make them commmensurable in some aspects, but may take on / give misdirection regarding the fuller (holistic, to use a word that you would claim for yourself, as if myself and others are guilty of not thinking as such) paradigmatic configuration as they function ecologically in importantly different, qualitative niche differences. Incommensurability thus, would be a practical tag for professional and ordinary, non scientific people alike in line with emergentism’s non-Cartesian emphasis against reductionism as it might otherwise send one into one after the other impractical inquiry, likely with the pejorative result of narcissism, i.e., the modernists universalizing tendency to impute sameness and run roughshod over important qualitative, paradigmatic, niche differences.
the truth of it is that “these people” who “are evolved for a different niche, and have skills for entirely different purposes” can be compared to Europeans on the basis of shared traits which can be measured.
Yes, you can do that, and its main utility in that regard is to overturn stupid Marxist arguments about how, say, Whites have only achieved by exploitation of the third world, nepotism and systemic discrimination (“racism”) on behalf of our own.
But it is limited and can be over applied; we are defending our people, including, for example, our high I.Q. component; but we are not I.Q. nationalists, we are ethnonationalists; at least, I am, defending a systemic ecology which has other important aspects and niches to value besides. …and perhaps other capabilities to be aware of in other groups.
There is nothing incommensurable there, even using the term, as you say, heuristically.
So, its another one of your proclamations which (typically) glosses over the important point, as it is indeed, a practical heuristic.
Our point, then, is that Kuhn is dishonest and wrong, just as Boas was fifty years before him and Gould thirty years after.
Boas and Gould were certainly dishonest and wrong (just as you are) and Khun probably is – didn’t finish The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (boring), having anything I needed from it in those few words, paradigm, incommensurability and perhaps took for granted the difference from comparability as a term imported to parse that discussion.
But for some reason known only to yourself, you dragged in his dishonest and wrong if typical example of Jewish artfulness and plonked it down in the middle of your ideology.
You are truly an asshole GW, the way you talk about my discussions, using terms like “ideology” and “hagiography”, so on, as you have done for years to serve your narcissistic personality disorder, providing perfect explanation as to why I speak to you with such contempt in return; you are not only a stupid man but a bad man, who places your ego above an honest and truthful assessment of our peoples needs.
As a result you find yourself excuse-making on the basis that an heuristic utility justifies a given usage even when it is demonstrably wrong in substance.
I have demonstrated that it has practical utility and is not wrong in substance (as I deploy the term).
Now that usage has become untenable, maybe even incommensurable in some mysterious, not to say, heuristic way. Don’t defend it. Change it.
It is you that needs changing, asshole, needed it a long time ago. Your boomer shit is old and in the way; it may have served your selfish ends, and you obviously don’t want to own up to the effects of your kind of ignorance (which is magnified through your personality disorder), would rather blame the red capes (that would be corrected, if the underlying concepts were understood properly, as opposed to the red capes) that you flail at, and insist upon maintaining as part of you straw man repertoire, but we will happily leave you behind.
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 07:56 | #
The practical application of DanielS’s tortuous intellectual prestidigitation remains unveiled.
What now ?
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 08:12 | #
It’s not true, Al. There are many practical applications to my platform, beginning with its central most relevance. As for “what now”, here at MR, I might suggest that Bowery try to explain to GW that his fundamental error is false and unnecessary either/or-ing between my concern for the broad, social group perspective and his being enamored of precision and the more rigorous, empirical side of inquiry – which is included, and valued in my platform, though not acknowledged as such by his penchant for false either/or-ing and false mutual exclusivity. However, I must add to Bowery in the endeavor to persuade GW against this false either/or-ing and false mutual exclusivity, good luck.
[quote]As BIC is to the Oxford modellers, so incommensurability is to Danny.[/quote]
Nice try asshole. There is a huge difference. Incommensurability as I deploy the term designates/marks (as I have said, but will not penetrate your thick skull) the suggestion of qualitative niche evolutionary differences, thus cautions against facile comparisons – doesn’t say you can’t make comparisons, but that those comparisons are likely to parse out variables which don’t do justice to the totality of the difference in some cases. So, it is a practical heuristic, not rigid and fixed, whereas the Oxford Modellers are apparently rigidly wedded to a particular model.
DanielS in response to Guessedworker
I will cut to the quick and go to positive sense first to state that establishing criteria of human and pervasive ecology could be commensurable and a worthwhile project, in that human ecologies could be established and recognized as corrective systems in relation to habitat, other human ecologies and overall environs. However, I have long ago (years ago) proposed that as one of the most, if not the most, basic platforms (you said it was weak – dismissive, as you would be in response to all good ideas; treating them as a threat to your unmerited, gargantuan ego) because it is universalizable, always relevant and yet not perfectly foundational (what is ecological in this situation?), which has advantages that I have cited, one of which is not compelling one to get caught up in search of a perfect solution at all times (the pragmatists major contribution – fallibility does not mean that skepticism is necessary)
As far as examples where the heuristic tag “incommensurable” would serve the general population (especially) in order to avoid false, quantitative comparisons where important qualitative niche differences are bundled: the differences between the sexes/genders would be a salient example; and again, another would be the differences between African and European peoples – the reason to put the warning tag is so that skills which may be inborn of the African (long pre evolution to Europeans probably should be respected) and may in fact be dominant in atavistic circumstance of modernity’s disorder [for the modernist/enlightenment’s oblivion to “non-empirical” boundaries, running rough shod over boundaries and borders, and the (((weaponization))) of that purity spiral – “civil rights and anti racism”], its roughshod over socialization [adding this important idea that the Z-man tried to steal from me; that socialization requires the somewhat “unnatural” (to GW’s chagrin, because it requires philosophical judgment as opposed the Cartesian anxiety of his reaction, which has him push aside even important ideas, white knuckle clinging to foundational quest) establishment of group boundaries/borders, which otherwise becomes diffused and more prone to a base, animal common denominator] that would otherwise respect the sublimation of Europeans (and Asians), are not necessarily overcome, say, by I.Q. alone; and therefore, the protection of the human ecology requires paradigmatic distinction out of respect for the overall incommensurabilty in service of maintaining the human ecologies (which are being destroyed by habits of modernity, especially as they are weaponized by YKW); though again, criteria of human and pervasive ecology being something that is worthy of rigorous investigation; which never was mutually exclusive to anything that I’ve said.
42
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 06:13 | #
… and as I have said, the respect that this (tag of incommensurabilty as opposed to Modernist over application of universalizability*) allows, would probably go a long way to avoiding conflict and reciprocally escalating diatribe. It provides a practical and respectful way out of these tangles.
* One of the more egregious (((red capes))) is (((Steve Sailer’s))) taking the concept of human biodiversity and misrepresenting it as a matter of I.Q., thereby taking a good concept to sensitize attention to qualitative, horizontal niche evolutionary differences and putting them on a lateral, horizontal scale, obviously for the sake of the Ashkenazi, to bolster justification for their disproportionate, if not hegemony in 7- 10 positions of niche power and influence.
44
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 07:12 | #
And since you asked for three examples where the heuristic of incommensurability would serve, let me add that between Europeans and North East Asians. Their comparatively high median i.q. having them pour out of the doors of M.I.T. in legion, while the more creative Europeans are left out, with their greater degrees of autism, and more moderate sublimation, which is apparently part of our creativity and its reward.
Posted on Thu, 03 Feb 2022
Guessedworker says:
“The only tool I have been able to suggest is the nascent “water in the rocks”. This, actually, is the central issue in my contentions with Daniel. If the modus is “specificatory structures” marking boundaries, then “taste” … a dictated thing, a thing from history, as we see … will out, and the whole enterprise will collapse. The Canadian truckers, and the massive upwelling of support from ordinary Canadians, show that on the occasions when they are sluiced the waters of freedom require no academically specified conduit. What they need is permanent expression, and for that most fit purpose I do believe that the people must, as far as is possible, own their philosophy.
That’s about as much as I can suggest at this point.”
DanielS responds
As ever, a false either or and a strawman.
That is to say, where I would observe the truckers unionizing and acting against misdirecting hermeneutics and instead with hermeneutics aligned in their interests, it is, according to GW, a purely emergent phenomenon, purely inborn self interest, having nothing to do with “social stuff” like language and the additionally distinctly human capacities beyond pure nature, such as analysis, conceptualization, learning and agentive change (again, having no requirement of diagnosing misdirection in the hermeneutic realm, such as red capes), nor should an academic have a go at offering an idea about how the negotiation of such unionization in a social interactive give and take of specificatory structures might work; nor that an “ownership” of these specified boundaries could be established with warranted assertabiliy and operational verifiability. No, my perspective, for the convenience of his autobiography, must be a “confected” top down academic imposition rather than an embracing of hermeneutics alignment with authentic and coherent emergent interests ..and how those boundaries come to count in their reality, for the liberation, functional autonomy and sovereignty of our peoples, genus and species.
DanielS says:
As if unionized organization and class action is stuffy, impractical academic stuff, just a product of “the left” that Whites (genus and species – English natives being a species) are not supposed to deploy in our interests because the kosher folks have framed the matter for everyone, including the common folk, that “the left” is the enemy (how kosher, how convenient) and does not deal with reality, nature, objective truth and facts (when in fact, reality, nature, objective truth and facts are, in the proper worldview of ethnonational interests, looked upon as invaluable feedback, but feedback to the calibration of our group interests, e.g., native English, systemic homeostasis, thus autonomy and sovereignty).
The asshole known as Guessedworker says,
“You didn’t need your very own definition of “incommensurability”
It already has a definition everyone but you understands and uses.”
Here is the the term incommensurate as I apply the term, while the asshole known as Guessedworker was up to his endless gaslighting, trying to say that I was the only one using the term in this way, plucked it out of my arbitrary convenience.
” Incommensurate Resources
If communicators express different resources in the practices they collectively produce, they are likely to misunderstand and thwart each other’s attempt to bring into being their vision of what is good and true.
Some misunderstandings may be socially serious but yield easily to resolution by good mediation; not theoretically interesting problems. However, types of differences in resources stubbornly resist the efforts of translators and are both socially important and theoretically interesting. Some social critics describe worldviews that are formally incommensurate, they cannot be “mapped” onto each other, because a faithful translation of the meaning produces a concept with radically different significance in the other worldview. In addition, incommensurate worldviews appeal to different principles or practices in adjudicating the conflict between rival interests and significations.
The problem (of adjudicating differences and coordination among groups) is clarified by the set of terms introduced in chapter 2. If two sets of stories are compatible, then they can be reduced to agreement or disagreement about the same set of issues. For example, both may organize their myths around the story of a hero, and even if they disagree about whether it was Achilles or Hector who was the most heroic figure in the Trojan War, their differences may be adjudicated by rhetorical eloquence. If, however, two sets of stories differ not only in their judgments about issues but also about the issues they find relevant, they are incommensurate. No amount of rhetorical eloquence attesting to the heroic virtues of Achillies will suffice to endear him to a culture that values sensitivity and altruism rather than martial skills. By contrasting martial skills with altruism, incommensurate stores are made compatible. If two sets of stories differ so much that the difference between them cannot even be described, they are incomparable. If we meet sentient aliens who taste colors and communicate telepathically, their stories and ours may well be incomparable.
In my judgment, all human stories are potentially comparable even if they are, and probably will remain, incommensurate. In practice, that means that one take their own and others beliefs very seriously, they work to make them compatible, but they do not expect or attempt to make them commensurate.”
– Barnett Pearce
With other work to be done, I’ve neglected updates to this post for a while. However, GW invoked my name with a strawman and I was prompted to take on (and defeat, as ever) that and his latest gaslighting effort here, on this thread:
https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/movie_review_the_tomorrow_war_vs_blob#c161076
“The Existentialist protest against dehumanization and objectivation, together with its courage to be as oneself, have turned into the most elaborate and oppressive forms of collectivism that have appeared in history.” – Tillich
This is a combination of arrogance, stupidity and error in judgment beyond belief on the part of Asshole:
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:12 | #
And talk about projection…
As I said, wherever there is a good and important idea, in this case, eminently important idea (the epistemic blunder of Nazism; whereby Hitler founded his world view and policy on the natural fallacy of might makes right, below the accountability and correctivity of human praxis), asshole will attack it and try to destroy it on behalf of his gargantuan, unmerited ego; and also, probably, his scientistic Germano/Nazophilic eggers-on.