White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas
The astute in concern of White interests will observe and understand that Jewish interests are generating and marketing misdirection of concepts that would be essential to White group defense, and Whites continue to fall for it.
The basic strategy of Jewish group antagonism is to take a good idea, necessary to group defense, advocacy, homeostasis, and deploy it in the interest of non-Whites or anti-Whites; then exaggerate or reverse these advocacy concepts to the point of utter misrepresentation, absurdity, to where they are perceived as alien and repulsive to the common sensibilities of Whites, causing them to react even against the concept underlying this red caping and against thus, the very concepts that Whites need to understand and organize their group defense.
Since their assent to greater hegemony than ever with the 2008 financial bail-out, Jewish interests have been confronted with an intersectionality where their prior advocacy of social justice positions now threaten them in their elite power, and hence they have sought to align and co-opt White right wing reaction, elitists in particular, though any sort of no account liberal (notably, “conservatives” conserving liberalism unbeknownst: US Constitution’s “civil rights” weaponized against conservation of White group interests; Christianity’s individual souls irrespective of group interests; scientism’s liberal conserving of animal drives as opposed to the “artifice” of human group organization) to their cause against “the left” which might otherwise provoke awareness suggesting the unionization of White ethnonationalism to hold to account those who are fucking our race over – Jewish interests along with the naive or disingenuous complicity of White right wing elitists, who are fine with selling-out our people, and other no account liberals, happy to take the license offered in the disordered, no account fallout of modernity – the wake of “objective superiority” taken for granted.
And since WN continue to fuck things up, reacting against (((red caped/ i.e. misrepresented))) “post modernity” as so much “left wing, da-da nonsense”; acting into the reactionary right wing positions altercast them by Jewry, supposedly on behalf of pure truth and morality, somehow transcending human interests, while chasing misrepresentations (((red capes))) of the erstwhile necessary concept of Post Modernity on the whole, along with (((red capes))) of its ancillary concepts, I must repeat, hopefully in a more clear and compelling way, things that I’ve said before but for some flourishes. However, it is a great advance of Post Modernity properly understood, to emphasize the fact that an idea does not have to be “new” in order to be understood as good, useful, important.
The essential move of the Post Modern turn is to call attention back from Cartesian estrangement, to re-centralize and provide means to sustain our world view in praxis – our social group – through an engaged process to protect inherited forms and helpful traditions of our people from the ravages of modernity’s linear “progress”; while allowing modernist change where salutary, and leaving behind tradition where unhelpful in sustaining praxis; but the post modern turn from modernity’s linear notion of progress would not take praxis so far in ethnocentrism as to be supremacist and imperialist, unable to respect and coordinate with other groups of people, let alone go so far as to revert to a more primitive form yet, Monoculturalism, to where the humanity of non-members is not recognized:
Just as the Monocultural worldview of cannibals might view a White interloper as non-human, rather as something good for the communal stew pot, so tribal monoculturalism would perhaps view we “racists” as less than human, not worthy of life.
As Modernity has been on a trajectory for the reflexive effect of Monoculturalism in its globalizing pursuit of universal progress, particularly as its rule structure, performance requirements, narcissism and rational blindness are (((weaponized))), many of our right wing dupes have dutifully reacted against Post Modern responses to Modernity, which are also (((weaponized))) – (((red capes))) of concepts such as “multiculturalism” and “diversity” – and they double down against them in Cartesian reaction, in Modernity’s quest for pure universal warrant with objective detachment and its abiding rational blindness that opens the way for subversive infiltration and monocultural integration.
Liberals, operating on the same “objective” Cartesian premises taken for granted as currency by right wingers, have long found a way to prove their objectivity – by means of “color blindness” – “not seeing” the most obvious differences, such as black and White. That’s been an easy way to establish one’s legitimacy in the world’s liberal hegemony, the fallout and disorder of the enlightenment. But a reflexive effect of objectivity over-stressed is hyper-relativism, as corrections of Praxis and its means (means of social systemic homeostasis by way of human agency/correction in interaction) are thwarted.
Perhaps European Nations and all White Nations, markedly led by The U.S., its Constitution being the beacon of Enlightenment philosophy, had to reach the present level of destruction to White genetics for our advocates to look more critically at our own philosophy – observing vulnerabilities to our genetic patterns; notably on the empirical side of Cartesianism, in Locke’s conception of individual civil rights (so integral to the American way) as a technology to supersede the “empirical fiction” of social classifications.
The US Constitution and Civil Rights, held to be sacrosanct – the “ultimate warrant in defense” for a modernist, liberating them, so they believed, from the influence of suprafactual narratives and superstitious traditions – came into doubt.
Indeed, the vulnerability of that Cartesian purity spiral was exploited against Whites, Alinsky style, making us “live up to our rules” in “Civil Rights”, 1964, which prohibited White people, anyway, from making group classifications and discrimination thereupon. In subsequent decades, the prohibition was stepped-up with Anti-Racism – basically anti-group classification and discrimination thereupon, for Whites, anyway.
Were it not for the (((red caping))) of the post modern turn and its attendant concepts, as our philosophers properly conceived them, our people could have recognized the countervailing significance to us.
Following a clear trajectory from the apex of Modernity in Descartes, to its empirical side in Locke, to Vico, the first major critic of Cartesianism, to Kant’s failed (still Cartesian) attempt to rescue our moral order from Lockeatine arbitrariness, then on to Nietzsche’s criticism of Modernity and through to Heidegger and his student, Gadamer, we can make the inference that:
Anti-Racism is Cartesian, anti-group classification and discrimination thereupon; it is not innocent, it is prejudiced. It is prejudice against prejudice (Gadamer), and as such, it is hurting and it is killing people.
As opposed to the Cartesian estrangement from praxis – which is a typical reaction to disingenuousness and the arbitrariness within our primordial human condition – Heidegger recognized that a second liberation was necessary, from mere facticity and into the hermeneutic turn.
Heidegger also called attention to the need to hold fast to emergent qualities, individual and group, within this otherwise arbitrary condition that he called the thrownness.
GW deserves much credit for holding fast to Heidegger’s concern for the emergent (basically, our inborn qualities, following a kind of teleology but in the end of which, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts). While holding fast to Being in one’s land, place and amidst one’s people is characterized by dwelling.
Hermeneutics is not anti-science. It is even necessary for non-fiction accounts.
Despite the fact that there is inborn capacity for agency, it is much more like animal reaction until it participates in narrative capacity to sustain a plan, make choices, and verify success.
While the emergent provides an important, deep guide to an authentic path of our telos – and though indeed, hermeneutic capacity is part of the multifarious emergent qualities – our biological foundation is not foolproof for its occurrence in our arbitrary circumstance (wherein it is still possible, for example, to breed with other peoples), particularly absent the corrective capacity of narrative facility shared of the social realm beyond our personal biology. Following a natural concern to maintain our species, it is necessary to have that second liberation from mere facticity, as narrative is necessary to maintain even non-fiction accounts – such as holding fast in coherence to one’s individual and group kind in overall homeostasis.
Post Modern coherence is not to be misunderstood as linear and impervious, as with the modernist tendency; it is rather knowingly interactive and coherent in overall trajectory.
This coherence is the first requirement of authentic human existence. With necessary concession made to a modicum of arbitrariness in our primordial condition, we may partake of that second liberation into narrative coherence, and with it, achieve accountability, agency, correctability and warrant to hold up deliberately – necessary for our homeostasis given that individuals of our group can rather decide that they find it healthy to betray us. And there are antagonists willing to tell stories about how our emergent qualities are evil, misdirecting people against our social systemic maintenance. More, narrative form is necessary to transcend paradoxes, contradictions, confusions, tangles, strange loops, etc. (which can be weaponized against us). We require thus, sufficient hermeneutic, rhetorical capacity to maintain our individual and group coherence.
The post modern concept of hermeneutics has been (((red caped))) as “anti-science”, as if it is conceived to facilitate narrative flights of fancy in which one can make just whatever they like of themselves – 57th gender etc.. But this is a red cape misrepresentation of hermeneutics anti-Cartesian mandate. Yes, hermeneutics is critical of and liberating from scientism – bad science or bad application of science – but as hermeneutics is engaged in circulating process of inquiry which facilitates movement from broad perspective, the imagination of hypotheses largely detached from myopia of the episode, and back to rigorous verification that may yield warranted assertability as need be, it is absolutely necessary to the scientific endeavor – facilitating it, not opposed to it.
Disordering Effects of Modernity Complicate Gender Relations
The rupturing of group classificatory bounds as a result of their “fictional status” yielding to individual civil rights, particularly as (((weaponized))) in “Civil Rights” and “anti-racism” instigates the disordering effect of modernity, particularly for Whites as they are prohibited from classification and discrimination thereupon.
As people have an inborn need to classify in order to make sense, despite the prohibition, the general classification of gender will remain as too fundamental to disregard, and classifications too highly contrasting such as black and White will remain as default classification by tropism. That is to say, these classifications will become heightened while others are diffused.
The naturally one-up position of females for their precious child bearing capacity will be increased within the disorder of modernity as they are solicited and pandered to from all sides given the rupture of group discriminatory bounds.
Even while puerile and unsocialized into maternal concern for her people, she may become a more powerful selective gate-keeper than ever and incentivized to as such to maintain the liberal status quo – pandered-to incessantly, markedly by (((YKW))), her selective predilections – what is merely confident, strong, impervious, undaunted no matter what will become dubiously maximized, as will her base, atavistic female inclination to incite genetic competition be without sufficient correction in socialization. Her gains may be short term and the grounds of comfort diminishing, but she can usually call in thugs to white knight for her, while the reason to hold out for broader pattern reward becomes more and more unclear. Indeed, it is harder to be a female from the standpoint of traditional morals as more and happier opportunities exist for her to make mistakes within the disorder of modernity.
Moreover, in the disordered circumstance, it isn’t only Feminists who are problematic to White men, but also Traditional women as they may not appreciate that the different circumstances of post modernity entail some different performance requirements in gender relations as compared to tradition – the disorder of modernity may not provide sufficient structure and support necessary for males to act into the traditional role, at least not quite as directly as convention might have her expect; and they get shunned aside unjustly for the circumspection.
Marginals
Even if social/political group classifications are prohibited, marginals would function something like systemic empirical border markers of sorts, irrespective.
However, Gadamer’s hermeneutic concept of marginals has been (((red caped))). Respect for marginals as sentinels of the systems’ bounds, having perspective on the system and knowing where the shoe pinches, to provide corrective feedback on systemic calibration, is an excellent idea. And clearly, a marginal for us, is someone just inside, near the edges of the system, maybe down on their luck, they can even be marginalized because they are better in important respects, but they are marginal members within and well disposed to our group maintenance – their participation probably should be shown compassion if not respect and integrated a little better. We’re all marginals from time to time.
Nick Fuentes and E. Michael Jones’ best friend, a drag queen giving children’s story hour.
Now, what YKW have done is (((red cape))) the concept of marginals by representing them as aliens, those originating outside and antagonistic to Whites or those Whites who are anti-White and destructive to the system, advocating that they should be included and integrated into our system. Thus, repulsing Whites to this concept which would be invaluable to our social systemic homeostasis.
The drag queen story hour (((red caping))) of marginals prompts occasion to discuss difficulties in post modern gender relations. There are interesting points to be made on behalf of Whites (not exactly for liberal purposes).
While there are excellent criticisms of homosexuality that should be ready at hand (won’t go into it here) and it should be discouraged, especially for males, we should not lose site that below its (((red caped))) politicization, queers should not occupy a priority concern generally speaking (you may have particular circumstances, that’s different).
Over reaction to this (((red caping))) can have negative effects for Whites; the vast exaggeration and distortion of advocacy of this relatively minor issue – e.g., homosexual defense transitioning into drag queen story hour – can place enormous pressure on young White boys to do stupid things in order to prove that they are not gay. With ‘the universal maturity©’ of Modernity upheld, people might not discern the different performance requirements of post modernity and White boys may be compelled to emulate non-White patterns of masculinity, which fail to manifest our best, most authentic nature.
There’s too much of this “White boys need to man-up” shit, not enough ‘White girls need to woman down’ happening in reaction to the red capes. “Manning up” under the circumstance is even more a matter of border and bounds creating than it is a matter of allowing one’s self to be incited into direct competition with arbitrary males.
As Bowery and Renner note: if you try to impose involuntarily contract with others upon us then you are a would-be slave master and supremacist; be loyal or be gone; don’t impose the consequences for your liberalism upon us.
There is an apparent inverse relation between confidence and intellectualism. Especially under the disordered circumstance, a modicum of intellectual wherewithal is necessary.
But as the predilections of puerile White girls are overly favored within the disorder of Modernity, increasingly one up as they are – pandered-to from all sides given the rupture of discriminatory out-group classifications – puerile females are empowered (don’t like it? she’ll call in the universal thugs/white knights) and incentivized to maintain this powerful one up position as gate keepers of liberalism for its short term gains, their base (sub praxis) female inclination to incite genetic competition exacerbated, their penchant to over value confidence exacerbated to the detriment of Whites.
Black boys, e.g., over-weening with confidence may win the day with momentary and episodic displays for their shorter evolutionary time horizons; their long pre-evolution which has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive sort; their R selection vs K selection strategy suited to the atavistic episodic evaluative fall out within the disorder of modernity. While the value to be ascertained of the more sublimated, protracted cultural and relational patterns of White boys is obfuscated.
Besides the ill-fit of “universal maturity”, there’s another problem with the “traditional solution” to the universal disorder of modernity.
In addition to distracting urgent attention from the much more important issue of race replacement – given relative non-correctability – chasing a (((red cape))) of post modernity such as drag queen story hour suggests a (((red caped))) “Traditional solution” (((Judeo-Christianity))) to a “Traditional problem”, (((“Sodom and Gomorrah”))).
Social Constructionism
Similarly as with hermeneutics, Social Constructionism is another key post modern concept – conceived as an anti-Cartesian perspective to facilitate the Post Modern Turn into Praxis, but (((red caped))) as anti-scientific, unnatural and Cartesian by solipsistic (subjective) flights of imagination very much to our detriment. Understood properly, however, this perspective sensitizes to our relative indebtedness and social accountability to our people along with agency and responsibility to the correctability, i.e., social systemic homeostasis of our human ecology – to reconstruct the coherent species that is our group. And if we are under attack as a group, social classification, as we are with anti-racism, and particularly given our weak ethnocentrism, would it not make sense to sensitize our people to our social connectedness, responsibility, our indebtedness to our species, and agency IN FACT?
That’s what social constuctionism proper, does. It is another post modern project to bring our people back from Cartesian estrangement into Praxis.
And yet social constructionism has been (((red caped))) as if race is a mere social construct – as if you can make anything that you want of it, if it exists at all. But that rendition of “social constructionism” would be solipsism – not many people of the social world are going to agree with you that racial species have no biological, empirical bearing. Rather, to say that race – or, you know what we mean, profoundly different markers, well on the way to speciation among humans – doesn’t exist. That would be a transgression of its anti-Cartesian purpose as well.
Social Constructionism is conceived to call attention where European peoples need it: attention to the FACT of our social indebtedness and of praxis being the preliminary world view of any human merit; delimited as calibration, it provides for accountability and coherence; next, and as important, it works hand in hand with hermeneutics to call attention to the fact that there is always at least a modicum of agency while we’re alive.
Social Constructionism and its underscoring of agency takes three forms: 1) a more literal kind of social construction, as in constructing a building with others, in all facets of the process. 2) a more metaphoric kind, as in a couple getting together and “constructing” a child together, with all the social involvements necessary to bring about the conception and the raising of the child; and 3) Post hoc attribution as to how more brute facts come to count. In these cases, that much closer to sheer physics, one still has some agency and can come up with even far fetched interpretations of the event, though upwards of 95% of the human population will be forced (by dint of the will to survive, and thus beware laws of physics and biology) to look upon you as crazy. But narrative difference from empirical fact will not necessarily be ridiculous and may in fact be helpful to individual and group, distinguishing for example, hero from fool or villain in the brute case of death: “Good riddance to bad garbage” or “his virtuous sacrifice facilitated the living on of his children and people.” The brute fact can be “instructive” – what can we learn from this accident/ tragedy to avoid its happening again? The point and the reward remain in recognizing some capacity for agency – even if only as to how facts come to count, post hoc.
Even as we look back to discuss days of our pre verbal, pre mammalian evolution, if we are not here to discuss it, it is a moot point. Hence, the eminent validity of centralizing Praxis in our worldview.
If a tree falls in the woods… you want truth and morals, for what?
How can we let White children come into this without trying to deal with this mess?
With one example from disingenuous antagonists using modernist language – “there will be immigration flows” – as if these “flows” are “caused” like a brute force of nature, you can begin to glean the superiority of the post modernist, hermeneuticist turn and its attendant social constructionist concept as it invokes the means of agency to reverse these “flows”.
You can see how it would benefit our enemies to invoke such a strictly deterministic, Cartesian notion of necessity – “that’s just the way it is, no account, no arguments need apply” – in circumstances such as migration ‘flows’ auguring our race replacement.
You begin to sense how retarded it’s been for huWhites to argue against the red caping of post modernity, social constructionism and hermeneutics.
You begin to sense why our enemies have misrepresented post modernism, because they don’t want us to have proper understanding of post modernity and its attendant concepts of hermeneutics and social constructionism – precisely as it would give us that coherence, accountability, agency, correctability and warrant of our social systemic homeostasis.
Hopefully that’s enough of an interest arouser. I’ll provide more background then work through some other examples distinguishing White Post Modernity Proper from its (((Red Caping))).
Background:
Modernity’s roots
The deepest, most direct root of Modernism in European philosophy goes back to the ancients, to the Epicureans specifically. The Epicureans were committed to overcoming mere superstition, custom, habit and traditions which did not facilitate the good life; they sought instead to trace all experience to positive source and sensible apprehension to establish solid grounds to the good life. They were the ones to coin the term ‘the atom’ to designate the smallest physical unit of which the universe is composed. From there, they would propose a hierarchical ordering for the use of pleasure, with contemplation occupying top place. The Epicureans being direct forebears of Modernist philosophy are thus seen in clear line to the Enlightenment, especially the empiricists, Locke, Thomas Jefferson, later philosophers of science and the Logical Positivists.
Traditional European Society
Traditional European societies were ethnocentric, particularly in the south, as exemplified by Plato and Aristotle, Aristotle in particular with his Praxis (one’s ethnocentric bio-social-political group) providing a sound Traditional starting point for this analysis; i.e., aligning tradition and natural concern for species homeostasis.
Aristotle did place praxis at the center of his world view as evidenced by his position that politics is the first philosophical priority – if politics are out of whack, all else is for naught. And he did believe there were outsiders who were to be treated in a different manner.
A democracy limited to the philosophically capable, and those committed to group protection, is probably consonant with authentic European tradition as it provides means for correctability (systemic homeostasis). The way of government that a particular ethnostate chooses is beyond the scope of this essay and needless to say, the democratic franchise can and has been (((red caped))) as well.
Nevertheless, Aristotle is the most esteemed figure of Europeans (even more than Jesus) and understandably so, as his philosophy was profound enough to keep social systemics aligned with natural laws that would preserve our species. Thus, a tradition authentic to our nature, not an affectation. If northerners complain, it should be said that inasmuch as they survived as distinct species, they would either be deliberately, accidentally or naturally in accord with Aristotle’s philosophy.
Aristotle observed that people are biological creatures requiring optimal, not maximal need satisfaction (his golden mean applied across the board politically), as advanced mammals, they are engaged in the social world with relative concern for relationships, they have agency, reflexive effects, can learn, etc; thus Praxis does not have quite the linear predictability of the hard sciences and therefore requires a different epistemology, i.e., practical judgement, in order to maintain coherence and homeostasis.
The North of Europe probably forged a less ethnocentric evolution due to the fact that nature was often the greater challenge than other tribes; protracted spans of time passing when the differences of neighbors were not quite so threatening; but clearly they were ethnocentric nevertheless, having different rules for “outsiders” – e.g., Viking invasions did plunder others nations; and they worked out their politics in accordance with the predilections of their nature and circumstance as sustained their species.
Whether tribe, city state or nation, there was enough ethnocentrism for distinct European groups to maintain themselves.
Red caping praxis as political through and through.
One may argue that Aristotle is stretching the political metaphor, but his observations of human nature would argue otherwise. It is more likely that one would be reacting to (((red caping))) of the idea, to where everything is political and a challenge to White hegemony; and true to the (((red caping))) strategy, Whites wind up fighting against the correct underlying idea – centralization of praxis.
Maxwell’s demons
Clerk Maxwell draws a useful heuristic distinction here between “Augustinian Devils” and “Manichean Devils.”
Augustinian Devils are challenges of nature, which characteristically do not tend to have the concsciousness to change in order to foil solutions. An evolution in penchant and predilection to take on Augustinian devils can be anticipated in northern circumstances – and this would correspond with lower ethnocentism, objectivity and scientific solutions being more favored in natural selection.
Manichean Devils are trickster challenges. Given our agency, humans have capacity to change in order to foil solutions to their challenge. This capacity would be more favored in the natural selection of the South and the Middle East to sustain their ethnocentrism where the challenge was, on balance, more a matter of other people and tribes than brute nature and resource.
With this traditional background, the stage was set for Europeans to be taken as naive, to be duped by the Middle Easterners – most poignantly by YKW.
Red Caping European Moral Order
The first and probably most important (((red cape))) imposed was an affectation to become our “Traditional European moral order” – Christianity.
Its tangled, dread inspiring and self destructive rule structures which, among other terrible misdirection, compel a sacrifice of concern for the lived life in favor of some ‘hereafter’ beyond our biological legacy even.
Suffice it to say, they’ve got Christians worshiping the same Abrahamic god as Jews, except that the Jews are “chosen” as a special group by that god, whereas others are not special as groups, they are, as GW observes, cast as an ever undifferentiating other from “the chosen.”
Moreover, as Bowery observes, the Bible functioned as the Jewish media control even before the advent of Modern technology.
With threat of losing what semblance of belonging, if not penalty of death and hell, a fundamental strategy of Jewish (((red caping))) – to disrupt the ethnocentrism of Europeans and other non-Jews – was cast a central component of ‘our’ most fundamental ‘Tradition.’ Its almost like a tradition of non-tradition, as honoring “your parents” hardly constitutes a commandment to obey a long historical tradition of forebears held in high regard. Indeed, we have barely begun to be roused in indignation over the Christian church having buried our most sacred day of ancestor remembrance and replacing it with “All Saints Day.”
Another key function of (((red caping))) is established, in that it allows for Jewish infiltration, misdirection and subversion of the group – by means of conversion in the case of the Christianity. Anyone can become a member, including YKW, who are particularly disposed to our dissolution according to the red cape strategy.
Finally, as the Jewish (((red cape))) functions, overcompensating reaction can be even worse than compliance, as even the important underlying idea for group homeostasis – in this case, a moral order – is rejected in favor of a-moral concerns of Modernity – e.g “nature”, adherence to “survival of the fittest” to the point of natural fallacy, “might makes right” to the point of utterly immoral destruction.
Indeed, there is reason to believe that the compulsion to overcome these (((red cape))) guilt trips, divorced from nature, was an instigating factor in the purity spiral of Cartesianism, hence Modernity.
Modernity
Philosophers take Descartes to represent the sine qua non of Modernity, setting forth an ‘Enlightenment’ that unfolded into the epoch of Modernity.
Cartesianism is looked upon as a quest for unassailably warranted knowledge, whether above and beyond nature and human interaction or on the other side of the Cartesian divide, within nature and below human interaction.
This would come to be seen as problematic as the pursuit of these ” that’s just the way it is” warrants, whether above or within nature, where not utterly impervious to social concern and negotiation, tended to pay short shrift to social accountability.
The trajectory of Modernity did, indeed, make important contributions to overcoming backward traditions, customs and superstitions. Moreover, given the remarkable advances in science and technology that it provided for, it is understandable how a valuation of experimentalism and what is new could be derived as chractaristic of necessary progress.
The first major critic of Descartes was Vico, who anticipated the propensity of this impervious technology to run destructive rough-shod over what should be philosophy’s central concern and world view – praxis – and thus he seeded the post modern turn with its neo-Aristotlian project of retreiving philosophical inquiry from Cartesian estrangement and back into praxis.
Even so, John Locke, who represents the empirical side of the Cartesian divide, cannot be faulted for wanting to remedy an exploitative and intransigent class system divide WITHIN England. In opportunistic conception of his empirical philosophy, he proposed that social classifications were a fiction of the mind, as each individual has the same perceptions and discrimination on the basis of these fictional classifications – such as British aristocracy obstructing equal access to advanced education for ‘lower classes’ – should give way to his concept of individual civil rights. But the weakening if not disruption of social classificatory organization and discrimination thereupon as an abstraction that can be applied, on principle, to any classification in favor of civil individual rights, is risky business.
Kant anticipated the danger in Locke’s world view of myopic empiricism running arbitrary rough-shod over praxis, viz,, its moral order. Therefore, he tried to rescue the integrity of the moral order by establishing its principles on “categorical” (unassailably warranted) universal principles. Kant’s rescuing project failed, as the Post Modern philosopher, Martin Heidegger, would observe, because it was “still Cartesian.”
Digression
I’m typically greeted with strong negative reactions on this topic, especially from STEM types. Their misunderstanding me as ‘doing something bad by using the term Cartesianism’ stems from a few places.
Being outside the fray of academic humanities, they see negative use of the term Cartesianism as a sign of pseudo intellectualism, if not the down-right (((red caping))) which is all they tend to see of “post modern philosophy” in relation to science (including some useful bits of Cartesianism) and THE ‘truth’ they see as the means for combating whatever problems that we are confronted with.
Of an Augustinian nature, they may not apprehend the Manichean (((red caping))) of what is otherwise a legitimate and important underlying Post Modern critique of Cartesianism and Modernity. STEM. people, focused on Augustinian devils, are notorious dupes.
White Post Modernity would not tell you to abandon Cartesianism entirely, especially not in its utility, say, to algebra or microwave engineering. The WPM project would try to call you back from runaway of Cartesian anxiety, and encourage you instead to look upon these quests for truth and precision as characteristic of a right wing component, indispensable, but nevertheless provisional and functioning as feedback to be subsumed within its utility to yourself in tandem with the group calibration – praxis – social systemic homeostasis.
However, resistance to proper understanding – both from our people and because (((they))) don’t want us to understand – has been an intense challenge:
Firstly, you’re confronted by our high I.Q. STEM boomer pioneers of the internet, who had hegemonic presence, and who have known enough success by their way of doing things to want to see it as tried and true, and not, say, somewhat contingent upon the luck of their generation or the value of their skills in the Modern milieu. They hadn’t yet had enough holes poked in their world view to feel the need to examine its vulnerabilities with up-to-date philosophical vigor.
Their misapprehension is not entirely of their own making.
There has been the (((red caping))) of Post Modern ideas that they are reacting-to.
When I tried to discuss hermeneutics with Prof. MacDonald, because of its (((red caping))) he INSISTED that hermeneutics is anti-science.
But I need to mention that seeing through the torrents of (((red capes))) is not easy.
I understand his thinking ’ hermeneutics is anti science’ for all its Jewish red caping waved through college Sophomores. Academia is, after all, in the big business of selling talk – and the paying customers, 18 -24 year old undergraduates with Guaranteed Student Loans, are perfect consumers for self serving, anti-scientific, Jewish advanced, anti-White, liberal hermeneutic distortion peddled by tenured professors in perpetuity.
I even mistakenly presumed Gadamer to be Jewish for his association with the term. Greg Johnson embarrassed me by pointing out that Gadamer was German.
Our own Guessedworker has fought me tooth and nail on every important post modern term and concept that I’ve used, so offensive has been their hyperbolic (((red caping))) to his S.T.E.M. predilection and ethnonationalist concern.
When I began explaining WPM Proper at The VOR back in 2011, I invited Bowery, thinking that he’d be on board. Instead he proceeded obliviously to say that we needed to “reboot the enlightenment.”
Afterward, when I came to Majority Rights, James tried to forbid me from using the critical philosophical term/concept “Cartesianism” – “stay far away from it!” … “You are demoralizing our people!” …and when I criticized The Empirical Philosophers (meaning Locke, Berkeley and Hume), he reacted as if I was denouncing science and its method. Finally, in indignation, he tried to tell me to not characterize Modernity as a big problem.
This wasn’t an easy challenge. They’re all very smart and have made important contributions.
However, their misapprehension may also be attributed to (((red capes))) targeted directly at their S.T.E.M. type, such as “The Dark Enlightenment” and “Neo-Reaction.” These (((red capes))) in the hands of a (((mencius moldbug))) would portray Modernity and things like Cartesianism/or its misunderstanding as THE problem, rather than vulnerabilities in our system that (((they))), along with our traitors/dupes, can exploit/can be exploited by.
There is also an apparent problem in the habit of STEM analysis that looks for the ONE problem that interrupts a circuit; a habit that can have them not see the holistic overview of what is being said here.
For a combination of reasons, our ensconced STEM boomers and right wingers aligned in a reactionary purity spiral, haven’t quickly recognized that I wasn’t myself fooled by the (((red capes))) if not spitefully wielding them myself, against our people’s interests.
Pardon the digression, but I won’t be dissuaded from using these post modern terms and concepts – not even by geniuses who’ve done as much great work for our people as those three. These terms and concepts are simply too important for our people to allow them to be confused and misdirected.
…
The better starting point for analyzing the unraveling of our social systemic homeostasis –
The French Revolution or The American Revolution and Locke?
Most people start with the French Revolution, and it is highly relevant to Modernity. There are useful inferences to be made. Among those I’ve heard, Keith Preston observing that the European Aristocracies were often not as much loyal to their own nation as to the Aristocracies of other nations. That lines-up generally with the concept of the right that I am finding to hold up cross contextually. I wouldn’t put too much concrete emphasis on this, however.
Literal mindedness in this argument takes you into the Marxian-Hegelian (((red cape))) where the Aristocratic classes all stand together and therefore the “workers of the world should unite” across national bounds; while the Hegelian dialectic works its way out historically, in accordance to its own inherent logic to bring about the withering away of the state, which is presumed an ideal result.
Marx’s internationalizing of class and revolution, as well as the slogan of equality, became huge (((red capes))) for reactionaries to chase after. Marxism and Cultural Marxism became more and more a (((red cape))) for “the left.”
There may be merit to the critique that recognized a disordering of society by the revolution that was new, yes, but bad in a different way, as it was financed largely by the Jewish (or White for that matter) merchant class to overthrow a better ordering of societal rule [e.g., priest, philosopher, warrior, artisan], other than by mercantile. However, rather than so much the who question that occupies top place in our society, I would tend to favor the ‘what’ – i.e., protection of our borders and the protection of our population – whereas ‘who’ occupies governing position would then be contingent upon their adherence to the ‘what.’
Left and Right
The French Revolution is where the traditional Right vs Left dichotomy began, with those representing the King and his leadership being on the right side of the court, while those representing the populace – who would rise up in revolution – sitting to the left of the King.
It’s of worms that I’ll open in more detail later. I will argue that the dichotomy remains useful, that “the left” has been (((red caped))) in representation as Marxist, internationalist, liberalist, equalitarian and anti-White, when it is better represented as a union of the ethnonational populace – Paris for Parisians.
The slogan, “Liberty, Fraternity and Equality”, especially Equality, has been a terrible (((red cape))) that right wing reactionaries chase after. I will argue that red cape and other semiotics that can guide a White ethnonational revolution are sorted out in the depth grammar of ordinary language patterns – necessary as currency in connection with logics of meaning and action which, in turn, direct behavior.
Language as currency and depth grammar being those connotations which hold up cross contextually over time.
For the moment, I’ll sketch a few things, and suggest that Whites should ask:
Why does Jewry want White identity associated with “the right” or “neither left nor right” and against “the left”?
And what are they doing with the connotations of the terms by compelling these identifications?
Has not the left been associated with social justice, social accountability, compassion for the ordinary, marginals and group unionization in defense against elite abuse of power? While the right associated with purported objectivity, truth, brute nature below human accountability, or principles, elite individual or narrow group interests if not a god beyond human nature and also beyond accountability?
When the audience looks with me at the reasons why Jewry has always wanted White identity to be attributed to “the right” and “far right” if not “alt right” or “dissident right” “against equality” and why they do NOT want Whites to identify as an ethnonational left, but as of late, especially, against “the left”, the audience will begin to understand my argument… it begins with the recognition of the original premise of the (((red cape))), i.e., to take a concept that is good for organizing the group and then to deploy it against Whites and make it obnoxiously didactic to Whites in order to weaken if not break up their social systemic homeostasis. Indeed, compelling Whites to identify with repugnant anti-social reactions that effectively preclude popular groundswell to our ethnonational cause.
Those of us a bit older, remembering the 80s and 90s, will recall that conservative arguments were not anywhere nearly so typically pitted against “the left.” Conservatism was pitted more against Liberalism and Political Correctness in the 90s.
It was only following the 2008 financial (((bail out))) that suddenly for fear of intersectionality of Cultural Marxism with Jewish interests, that the underlying connotations of “the left” would be discovered as useful for Whites against Jewish oppression that a (((mass marketing campaign))) was initiated with a whole pathological characterology of “the left” and what it does: it is anti-nature, does not deal with reality, wants equality, internationalism, wants unrealistic, international social justice, liberalism, sexual deviance, etc.
Whites have been shockingly on board with this characterology so convenient to the current interests of elite Jewry and so clearly indicating that this is not necessarily what “the left” has to mean as this characterology called “the left” was not the in-vogue bogey man 30 years ago.
In fact, if the left is characterized by a broad based “fraternity” of the people in unionized interests against elite betrayal, then it conforms perfectly to a left nationalism and ethnonationalism as well.
As a union, it would conserve the interests within, focus our accountability, compassion and concerns of social justice for our people, not liberalizing concerns internationally.
You can see how the red cape of “the left” as “international” and oxymoronically as liberal was used to have Whites arguing against their own organizing function through these misleading connotations.
With the heavy marketing of “the left” as Marxist international, oxymoronically liberal for Whites, as it became cultural Marxist, to where White unionization was prohibited while non and anti White scabbing/border and bounds transgressing was sponsored as a part of “the international fraternity” (marketing the idea that that’s what “the left” necessarily means), Whites felt compelled to identify as some form of Right, Neither Left nor Right or Third Position as a function of the (((red caping))) to rupture our systemic homeostasis, leaving us susceptible to infiltration and misdirection in headlong Right wing reaction. Unionization closes off that vulnerability and the neo-logism, White Left EthnoNationalism, allows us to make accountability and the definition of its aspects in our interests explicit.
The depth grammar of the right is not accountable to our ethnonational union of people: it is accountable to god, to “truth”, to principles, to the great man or small group of elites, to “nature”…but not particularly to praxis, to the broad systemic union of our ethnonationals, our people. The neologism, White EthnoNational Left, can make it clear in a way that “Neither Left Nor Right” or “Third Position” can, that praxis, the union of our people is our central concern and is where accountability is due and not in any Marxist sense precluding reasonable individual liberty, private property, free enough enterprise, abundant resource or ethnonationalism!
This ambiguous result of the red cape reaction, disrupting organization, is why they will settle for an identity of neither left nor right, or third position, failing identification as some sort of right if not liberal.
But for all the attention given the French Revolution as “the source of our problems”, I’ve found following the Lockeatine line making more coherent sense of our predicament in Modernity’s disorder, since that is where the taboo against classification (a term corresponding with unionization) for White men was set forth and ripened for weaponized (((red caping))).
This has created a mystification, disingenuously wielded or naively adhered to by those who identify as right wing as they criticize the left for wanting more state regulation of social justice, while at the same time allowing the red cape of internationalism to extend over whom the nation is comprised.
Our right wingers and other liberals are disingenuously or naively being encouraged to believe that they are objectively if not divinely entitled to be unaccountable and disloyal to the broad group of our own people and creating vulnerabilities, allowing for the rupturing of our social systemic homeostasis as such because individual rights are held sacrosanct while social classification (by Whites, anyway) is considered evil.
Locke’s anti-classification notion of civil individual rights creates systemic pattern vulnerability
John Locke was aggrieved by the Aristocratic Class’s discrimination against lower classes in Britain. His grievance dove-tailed with his concept of empirical philosophy, maintaining that all individuals have the same perceptions while social classifications are a fiction of the mind; therefore these fictitious classifications should give way to civil individual rights.
This concept suited the ‘enlightened’ Epicurean predilections of Jefferson, along with his wish to throw off British upper class and British rule all together, and thus he made Locke’s anti-social classification notion of Civil Individual Rights into a central component of the American way.
Jefferson missed the bus on Kant’s noble but failed attempt to rescue principles from the arbitrary empiricism of Locke, let alone Vico’s correct placing of group praxis at center of the world view. And the fairly arbitrary notion of civic individualism over classificatory patterns, this ‘liberation’ from traditional patterns, became characteristic of an America that would grow more and more powerful until it was the world’s hegemon, wielding power and influence over all, for better and worse.
Jewish (((red cape))) weaponization of “Civil Rights” was still way in the future when blacks and women were given the franchise. While Jews could be said to be influential, even if only indirectly through Christianity and their part in the slave trade, it is certain that some Whites were engaging a Cartesian purity spiral on the notion of civil rights.
As America’s ship sailed further into the abyss of Modernity’s disorder, Nietzsche, a critic of modernity, chided those who thought that they were merely describing reality and proper course of progress: “they are only drawing maps of maps”…
Nietzsche would be very influential on Heidegger and his Post Modern/ Hermeneutic turn.
Over in England, Russell and Whitehead wanted to tackle the problem of classification presented by the classic liar’s paradox, “I am a Cretan, all Cretan’s are liars.” In response, they came up with Theory of Logical Types, that class and membership were on different levels, and therefore, “a class could not be a member of itself.”
Russell would confide that he considered this “the most arbitrary thing he ever had to do.”
Arbitrary perhaps, but their focus on classification is interesting, and they were generating useful thoughts, indeed schools of thought in coming to terms with Post Modernity.
Whitehead would say that “even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”…adding, “one cannot continually investigate everything, but must take for granted a given state of partial knowledge from time to time.”
Note: the legitimate existence of our race is beyond a false or inadequate working hypothesis – even if Post Modern (((red caping))) would try take advantage and exaggerate greatly the significance of our capacity to interbreed with other races. White ethnonationalists should take heed that the working hypothesis of our classification is sufficient to devote a large measure of our efforts to its advocacy.
Certainly Bateson made worthwhile use of logical types in his theory of schizophrenia; and the whole school of thought generated from there made important contributions to solid Post Modern philosophy. It dovetailed well with his Post Modern, neo-Aristotlean concerns. Class functions on a level of relational patterns. Humans are mammals and therefore care about relationships. It causes them confusion, pain and destruction when they cannot invoke this level to order their lives. Of Locke’s anti-classification program, he admonished that “it could only produce dark, Satanic mills”…
From his centralization of praxis (in a necessary, non Cartesian relation to environment and others) and communication in reflexive interaction, communications scholars would develop the very useful communications perspective, that we live in communication.
From his more social and biological position on praxis, Bateson was also able to offer some corrections to the deficiencies and toxicties of Heidegger (e.g., “nature rarely works within lethal variables”); it is significant to offer corrections to Heidegger as he was, on the whole, not just a great and important philosopher for Europeans, but rather prominently manifesting the Post Modern/Hermeneutic turn.
While Heidegger was beginning to wrestle with the Post Modern/ Hermeneutic turn, Wittgenstein was doubling down on Modernity, trying to map an unassailable correspondence of language to world in his Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.
Bateson would chide those who would engage in this scientistic wish to get away from any ambiguity of the language, social classification and its invocation of meta-communication what-so-ever, as having an apparent wish to “get back to the innocence of mood signs”…
Wittgenstein expressed his embarrassment in belatedly catching the post modern turn.
However, there were adherents to the Tractatus at The Vienna School of Logical Positivism, who never did catch on. And they extended the invisible hand to the Austrian school of economics, including Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, and von Mises, Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, Thatcher, Reagan, on to the guys behind H.U.D., fannie mae, ginnie mae, freddie mac and fangled Wall Street instruments, finally Bernanke, Paulson etc. to the 2008 financial melt-down.
The Vienna School of Logical Positivism held a mandate to follow through on the Tractatus to establish a language that mapped and mirrored reality perfectly – free of any ambiguity and metaphor. But a few different aspects to words (e.g., referent, signifier, context) are always found to make some metaphor and thus human judgment and convention unavoidable and indispensable.
Language as currency and semiotics
While Heidegger is clearly the more useful and important philosopher to us, the 1/4 White Wittgenstein does have a few concepts that are useful to us in his later philosophy.
For example, his borrowing of the concept of internal relation – a co-evolutionary concept – from continental philosophers, operating much like fractal technology, provides a useful alleviation from the Cartesian anxiety: how does one think? All kinds of ways. Where does one start? Anywhere. You want orientation? Look at an episode – where perhaps a practice may have begun; look at what people are doing and consider the use involved. You want to penetrate deeper? Look at the depth grammar. As language is the currency of convention, the ordinary language philosophy that is derived of Wittgenstein is turning out to be useful – more on that when we finish the historical background ..the Heideggerian school, its off-shoots and advances in post modern thought since; before we detail our thesis of the (((red caping))) of these concepts and rectification in White Post Modernity.
This attention to language isn’t superficially caught up in Jewish language games. Heidegger was also keen to follow “the wisdom of the language” for what its roots and sources would offer as suggestions.
And as we exist in the arbitrary thrownness, as Heidegger calls the contingent nature of our classification at its most radical level, post modern philosophy steps back from a suffocating quest for a perfect Kantian architectonic or Hegelian dialectic; recognizing that we have to be pragmatists to some extent, it retrieves us from mechanistic quest of Theoria and takes us back into Praxis, going the way of the Pragmatists, looking more to the development of working hypotheses and specificatory structures in its pursuit of operational verifiability and warranted assertability.
I was chided for using the metaphor of “conceptual tools”, or a tool kit, ready to hand to bring to bear to our problems, as if we should just za zen manifest emergent ethnonationalism every moment.
When GW insists that we need a complete, unshakable “foundation” to the project of universal ethnonationalism, I would ask why he thinks that we do not already have “foundation” enough to begin – a working hypothesis of our people’s existence and need for advocacy enough to warrantably assert? He and other more scientifically oriented people might help greatly by shoring up our “foundation”, behavioral tendencies, etc. but the idea that we don’t know enough to proceed in our defense is absurd…as is the idea that it is not bespeaking deeply considered philosophy, but merely political advocacy.
It fits my working hypothesis that he’s reacting to Jewish red capes of and among praxis, along with other liberal rhetorical abuse that instill Cartesian anxiety, compelling the belief that we do not already have grounds to warrantably assert our advocacy, but need to have some pure, universal warrant beyond praxis; as if we don’t know enough about our people, the value of our different European kinds that merit homelands of our own and a means to survive as distinct kinds in diaspora…not that we can’t do better, find better popular inspiration, some key fundamental connections, but enough to begin.
Genetic evidence accumulated in recent decades bolsters our concern for human and pervasive ecology – that would certainly include concern for our own kinds.
Though we can infer many working hypotheses from experience, e.g., that Asians, Africans and Europeans have different rates of maturity with different advantages that can tangle each other up when brought together in interaction, operational verification of science does contribute to warranted assertability of the fact – R and K strategy, testosterone levels, lesser impulse control and sublimation, warrior gene, etc. – the point is that concerns of praxis and science are not mutually exclusive and should not be antagonistic.
There are many occasions when science uncovers issues not at all apparent to ordinary sense (e.g. Jewish crypsis) and that sort of excellent yield of science is not discouraged, unappreciated and mutually exclusive to hermeneutics either.
The antagonism that I’ve experienced from Bowery and GW – GW’s wish to “sweep aside” everything bespeaks a failure to see the underlying importance of Post Modern Concepts to Whites, to trust that application for Whites is very different from the red caping they perceive; failing to appreciate its function to protect the good in what is and has been, the value of agency and correctability in its outlook to stave off their worst fears (e.g., in Bowery’s case, a concern of “eusociality” and the loss of distinct European self sufficiency) and to create, in fact, the grounds of homeostasis, group and individual.
GW sees a susceptibility among academics to top down wish to impose concepts over what should be concern to describe what nature will do irrespective. This imposition upon nature has come to the utility of Jewry as a characterization of what “the left does.” This characterology of “the left” is a red cape.
He hasn’t been ready to accurately grasp what I’m saying, nor its significance due to his own vigilance to slay academic pretense and misdirection as it over motivates misconception that I’ve been the mere passive receptacle for Marxist indoctrination and not one making original inferences, weighing concepts for their utility to European people, leaving some things behind, willing to have what I’m taking for granted constructively questioned, but not constantly and with deconstruction being the only “input.”
GW and Bowery are not appreciating that hermeneutics is a circulating process – and no, GW, its not “back and forth back and forth” in some trivial, plodding manner – it is inquiry that can gracefully and as a matter of utility take starting points from wherever necessary and engage utility (including the utility of ideals).
Where GW and Bowery make well placed, rigorous observations about sub praxis natural underpinnings, they should only contribute to refinement of our working hypotheses, specificatory structures, perhaps adding operational verifiability to the already warranted assertability: the eminent validity of ethnonationalism and the working hypothesis that the White/European race and its subspecies does, in fact, exist – and well it should – at least it is natural for species to defend themselves, even if you believe that we should not survive (as a Hitler might not, in his scienstism).
A more rigorous, scientific focus, a closer reading as it were, shouldn’t be considered mutually exclusive to what I’m saying.
It can be a problem if they veer into scientism – try to say that what I’m saying should be swept aside – probably as they perceive and react to red capes or are stuck in a STEM habit of trying to isolate “the problem” in a circuit while making all else redundant (e.g. me and what I’m adding) by comparison to their “new model”…not realizing that they are attempting to sweep aside things that are far more important than their straw man contentions. They are habituated to issue straw men as they are not prepared to see friendly concepts coming from the humanities and therefore interject straw men in place of working to complement what I am actually saying with their valuable input.
I over reacted to GW’s reaction to non-foundationalism, when saying there “can be no unassailable foundations” – technically true philosophically, but stretching hermeneutics to the point of absurdity to ignore laws of biology and physics; call them foundational if you will. Our biological species is, after all, what we’re about; not some alternative narrative to that, possible though it may be. Its frustrating to be confronted with misreadings of post modernity as being absurd. In its proper understanding neither I, nor any scholar that I’ve ever talked to, deny evolution, laws of biology and physics, facts…we take these matters for granted while someone reacting to the (((red cape))) misrepresentations would try to characterize us as absurd – or, rather, going along with the (((red cape))) characterology of “the left” as not dealing with nature (as opposed to one who deals in verifiable and specifiable hypotheses).
Concluding the history and moving on to specifics should help people to see this as a collaborative enterprise, not mutually exclusive to their reasoned concerns.
Specificatory Stuctures
– are suited for Praxis. Aristotle observed that people: are biological creatures evolved for optimal need satisfaction; registering reflexive systemic effects of excess, deficiency and actions of others – as mammals in particular who have relative concern for relationships, have agency, can learn to learn, can reframe agendas hermeneutically. Social science thus differs from hard sciences, especially from physics but even from biology in our human capacity for agency and reflexive effects in interaction. To make sense of this requires what Aristotle called phronesis (practical judgment), or what Shotter calls specificatory structures: largely or partly finished general frameworks, slightly ambiguous, but having ready understanding to act as participatory currency by the public – frames that can be shaped and crafted for broad perspective, not suffocating necessary imagination to transcend moment and episode into broader patterns as need be, nor precluding re-specification in precision, down to genetic or molecular levels, as need be.
This hermeneutic capacity in liberation from mere facticity to transcend stray moment and episode, paradoxes, strange loops, tangles, defeats, is necessary not only for individual coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, but also for groups.
If we accept Heidegger’s premise, as better philosophers do, as the American Pragmatists – James/Dewey – do as well, we must recognize at least a modicum of arbitrariness to our circumstance – the “thrownness” – biological laws though there may be to the constitution of our kinds. But since we ethnonationalists are concerned primarily with our biological species, it would be wrong to say that there are no laws which can function as foundational. Hermeneutics can always invoke a new frame, but lets not get cute about it and be called from the specification of this mandate in service of our kind.
I’m retracting and correcting what I said before. Philosophical foundations won’t be unassailable in a hermeneutic sense, but in a sense of biology and physics, there comes a point where facts are foundational enough – You see these genetic clusters? We’re calling that the English. If that doesn’t exist anymore then the English don’t exist anymore.
As I always like to add, there is a reward to this unfortunate concession that our people will not necessarily, automatically act in a way that reconstructs our kind and its best interests, even if our emergent qualities are not under the kind of assault that they are now by anti-racism inc. The reward for the hermeneutic liberation from arbitrary and mere facticity is the capacity for coherence, accountability agency and warrant – with Dewey adding warranted assertability and operational verifiability, the end goal of inquiry.
I need to be clear that just because I use some aspect of a philosopher’s work does not mean that I subscribe to all of their philosophy or even most of it, or their politics per se.
On the contrary, I have been taking what is useful from their work to shape and craft in defense of White/European peoples.
With that caveat issued, this is probably a good place to round-out the historical background, bringing us up to date as to where Post Modern philosophy in its more original, politically neutral form, can be crafted into White Post Modern form and certainly distinguished from its (((red cape))) adulteration.
Along with Heidegger, The American Pragmatists, James and Dewey, there is some utility in the later Wittgenstein.
English communicologist, John Shotter, had fruitful yields following up on the Pragmatists and Wittgenstein, utilizing ordinary language philosophy and internal relation (another way of saying co-evolution) to proffer the specificatory structure as means of communication – of making common sense – in order to achieve coherence, accountability and coordination (what he would call conjoint construction) with others within “the thrownness.”
It is true that this is abandoning something like GW’s “ontology project” as something so important that it warrants putting all other matters aside, no matter how desperate our circumstance, but we should rather agree with Shotter’s premises. While it may always help to know more of what IS the case of our existence, it is absurd to presume that we do not already know enough of what is and what ought not to be, while also having a pretty good idea of what ought to be.
While a “specificatory structure” will not make an ultimate claim, it will function as a working hypothesis for people to act into, to help shape and craft – and it can, indeed, be so precise in the end of shaping and crafting as to achieve warranted assertabilility and operational verifiability enough to satisfy GW and Bowery’s most anal retentive desire for precise schematics – call it foundational if you will…unfortunately, there can be ways to question it, but as it operationally holds people to account, there comes a point where 99 percent of the people are going to say that the skeptic is crazy, and their objection will not shake “the foundation”, it will be bullet proof.
With that, Shotter and the Pragmatists offer more than just a rigid architectonic that everyone should bow down to and genuflect toward. The interactive, participatory nature of their philosophy builds in from the start the idea of social accountability and correctabilty (which philosophies on a Cartesian trajectory do their level best to get beyond in pursuit of pure warrant) – social correctability being synonymous with social systemic homeostasis – which is what we as ethnonationalists aspire to: our maintained sovereignty as distinct European peoples.
Rom Harre is another philosopher offering fruitful elaboration on the hermeneutic turn. GW objected to his discussion of a narrative self in tandem with a corporeal self, believing that the hermeneutic self is a concept that should be abandoned. GW was mistaken, chasing abuses of the concept and at once not realizing its necessity, again, to give even non-fiction autobiographical accounts. As I recall, he raised another objection (I’ll look up the precise objection later and put it here) but it wasn’t taking into account that Harre’s book, Personal Being, was talking about Being, in the authentically human, Heideggerian sense, it was not focused on the facticity of the corporeal self.
As the final part of our history, I would add the C.M.M. school of thought that I came to study under and that would bring us to the point where we need to be to sort out a proper White Post Modern philosophical world view.
In a highly collaborative effort (i.e. “interrogated”), professors and grad students worked out a world view that made sense of the different forms and ways of communication, from monocultural communication, to traditional, ethnocentric communication, to Modernist communication.. to wails (over not knowing how to respond) to thoughts on Post Modern requirement – Coherence, Coordination and Mystery.
Not a thousand percent perfect in all detail but very good and necessary if it is your concern to preserve your people.
Of course in working my way through all of this, I’ve had to sort out what is necessary for White advocacy.
Lastly, before I see objections, let me say that “objectivity”, “relativity” and “subjectivity” do not always sort out cleanly.
If one wants to make a case that objectivity will lead to observing qualitative differences in other peoples of course they can, and they can argue therefore that there is no need for a post modern project and we should stick with modernity. You can make that argument but you’d be making it unnecessarily, as the advantages of modernity are still ready to hand in post modernity properly understood, while the control variable of our inherited forms are more efficiently respected as the default setting – putting them less at risk to a chic liberalism, destructive fads and opportunistic trends. Moreover, going without the heuristic distinctions between post modernity and modernity is a bit like saying that capitalism and its growth model is purely self corrective, and always corrects in timely enough fashion, the invisible hand providing wise restraining judgment enough.
………………..
Interest aroused and historical background hopefully providing orientation enough, lets return to our thesis:
The astute in concern of White interests will observe and understand that Jewish interests are generating and marketing misdirection of concepts that would be essential to White group defense, and Whites continue to fall for it.
The basic strategy of Jewish group antagonism is to take a good idea, necessary to group defense, advocacy, homeostasis, and deploy it in the interest of non-Whites or anti-Whites; and then to exaggerate these advocacy concepts to the point of utter misrepresentation, absurdity, to where they are perceived as alien and repulsive to the common sensibilities of Whites, causing them to react even against the concept underlying this red caping and against thus, the very concepts that Whites need to understand and organize their group defense.
With our thesis established as Jewish (((red caping)))…
White EthnoNationalism
As stated in our thesis, the central goal of Jewish group antagonism is to disrupt the organization and homeostasis of European peoples. The most graphic means (((red cape))) by which this has been done is the rubric of “anti-racism.”
At this point, I go to one of my basic methods for evaluating terminology, that is, how it functions cross-contextually.
The deepest consistency, call it the depth grammar of “racism”, if you will, is the act of classifying people, particularly by racial patterns and then discriminating accordingly. As this act of classifying and discriminating is natural and necessary for any conscious species to survive, the red caping is enhanced by an automatic association with supremacism, even where classification is not really conducted with supremacist aims; and it will be White people who are accused of this for the most part, conducting this supremacism on an allegedly illegitimate institutional basis of their own accord.
People of European extraction who have the consciousness and conscientiousness to take on the challenge and taboo of “racism” and “anti-Semitism”, seeing the attack on themselves as a group and sub groups, may be called White EthnoNationalists. “White” is simply the term for the genus “European” applied more broadly, because it can be prickly to refer to our peoples as “European” where we frequently live outside the continent. We may be called European ethnonationalists where it applies in Europe, of course, as well. The Ethnonationalist term takes care of Nordicists snobs who may otherwise be uncomfortable with calling Southern Europeans, “White”, because it is just the genus name, and the species distinction is taken care of by the fact that we are ethnonationalists, conscientious of the need and desirability to maintain our distinct European kinds as discreet ethnonations among the coordinated genus.
But as Whites approach this consciousness and conscientiousness, they will be confronted by the (((red cape))) of “racism” because they are attempting to classify in their interests, even in sheer self defense, and this is mistranslated in red cape form to “supremacism” and a with that, a will to exploitation and genocide of other groups.
They will take your supremacism for granted, and can place you in the wrong so long as you accept the red caped modernist purity spiral against social classification: If you say, “no, I don’t discriminate based on race, sex, etc., I judge everyone on their individual merit”, then they can charge you with being disingenuous, willfully ignoring “the long history of discrimination, oppression and exploitation of these groups.” But then, on the other hand, if you take the measure of saying, “ok, lets take that into account and use, say, affirmative action to help these groups into positions where they are under-represented”, then you are classifying and discriminating thereupon, hence a racist by definition. – Pearce and Wood.
The prohibition against social classification is not legitimate, and White Post Modern understanding will overcome this red caping.
Anti-Racism is Cartesian, anti-group classification and discrimination thereupon; it is not innocent, it is prejudiced. It is prejudice against prejudice (Gadamer); as such, it is hurting and killing people; it is “a Jewish construct” (as Tan correctly observes) and as I say, in its Alinsky-like weaponization, making Whites, anyway, live up to their Lockeatine rules of Civil individual Rights over “the fiction” of social classification and discrimination thereupon, by Whites, anyway.
Beneath the EthnoNationalist project, in the depth grammar, is social classification, centralization of concern of one’s own kind and maintenance thereof.
This project corresponds perfectly well with the post modern turn as the post modern turn would be properly understood, to retrieve us from Cartesian estrangement and liberal runaway and back into the centralization of Praxis and its maintenance.
In sum, this red cape, of “racism”, is a (((red cape))) of Modernity and its purity spiraling rational blindness. It is a major prompt for the need of White Post Modernity.
But of course, the post modern turn to praxis has been red caped as well.
Almost all people have been so hoodwinked by the (((red caping))) of Post Modernity that they see the term as representing not a turn and relief from Modernity, but rather just so much hyper relative da-da absurdity, rife with deconstructionism and incitement to take on a rather shallow, ironic stance – liberal cynicism in a word. It is no relief from modernity at all, and in fact, probably should not be punctuated as post modernity for this da da understanding that people have, but rather be called something like Late Modernity, or Modernity’s fall-out, as it does not really represent a new epoch. While we do obviously need a new epoch and distinction from Modernity.
This recognition invokes a nifty fact that the term “post modernity” helps people to punctuate an end to the interminable charmed loops of modernity as noted by Pearce and associates: “This is not new, therefore no longer good, thus one must work to change – this is now new, good …but before long, no longer new, work to change, etc.”
And relief from the modernist identity paradox for its valuation of what is new: “be different so that you can fit in.”
Furthermore, with post modern competence, you can participate in a traditional practice without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity as you have the consciousness of your agency to participate or not.
But these are details in comparison to the fact that the punctuation of Post Modernity puts a limit on the epoch of Modernity altogether, recognizing that change and insufficiently controlled experiment does not always lead to improvement; that traditions and inherited forms may be anything but something to be left behind as passe; that while too great an emphasis on objectivity may make on feel morally superior, it can lead to the dissolution of one’s necessary relations as they are neglected for their relative importance; but as the concept of Post Modernity is taken positively it allows us to take on the task of utilizing hermeneutic circularity to avail ourselves of the best of Modernity while ensconcing ourselves in the project of reconstructing our inherited forms (and traditions, where they are conducive to our inherited forms).
…..
But before we move into more detail of White Post Modern conceptualization and its (((red caping))), we need to take our hermeneutic circle back to our Tradition in as much as it was aligned with the natural preservation of our species – where tradition aligns with homeostasis of our inherited forms, as it naturally would.
We may work with the hypothesis that Europeans were sufficiently ethnocentric/ homeostatic in ancient and prehistoric times. Even if the challenges to Southerners was more a matter of other tribes, and the challenge to Northerners was more a matter of nature, ethnocentrism and inter-tribal warfare was rife, south and north. The inter-European warfare indicates vigorous ethnocentric interest in species survival – even though the hypothesis of the natural vs other challenge can be exaggerated if not disputed, as the southerners were farmers of origin – thus, confronted with the facts of nature, while the northerners brought their Augustinian wares to bare to attack other European tribes or find Valhalla. Whatever the case may be…
A marker of natural European Tradition would be alignment with the survival of our inherited forms – our species.
Plato and Aristotle, Aristotle in particular, with his Praxis – one’s ethnocentric bio-social-political group – provides a sound Traditional starting point for this analysis; i.e., aligning tradition and natural concern for species homeostasis.
Differences and detail can be worked out, shaped and crafted, but the concern is more or less the same – praxis – whether the group in concern is Northern European, Southern European or just European generally. For those of us of good will, the praxis is ethnonationalism – forms of which certainly extend to the ancients and even prehistory.
Now, the reason that “Post Modernity” was conceived to begin with, its raison d’être, was to protect inherited forms and ways of life, traditions where benign and conducive, from the destructive aspects of Modernity; at the same time, leaving available the best of Modernity and leaving behind destructive Tradition.
Clearly a worthwhile project.
However, with the red caping of (((post modernity))) as so much ironic, hyper-relative, deconstructionist da-da nonsense, people can be at a loss for what to do in terms of way of life. And as our people turn to tradition for relief, it does not help, to say the least, that our “Traditions” have been (((red caped))) as well.
“Christendom”
The first and probably most importantly destructive (((red cape))) imposed against European peoples was an affectation to become our “Traditional European moral order” – Christianity.
Its tangled, dread inspiring and self destructive rule structures which, among other terrible misdirection (these issues are belabored elsewhere), compel a sacrifice of concern for the lived life in favor of some ‘hereafter’ beyond our biological legacy even. Our forebears and decedents, the radical concern of Tradition, being moved aside for misdirecting, Abrahamic nonsense. The only praxis here are Jews, “the chosen” of the Abrahamic god, while we gentiles are unimportant as a group in respect to that same Abrahamic god we are supposed to worship.
Nevertheless, for the confusion that yet surrounds so called “post modernity” as a result of (((YKW Red Caping))) of its concepts and right wing chasing after the red capes, Whites often simply do not know what else to do but to turn to this anachronistic “tradition” of ours or to double down on Modernity.
Many WN are trying to play “no true Scotsman” with Christianity, returning to this Jewish muck as if a misunderstood “White tradition” to save us from “post modern relativism” …while others try to double down on modernity, playing “no true Scotsman” with modernity – this is a typical White right wing reaction to “save us from its shallow irony”. ..while they dance to the tune of the fiddler on the roof. As we’ve surmised, that the Modernists were in many senses only instigated in purity spiraling reaction from the “traditional” moral order.
“Churches and Liquor Stores”
Along with Bowery’s observation of the Bible functioning to serve as the Jewish media control even before the advent of Modern technology, the pervasive reinforcement of this “tradition” of ours is also encapsulated in Frank Zappa’s remark on “Centerville U.S.A.” – “Churches and Liquor stores” – i.e., ubiquitously.
The “convenience” of this “tradition” of ours, the very “moral order”, the water in which we swim, Christendom, is to say nothing of its brutal and deadly imposition – Charlemagne and The Teutonic Knights providing a few examples.
With threat of losing what semblance of belonging, if not subject to penalty of death and hell, the fundamental strategy of Jewish (((red caping))) – to disrupt the ethnocentrism of Europeans and other non-Jews – was cast a central component of ‘our’ most fundamental ‘Tradition.’ Its almost like a tradition of non-tradition, as honoring “your parents” hardly constitutes a commandment to obey a long historical tradition of forebears held in high regard. Indeed, we have barely begun to be roused in indignation over the Christian church having buried our most sacred day of ancestor remembrance and replacing it with “All Saints Day.”
And a key function of (((red caping))) is established, in that it allows for Jewish infiltration and subversion of the group – by means of conversion in the case of the Christianity. Anyone can become a member, including YKW, who are particularly inclined to aid and abet our dissolution according to the red cape strategy.
Finally, as the Jewish (((red cape))) functions, overcompensating reaction can be even worse than compliance, as even the important underlying idea for group homeostasis – in this case, a moral order – is rejected in favor of a-moral concerns of Modernity – e.g “nature”, adherence to “survival of the fittest” to the point of natural fallacy, “might makes right” to the point of utterly immoral destruction.
Indeed, there is reason to believe that the compulsion to overcome these (((red cape))) guilt trips – its obsequious “golden rule”, the way Christian guilt gets into your mind with “even if you think of breaking one of the commandments” – its divorce from nature, denial of logical cause and effect – was an instigating factor in the purity spiral of Cartesianism, hence Modernity – and the reflexive effect of its “objectivity”, hyper-relativism (as it were, bereft the correctivity of praxis).
Our most fundamental Tradition, our moral order, was (((red caped))); and make no mistake, there needs to be – and will be – at least some semblance, however crude, of a moral order as a matter of practicality in interaction. Things are naturally taboo which run counter to the health of the people and will be prohibited – and to go along with the prohibitions, people need to make common a rule structure of obligations and legitimacies by which they make sense. For Christianity, a religion which doesn’t make sense, which runs counter to our survival as species, to be the default moral order is a travesty.
As our moral orders are constructed through practicality in interaction, it is best for us to be conscious of this fact and wrest our moral order deliberately (de-liberate / re ligamenting) in service of our interests (which will include getting along with others) not in service of some arbitrary result, or some other tribe’s interests.
But disabled from critical thinking with our Traditional moral order red caped, enveloped in an ocean of poison, our reaction into Modernist purity spiraling (underpinned, as GW observes, by Christianity) was ripe for the (((red caping))) that we noted above, of modernist a-morality on the one hand. While the red caping of post modernity with moral hyper relativism suggests a return to “our Christian Tradition” on the other hand.
Hence the need to sort out White Post Modernity Proper from its red caping.
– as in the example noted above in regard to “marginals”, red caped as those outside the system and destructive to it, but “who should be brought into the group.” Introduction of outsiders is the red cape opposite of those among our group, toward the edges but well disposed in corrective homeostasis; who thus should be respected for their sentinel position of feedback regarding where the system’s bounds are impinged in the calibration of praxis.
The sense of compassion that this concept invokes in its hermeneutic circulation of inquiry among the system can provide for key aspects of popular appeal that Christianity offers while being recognized as a part of reasonable alternative moral order, as it recognizes limits where Christianity does not – a boundary where accountability and compassion is more the immediate concern of the other group to whom that person is a member.
Before people have a proper understanding of Post Modernity and the function of marginals, there is a significant danger that a great number of people will be distracted and react to the red caping, as noted above:
In addition to distracting urgent attention from the much more important issue of race replacement – given relative non-correctability – chasing (((red caping))) of post modernity, such as drag queen story hour, suggests a (((red caped))) Traditional solution (((Judeo-Christianity))) to a Traditional problem, (((“Sodom and Gomorrah”))).
The Scientism of Modernist Reaction Disrupts Necessary Psychologically and Socially Organizing Concept of Classification and Unionization as if Wholly Unnatural and Pernicious Fictions.
And getting that reaction is in large aspect of the Jewish red caping of good, socially organizing concepts, as per the thesis.
The concept of “The Left” as a unionization of the EthnoNation, revolutionary long enough to overthrow treacherous elites is absconded by Marx to become “international workers of the world unite” in “withering away the state to create the communist utopia”…and where that did not happen, unionizations of non-White and White anti-White coalitions were formed by cultural Marxism against White Ethnonationalism. And in “liberating tolerance” (Marcuse), claiming in the name of tolerance to be intolerant of the right, The Marxists and Cultural Marxists label White Identity and Ethnonationalism as “Right Wing’ and “Far Right” … Alt Right, …Dissident Right … Neither Left Nor Right, Third Position, Baizo (White Cultural Marxists which the Chinese call ‘White Left”)….anything but White Left Ethnonationalism.
That would follow our hypothesis that Jewish group strategy seeks to rupture White group organization and defense.
Isn’t this superficial of me? Aren’t these just words?
Well, I’m sure that you will agree that words are meant to signify things, logics of meaning and action which in turn suggest how we direct behavior.
We respect and look at ordinary language as the currency by which people proceed.
We look to the wisdom of our language, to see what is meant most radically and we look to what holds up in meaning cross contextually, which we might call the “depth grammar.”
And with that, we look at what people are doing.
I am not a scientist. However, I am confident that my hypothesis will hold up, cross contextually, that in the depth grammar of leftism, is social organization by means of classification and unionization.
And this is a very important, non-Cartesian concept, for maintaining praxis.
If you look at what “Leftists” are doing, they may be seeking social justice of some kind as they conceive it, but they are not seeking “equality.”
Equality was an inarticulate part of the French Revolution’s slogan which was seized upon, (((red caped))) because it puts one in a terribly anti-social position to ague against equality. Elsewhere I explain that commensurabily incommensurability is the way to harmonize niche qualities within and between groups in service of coordination as opposed to antagonism with false, unnecessary, even dangerously misleading comparisons.
Back to what is being done with Right and Left. You say these are superficial terms and yet, since 2008, Jewry has been particularly keen to cultivate a characterology of “the left” as anti-nature, unrealistic, seeking equality and worst of all, “social justice” – why would we want that now that Jews own half the world? Lets make a deal, you right wing reactionary and liberal Whites – lets pay you off or give you whatever licentiousness you want to ignore the fact that we are all more or less indebted to our social group, aye?
We Jews are on top for our objective merit, you right wingers too, so smart, and you liberals, they are jealous of your strength and beauty, which had nothing to do with the cooperation of your people.
Join us against all that weak and resentful collectivism before they unionize and overthrow our indulgence.
Thus, I would say to White Ethnonationalists, pay careful attention to why they want you, not only identify as right, as always, but why they have stepped-up this campaign to have you arguing against the “left” since 2008. Why don’t they want you to identify as “left”, White Ethnonational Left.
Liberal and Politically Correct used to be more the terms for adversaries of ethnonationalism (implicit though ethnonationalism was for its stigma by the U.S., given its civic nationalism). It did not used to be that “the left” was on everybody’s lips as the great devil character…. not until it became necessary as social justice organization, unionization and activism became an intersectional threat to Jewry and their complicit right wing sell outs/ along with those liberals taking the licentious bribe.
But the Marxist Red Cape of “The Left” as International and The Cultural Marxist Red Cape of “The Left” as Liberal, slowly imposed a confusing, counterfeit currency to the language of Whites, which confounded their capacity to organize; a most valuable note among that counterfeit currency being deliberate confusion of “The Left” = Liberal: It is indeed liberal for Whites when international coalitions of anti-Whites are marshaled against White borders, bounds, would-be unionizations. But there in depth grammar of the left, unionization reveals the opposite of liberalism because the obvious function is to conserve the interests of what is within the union, while that which would open-up the union is liberalizing.
Tell me, if Right and Left are so meaningless semiotically, why have they wanted you to identify as Right, why have they wanted for you to view The Left as adversarial? Why do you react almost phobically to the word “left” if fit has not been weaponized against you? If you think right and left are meaningless now, why do the terms continue to be used, and why will they be used? You say nationalism versus globalism is the divide now, and we can largely agree, but do you understand that nationalism is to the left, it is a union and as such, in the relative interests of the people, not some merely objectively found and maintained phenomenon.
To the extent that our people naturally form ethnonations of their emergent qualities, that is wonderful. But there should be no objection to the unionization of the ethnonation’s borders and bounds. Furthermore, in all likelihood this hermeneutic function will be necessary for reasons already mentioned, to maintain our authentic way, our coherence, especially as our antagonists are determined to undermine our homeostasis, and because there are enough right wing elites willing to sell us out, liberals as well.
You ask, why do we have to call it “left”? The answer is because of its connotations for the foreseeable future, of unionization and corresponding means of social accountability, necessary to sustain ethnonationalism; with corresponding connotation of social justice and compassion to rouse the populace behind our ethnonational cause (as opposed to the right wing, brute facts, ‘which don’t care about your feelings”). If the unionizing function is thoroughly assimilated as being about our people – praxis – maybe one day we can drop the term White EthnoNational left; but for now, it keeps us on track. The right, on the other hand, is rife with brutal anti-social “that’s just the way it is” accounts, that rightfully turn-off the majority of our support.
The connotations of the left, viz. the White EthnoNational Left maintain a broad view of the unionized systemic, human ecology of our people. With our calibration of praxis being central, as it should be, the means of accountability to our own is established and the means for accountability to other groups as well. After all, what are we doing this for if not our people? For our children and the world they come into?
Right wing and all its variants, including third position, where they are the dominant mode, will be shown in their depth grammar, to be pursuits of facts, truth, understanding of nature, supposedly irrespective of the relevant interests of their people and accountability thereof. And where they are taken as “the way” it will be demonstrated that these are reactions, inherently unstable social reaction to rhetorical abuses in Praxis, mostly Jewish.
What these right wing truth inquiries should be, is feedback to be gauged against our praxis, to serve its homeostasis.
These reactionary positions, seeking pure warrant beyond praxis or below, in raw nature, will not serve homeostasis because they make short shrift of social accountability and the social correctability (synonymous with homeostasis) that praxis affords.
With unionization of our people we are accountable to our people, whereas with, say, Christianity, the interpretation as to what we are accountable to is unclear. …same with “laws of physics” and “nature” …while Darwinism comes close for species drive to survival, it too, can be ambiguous without the hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity.
Some will balk that paying attention to terms and proffering general frameworks is superficial, but this is to be guilty of a fundamental misunderstanding of praxis, the social world its currency that we are dealing with quite necessarily with requisite practical judgement – which Aristotle called “phronesis.”
As Aristotle observed, people are biological creatures evolved for optimal need satisfaction, who have and register reflexive systemic effects for excess and lack and for the actions of others, mammals in particular who have relative concern for their relationships, and have agency, can learn to learn, reframe their agendas hermeneutically; that social science is not like hard sciences, even less like physics than biology for the broad view of systemic maintenance. It requires rather specificatory structures: largely or partly finished frameworks slightly more general and ambiguous, but having ready understanding by the public – frameworks that can be shaped and crafted for broad perspective, not choking off the necessary imagination to transcend moment and episode into broader patterns as need be, not to preclude re-specification in precision, down to a genetic level or molecular level, as need be. And this hermeneutic capacity in liberation from mere facticity, to transcend stray moment and episode, paradoxes, strange loops, tangles, defeats, is necessary not only for individual autobiographical coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, but also for our groups.
This modesty will also invite participation and elaboration and correction in the social construction of knowledge in homeostasis of our people. It will hopefully remove the transmission model of communication, the perception that I am, or should be on Mount Sinai transmitting the ten commandments to an audience of passive receptors except for their impatiently tapping foots and brows furrowed in skeptical disdain.
Along with social constructionism and hermeneutics, speciificatory structure, invoke social correctability, the essential function of group homeostasis that we are after.
White Post Modernity is going with Whitehead’s ideas that even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis…that one cannot continually investigate everything, but must proceed taking for granted a given state of partial knowledge. That’s just one way of expressing the requirement of phronesis in praxis.
I would take it a bit further, that in some regards we will find that a modicum of ambiguity is actually helpful to grease the wheels of participation, an aspect which makes Shotter’s idea all the better for its invocation of engagement with correctability and specification, ergo the possibility of systemic homeostasis. And again, there is no denial of harder facts of biology and physics, only that insistence on at least a modicum of agency (at least as to how facts come to count). However, as I have argued elsewhere, in one of the many essays buried because I don’t love Hitler, Jesus and other Jews, that modicum of ambiguity in praxis actually affords social construction of accountability, coherence, agency, necessary to the warrant of both individual and group.
Practical judgment certainly does not make the scientist irrelevant. Even aspects of (((bracketed))) scientists can be useful, as in the case of cognitive linguist George Lakoff.
Issuing the caveat, again, that just because I find an idea useful from a person, does not mean that that I subscribe to their program and may well use next to nothing but for a few ideas in fact. Such has been the case of George Lakoff, whose idea in his book, “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind” I found both useful and neutral enough (apparently that cannot be said for later efforts of his).
Before I knew that he was Jewish or that that was an inherent problem, I saw merit in the concept that he was promoting in this book, viz, that people have the need to classify (he says categorize but, same thing) in order to make sense. He added, and they do this on a “human sized scale” – that would be emphasizing the practicality of the scale of classification. And there is an optimal level of classification. We don’t normally say ‘there’s a Irish Setter on the porch, nor do we say there is a mammal on the porch, we say that there is a dog on the porch.’
We don’t go around classifying the number of molecules in people, nor do we classify their place among the galaxy; but we will, indeed we must, as a matter of species survival, classify them according to some readily discernible species potentially competing for resource among the genus of humans.
Now, before anyone says that I was indoctrinated by a Jewish professor, the fact is that Lakoff was coming from a rival discipline, which treated communications more scientifically that my chosen discipline of interpersonal communication (I have always been looking for ideas that I could use in the interests of Whites, weighing material, rejecting some, taking some and making novel inferences – a process quite unlike what GW’s autobiography would have him believe of my biography, ‘that I have been a passive, uncritical receptacle for Marxist indoctrination’).
I went out of my way and took these little tidbits, adding what would be significant hypotheses for European survival.
My experience tells me that whatever experiments or experience that Lakoff is referring to when suggesting that humans have a cognitive need, even inborn tendency to categorize, it is true enough.. it makes sense that this capacity would be necessary in order to make sense and discern requirements for species survival.
This reinforced what I was coming to understand as the egregiously weaponized modernist, Lockeatine prohibition of classification with “civil rights” and “anti racism.”
With the inference that the capacity and need to classify remains, even with the prohibition on classifying, I drew a hypothesis that within the reflexive disorder as a result of prohibiting racial classifications, that certain default classifications, too difficult to ignore, would emerge with increased significance.
It is scientifically demonstrable that highly contrasting sights and sounds create a tropism of attention. Hence the categories/classification of gender, viz. female, and the contrast of White and black races would be reinforced as categories, especially as weaponized anti-White contingents in the PC, “discriminated against” coalition. Thus, it would tend to reinforce the coherence of their advocacy, already advantaged in the disordered circumstance for reasons we’ve noted to the detriment of White/European species.
My point is, that White Post Modernity finds use in scientific methodology; and if facts and an idea holds up, its coming from a Jewish source will of course not require its being discarded. By the same token, I would maintain the Schmittian (((brackets))) as a warning in regard to the Jewish scientist for where his allegiances are liable to take his earstwhile politically neutral ideas.
Similarly, I would not do away with critic of scientism, (((Thomas Khun)))‘s idea of paradigms, commensurability and incommensurabity as a better way of handling niche differences within and between groups, better than an across the board comparisons “equality and non-equality.” It is not that this idea cannot be misapplied – one critique that it came under from a Jewish philosopher was so concerted that it had me believe that Khun could not possibly be Jewish. The (((brackets around Khun))) would have helped. The reason for my mistaken inference was reinforced as I could see how useful Khun’s idea could be to White people.
Similarly, the )))around Gadamer((( would have prompted my realization that Gadamer wasn’t Jewish, the abuse of his ideas were Jewish. As our thesis states, Jewish interests are adept at latching onto good ideas for social organization – as in Gadamer’s elegant turn, “the prejudice against prejudice.” But so adept are they in this red caping that you’d simply presume that hermeneutics, along with Gadamer, was Jewish and anti-Science.
Indeed, science is of assistance to identifying (((bracketry))) as through Jewish crypsis and Christian conversion. Hence the advantage to White Post Modernity in being open and ready to avail itself of Modernity and its means.
On the other hand there is the wisdom in the tradition that is our language, from ordinary language to its underwriting in depth grammar, it can provide semiotic currency to help us see through the ((the red capes))) of Post Modernity. We can be more than satisfied with the potential for warranted assertability and operational verifiabily in the specificatory structures we generate in language where it is legitimately backed currency, counterfeit red cape notes put out of circulation by participation and correctability – homeostasis of our human ecology, our people, our ethnonations, our praxis.
We understand that it is a part of Jewish group evolutionary strategy to undermine our White/European group systemic homeostasis – the thesis here is that it is done largely by red caping of concepts necessary to group homeostasis for Whites.
They altercast White identity as right wing for all its anti-social connotations. Since 2008 they’ve initiated a marketing campaign with all sorts of memes to join our anti-social, right wing reactionaries against “the left” red capes which, in depth grammar, has connotations of unionization, social justice, popularizing the moral high ground and social compassion to ground our ethnonational advocacy otherwise …all intersecting to the detriment of their niche power and influence along with complicit right wingers and liberals who do not want to conceive of themselves as accountable and indebted to our group interests.
They market a (((red cape))) characterology of “the left”, the Marixst international left and Cultural Marxist anti-White left, “THE” LEFT. It has these “warriors” who want this horrible thing, social justice – and social justice is bad for Jews, so it must be bad for Whites too? The “left” is “anti-nature” …it is unrealistic, it wants “equality”…. it is represented by deformed marginalized freaks and most importantly, it is synonymous with “liberalism.”
Of course now, this “leftist” unionization and coalition building in social advocacy, vastly distorted, still in hypothetical mode, prior to reality testing, arrayed by blue haired college undergraduates against Whites, determined to ever liberalize their boundaries, would not quite function that way in normative service of White Left EthnoNationalism… where the unionization of our people would delimit and provide accountability to the interests of our people and reality testing. Also staving off deployment of culpable exploitation over others on would-be “objective” grounds. Some suggests the Jews are wont to promote or instigate imperialist supremacism. There is evidence for it, and Abrahamism can be a vehicle. There again, why accountability to our people, to praxis and its correctability, is the better source of moral order.
Ok, so, Jewry, complicit right wingers and liberals do not want the function of Post Modernity understood properly because the centralization and unionization of praxis, between science and technology (theoria) and the arts and narrative/imaginative conceptualization (poesis), would put an end to their da-da racket, hyper-relative smoke and mirrors – where they get over, while Post Modernity would include our human ecology, facilitate the maintenance of our people, take the best of inherited ways, tradition and modernity and leave the worst behind.
They red cape hermeneutics and social constructionism, which would be of great service to this project of reconstructing the centrality of praxis and its homeostasis if understood properly as opposed to the wild distortions aimed to make these concepts repugnant to Whites.
And perched atop their 7 – 9 niches (Religion, Money, Politics, Academia, Law and Courts, Media, International Business, NGO’s, Foundations….) they want to promote the idea that they are on top strictly for their objective merit – not as a result of social constructionism and activism in their relative group interests.
This is the promotional task that Luke Ford et al have adopted. Along with Gottfried, Steve Sailer and others – they’d be happy for you to continue to misuderstand post modernity as so much hyper-relative, ironic, deconstructionist da da.
They don’t want you paying attention to the social contructionist process by which social systemic homeostasis and success comes about, they want you to pay attention to the products of that process, red caping you with the concept of objective merit to void accountability to your people and their process of homeostasis and advance.
While not everyone chases the (((Red Cape))) of (((Steve Sailer’s))) “Human BioDiversity”, some are memorized by it, drape themselves in it – at least huWhites are better than some! But Human BioDiversity is clearly supposed to be a Post Modern concept, a horizontal perspective geared to sensitize people to recognize / respect qualitative (incommensurate) niche differences in order to facilitate non-conflictual, symbiotic functioning within groups and between them, in a broad and pervasive human ecology.
Yet it was bizarrely weaponized by Sailer into a lateral, hierarchical perspective – “HBD = I.Q.” – yes, I.Q. is dangerous to Not measure for certain tasks and certain niche roles, for certain people, but wielding it as if a “good will concept” to respect natural law of biodiversity, putting it rather into modernity’s narcissistic terms of universal comparison (i.e., NOT diversity and NOT respect for different niche evolutionary qualities), with inclination for unnecessarily provocative and dangerous false comparisons, leaving you caught up in hubris where, lets say, street smart qualities are going to kick ass – but never mind, it was convenient, particularly to Ashkenazi YKW class of ©2008 (not like their high I.Q. was socially constructed); and the flatter enough liberal licence(tiousness) with their “objectivity” – “that’s just the way it is, I can…whatever”….can flatter enough elitist White right wing reactionaries, who can at least claim some prowess over the darker races, some can even join the ranks of the supreme tribe to bring light to the world!
Related: Hyperbolic over-representation of YKW (under-rep. of Whites) in Ivy League not remotely merit based
The red cape of “Equality” is chased, positioning us as callous ogres, against equality.
The red cape of “Diversity” is chased to require integration on a uniform criteria.
The red cape of “Multiculturalism is chased to require integration and Monoculturalism:
Pat Buchanan decried “the sewer of multiculturalism” and maintains that all Americans should speak English and practice Christianity. Just what we need, right?
Angela Merkel says “multiculturalism is not working.” ..is she saying “send them back” because she values the distinct genetic make-up of Germans so much? or is she making an an implicit argument against the red cape, for integration and the browning, if not full replacement of Germans?
The red cape of the social unit of analysis – sociology, the group advocacy red caped as anti-White hyper relativism – means that the social/group unit of analysis is repugnant, it is for Jews and girls. Never mind that we are under attack as a group/race and therefore it is the most important unit of analysis for us to look at.
…
The (((red capes))) of conservatism called Neo Cons and Paleocons have been discussed in various places and we’ll revisit that controlled opposition as need be.
Transforming Malsow’s Linear, Modernist, Social Systemic Rupturing Notion of Maximizing Self Actualization; in favor of a Circulating process of White Post Modern Socialization, Optimizing Actualization with other stabilizing component parts, Being, Routine skill cultivation and Sacrament.
A good place for this essay to culminate would be with White Post Modern retooling of Self Actualization; specifically how the concept impacts the borders and boundaries of praxis; and how it impacts gender relations, particularly as its crass distortion in red caped modernist terms ruptures the bounds that would allow for our gender relations to be balanced fairly.
I’ve talked about this at length and will only talk as much as remaining space permits, but it is extremely relevant.
Self Actualization, as an expression of emergent, individual telos in Aristotle’s conception, would indeed be a part of our authentic European Tradition.
Aristotle would see self actualization occurring in praxis, thus having to take social consideration (e.g., “magnanimity”) as part and parcel of the process, also optimality and the golden mean as guides along the way to self actualization.
But with the American/Lockeatine situation, weakening classificatory bounds and concrete responsibility in favor of the technology of civil individual rights, the story of America as the land of opportunity, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, “be all that you can be”, a modernist logic of meaning and action is set in motion, a means and trajectory ripe to be weaponized by YKW to rupture of systemic homeostasis, social balance and order, toxically effecting reflexive reversal to destruction of praxis. All Europeans would be prone to this, north and south. Perhaps northerners more susceptible, ‘Faustian spirit’ and all.
We don’t want to dissuade pursuit of Self Actualization, it is distinctive of Europeans. But we do want to correct misdirection, imbalanced priorities, co-opting and the dark side of human potential movements as the narrative of self actualiztion has been adulterated (((red caped))).
(((Maslow’s))) red cape of Self Actualization is problematic in that he starts with biological needs and as these “lower grumbles” are satisfied, they are built upon lineally and hierarchically; “lower grumbles” of each intermediate level is quantifiably satisfied until finally “the ultimate peak is reached” in self actualiztion.
White Post Modern philosophy would seek to transform this model to our health and interests. Firstly, by placing Socialization (MidtDasein) as the most fundamental need; without our relationships, particularly as a child, all is for naught – thus, praxis is most fundamental. Then we’d reintroduce Aristotle’s notion of Optimality to go along with the emergent telos of Self Actualiztion, an optimality of need satisfaction in socialization to be negotiated not altogether heirarchically, but in hermeneutic circularity as need be.
The toxicicity to individuals that leads to reflexive reversals and aberration in pursuit of actualiztion as a singular goal, along with this overly focused quest’s rupture of social classificatory bounds, may be corrected first of all, as noted, with the observation that socialization is the foremost need to be enjoyed – and unionized – protected – membership will allow for unharried enjoyment as self actualization as organic motive unfolds – absent the Cartesian anxiety of borderless existence, one can turn attention to Dasein, there-being and its corresponding poetic, authentic organic meandering.
Two further aspects of Tradition and inherited ways would be introduced to transform Maslow’s modernist weapon into a stabilizing White Post Modern means of socialization in praxis: the enjoyment and respect of sacrament as it reveres the patterns of our people beyond moment and episode, beyond autobiography and intepersonal relation even, into the ancient patterns of our fold and as it would extend into the future indefinitely.
Along with that would be enjoyment of Routine, skill development, normalizing coherent autobiography to stabilize quests of actualization; in fact, self actualization will be difficult and skewed in fact, absent sufficient appreciation of these levels, which can be truly enjoyable of themselves. Life can be wonderful.
But life is not necessarily wonderful when we don’t have our being; what is sacred to us is not respected; we cannot take the borders of our praxis for granted, our natural mates are solicited relentlessly by those “self actualizers” from just anywhere.
It is interesting, really, that the maven of the second wave of feminism, (((Betty Friedan))), was a student of Maslow, and that she proposed that women’s liberation required that they be able to pursue the higher reaches of self actualiztion on Maslow’s hierarchy. Furthermore, that she based this idea on Simone de Beauvoir’s derision of routine, tradition and Aristotle’s golden mean: “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is why she prefers the Aristotlean morality, i.e., of mediocrity.”
All this was heedless of the destruction that the story of actualization was doing by itself to exacerbate America’s individualistic and hedonistic premises, its proneness to social disorder and destruction given the absence of social classificatory bounds.
Now you were adding the crassness of weaponized feminism, White women preoccupied with fulfilling their high grumbles while White were considered so intrinsically valueless as to be subject to the Vietnam draft, their low grumbles unnecessary to hear despite no immanent threat to our praxis..
These feminists were only observing that in tradition, the relatively small group at the top were White men. They were not acknowledging, or not near enough, that they had not necessarily gotten there through a cushy procession of fulfilled needs to the top, but in many cases were driven by deprivation and privation (such as bootcamp) of basic levels, while women’s basic and mid level needs were fulfilled and deemed “enough.”
So, if White men occupied top positions traditionally because they were tested more on lower levels and if they made it through, they tended to be very good; and positions tended to be reserved for them on top and practices (such as sacrament and routine mentorships) along the way out of respect for the greater sacrifice and tests expected of them as males.
These positions and facilitating structures were less and less reliable with the disorder of modernity.
It’s a wonder White men did not go more crazy with their low grumbles ignored while feminists pursued self actualization, and had their basic level needs more readily satisfied with pervasive solicitation.
The low grumbles of White men were implicit in the motives of the hippies being toward death in the Vietnam draft.
Their hermenutic turn to Dasein and Midtdasein was unarticulated and unpoliticized (partly for the stigma of not being a motive to man-up in universal maturity; be all you can be in America; partly because organic being is a matter of synthesis, thus not easy to articulate; and partly because it was buried by Jewish red capes: “the sixties were all about drugs and Marcuse’s free love” “Civil Rights for blacks” and “Feminism.”
But it remains the central requirement of the project for White advocacy – Being, There-Being, Being amidst our people (praxis) is an expression of the very right to exist and it is only White men who could not take that “right” for granted relatively speaking.
This is not to say that women don’t need to pursue the higher levels as well and that men will not pursue the higher levels.
But the borders and bounds need to be secured as an aspect of socialization, along with recognition that our natural pursuit of self actualization occurs in pervasive and human ecology and that self actualization leads to us normally to pairing up with our natural kind in the other gender.
Marcus’s “free love” and “polymorphous perversion” is a (((red cape))). It is not Being or Being amidst his people for White men to have the whole world trying to get on his natural K selected partner’s ass.
Institutionalizing the option for a single sex partner for life, sex as sacrament, is an important pillar to maintain our social systemic homeostasis, to incentivize loyalty, border maintenance, and to stave off cynicism.
The fair negotiation of gender relations in White post modern management is a big advantage that we have over the false Tradition of Abrahamism in order to secure and maintain our classificaton, while being contingent upon classification in fact.
Where women might care to move beyond the traditional, interpersonally supportive role a bit, they ought to be challenged a bit more on basic levels so that they don’t take it for granted and promote liberal values. Challenged especially with the rigor of socialization (you want to marry another race? better think about it because you are in line for ostracism as we will not be penalized twice for your disregard of our ancient social capital by picking up the tab for your mixed babies and allowing your part in the society that our struggles created).
Conversely, so that White men don’t go crazy and reflexively reverse into aberration in desperate pursuit of actualization, or even in desperate pursuit of basic needs, their membership in boundary reconstruction, ease of socialization and routine levels ought to be a bit easier, respected more. This will allow them a more solid grounding in pursuit of self actualization where it might take them to the top and not have them be quite so crazy when and if they reach positions of influence.
That’s not to say that girls and women can’t have a rough or extremely rough go of it, they need advocacy – feminism proper – as well. We don’t want either gender abused, but with our praxis secured, we can negotiate the enjoyment of traditional aspects and roles of actualization for men and women and the modernist corrections of male being and female actualization, provided they are balanced in bordered socialization. The rampant pandering and solicitation of females in the disordered circumstance gives them and their predilections a really unfair advantage in pursuit of self actualization otherwise. They become confident, articulate, and if you don’t like it, they can call in the thugs, the Jews, whomever to quell your objections.
We know that “they” are going to promote the line of White male privilege and will have nothing to say about the deprivation of Dasein, MidtDasein, the torturous giving away of our natural mates.
We can save our people, work out a great and just way of life for our people and gender relations, but it comes down to being able to see though the red capes, and balancing tradition and modernity with White Post Modernity.
…..
What Prompted this whole post?
The Generation X social corrective freeze out.
Oh No You Don’t!
There is something like an umbilical chord from fuck-headed right wing boomers feeding reactionary, anti social bullshit directly past the Gen X that they left in the funk like a swarm of locusts, feeding their crap directly to the Millennials and Zoomers who were born into right wing internet bubbles protected from reality testing. And even though this right wing bullshit has only led to disaster before, they are so thick and desperate that they think it hasn’t been tried hard enough and so they find their market.
[Note: This reconstructive feedback loop is not only generational, but also has something to do with White demographics in America, with German, Irish and maybe Italian demographics susceptible to pandering and divide and conquer tactics.]
And so they would bypass the Social Correctives of Gen X, but no you don’t!
This prompting comes from the elitist Richard Spencer, viz., from his McSpencer group talks with Ed Dutton – who falls, surprise not surprise, within Spencer’s Gottfried shadow as it looms with the new challenger to Spencer’s mantle as the huWhite hope, proudly self proclaiming (((paleocon))), Nick Fuentes.
Joining McSpencer against ‘the left’ (or saying that the left/right distinction is obsolete anti left) is wizz kid, Keith Wood -maintaining the pipe line from right wing boomers misdirecting zoomers in their right wing internet bubbles, venturing to bypass necessary White Post Modern, social corrective that gen Xers had set before them by no choice.
Millennial Keith Wood seems wont to step up the intergenerational conflict by adding generation X to the ranks of the woefully culpable – ‘a shallow lot, wallowing irresponsibly in irony’ – adding to the funk that generation was left in for its daunting and unrewarding task of reconstructing social responsibility in the wake of the boomer locusts only goes to show that the specificatory structure of post modernity needs to be clarified, crafted and shaped to our purposes.
Keith Wood is bright, but not fully ready for prime time, nor recognizing some differences that make a difference – e.g., European 68ers under the sway of Marcuse, as opposed to White American hippie boys with ownmost being toward death in Vietnam.
In addition to showing himself inarticulate as to Post Modernity, Richard Spencer continues to say stupid things about hippies as well, showing that he doesn’t understand it.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
You guys should NOT talk about post modernism, You don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t understand it and are misleading people.
Bert Prins
Who does know?
Daniel Sienkiewicz
@Bert Prins: me
JiveTurkey0001
How so?
Jay Mazella
Get the fuck out of here with your gate-keeping nonsense. If I wanted to hear the opinion of somebody that fancies themselves an expert on the subject, I would have taken a Social Science degree at literally any university in the Western world.Richard has studied Post-Modernist literature at quite some length. I would think he knows a fair bit about it, pal.
Oh really?
I gave a considered rebut to this asshole, Jay Mazella. It was taken down.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
@Jay Mazella I see that my response to this smear by Jay Mazella was removed. I ask again, who is gate-keeping here?
Observation of Majorityrights, my visits around the right wing sphere and their troll visits upon me reveals this sort of determination with consistent and surprising coalition to shut down MR’s perspective.
I might expect antagonism from the Nazi and Jesus types who were once here at MR, might expect antagonism from Jews as well, of course.
But for Millennial Woes to express indignation and demand that his link be removed from Majorityrights because I had the nerve to “insult” his Jewish lady friend, Vivian Veritas, a.k.a. Ruth, a.k.a. “The Truth Will Live”, as I maintain a vigilance on Jewish input, asserting that she should not be able to define our terms, viz. Left and Right for us?
I won’t belabor that issue here again.
But in connection, as I go around to various hangouts, I find myself being trolled relentlessly, abused by this huge asshole Tom Anderson and by Olaf Melchy Zedek. Anderson has been trolling me for being against any right wing position, Nazi positions, but also Christian. While Olaf has been trolling me grotesquely for being anti-Christian (and no, I’m not the one who doxxed him); even though I don’t go around to Christian sites and give them a hard time or even to discuss his religion.
I don’t go to Nazi sites either, nor to Jewish sites. Doesn’t matter. These guys lead the charge against me. Get him Ovfuckyou! (Ov is a Nazi). I had nothing against Johathan Pohl, tried to get him a job…then he started going along with this trolling shit, trying to discourage people from MR’s platform.
At first I thought, maybe they’re just true ‘don’t punch Right Wing’ believers. And well, maybe they are. What did I eventually find?
Olaf Melchy Zedek doing podcasts with (((“The Truth Will Live”))) and Tom Anderson with an editorial wrench in her hangout.
Vivian The Truth Will Live going to the chat in (((Luke Ford’s))) stream encouraging Ford to do more podcasts on the topic of Post Modernity following the exchange with Jay Mazella in the comments (pasted just above) on the McSpencer group. She wants Luke to subvert and divert White Post Modernity.
The Lies Will Try to Live, but They’re Not White, They’re Jewish.
There was no more room for words on the main original post at Majorityrigts, so the story about this egregious coalition of Jews, Nazis and Christians against (what is now) DNA Nations’ White Left Ethnonational platform ended with the commentary on Vivian Veritas, a.k.a. “The Truth Will Live” and my then having to use the comments for additional space, adding:
The Lies Will Try to Live, but they’re not White, they’re Jewish.
Ending it there is a bit too abrupt because it seems like I am placing too much importance on the person of Vivian, when in fact, she is just a salient example (like Gottfried) of a pattern that I have watched being revealed once again of the juggling collaboration of Jews, Christians and Nazis.
So let me complete the story of this episode of pattern revealing here, and maybe I’ll be able to fit it on the main post later with some editing, if I can find this many unnecessary words by contrast:
The first time I was confronted by Melchy Zedek was when I tried to discuss the DNA Nation with what I would later learn was a committed Christian, Ecce Lux. There was not an obvious problem, but something was amiss as Melchy was wanting to emphasize culture and religion while I explained that I had nothing against discussions of religion, but this podcast was supposed to be a focus on the DNA Nations; and furthermore, it was the first such discussion with Ecce Lux. I was immediately suspicious of Melchy Zedek, but his podcasting with Vivian Veritas confirmed my suspicions that there is a problem.
Melchy recently got doxxed, apparently by Jews because in a podcast with Vivian (Ruth, etc), he was insisting that they need to convert to Christianity or move to another country.
And there is Tom Anderson with a wrench in their chat. My point is, these right wingers are supposed to be so Jew wise and here they are, trying to silence this platform while defending Jewish participation, a Jewish conceived religion and an ideology (Nazism) that killed 50 million Europeans, destroyed much of Europe and may yet lead to the end of Europe (primarily because its over reaction, which combined with Nazi imperialism mislabeled “nationalism” attacked other European nations and stigmatized the necessary project of Europeans joining in defense against Jewry).
….
….
While I was triggered to make this post on White Post Modernity to prevent Richard Spencer and company from maintaining the red capes, I must add in fairness, that Richard usually has some intelligent insights. I believe that it was in a podcast with Syrian Partisan Girl that he was suggesting to the ardently anti-American contingent among WN:
“be careful what you wish for.”
I’ll take it a step further: with the state of White Nationalist thinking at this point [right wing reactionary] I’m not at all sure that just any all White situation will provide a wonderful way of life. Hence, another reason why I felt the need to make this post.
…….
As I had begun to serve up a dog’s breakfast in my haste to get post modern philosophy accurately understood for White interests in light of continued misunderstanding of these important concepts by prominent figures, such as Richard Spencer, I took down the material that was digressing into various rabbit holes to attempt to rework it into classic argumentative essay form – which usually begins with a pithy phrase or some other interest arouser.
With that, while I have been critical of Richard Spencer – and will continue to be critical of anyone for the reason that they are getting theory of White advocacy wrong – Richard usually has a few worthwhile insights in and about White advocacy.
As he did in his recent discussion with Syrian Partisan Girl and Tyler Durden regarding the implications for The United States given the assassination of the Iranian general.
Spencer warned White Nationalists who cheer-on the demise of America. Be careful what you wish for…
I would like to take that a step further. Given the stupidity of Whites to fall for Jewish tricks or to not care about it; and moreover, as much of what I hear from them in reaction and proposals as to how they would do things by contrast, I am not at all sure that they can be trusted to make things better for us – certainly not at this point.
Hence, one of the several reasons that I continue to advocate White Left Ethnonationalism – it tends to turn off people who should be turned off, who should Not be in charge of our interests – assholes, in a word, who, in their foolish over-reaction, lack for sufficient knowledge, accountability, compassion and correctability; and despite their claims, who are not dealing with reality sufficiently.
So let this comment contribute to the interest arouser which is the sum of this post so far, and I will move to what is Traditionally the next part of an argumentative essay – some historical background…
Bowery's idea
Whereas the Monocultural worldview of cannibals might view a White interloper as non-human, and rather as something good for the communal stew pot, so their tribal mono – culturalism would perhaps view we “racists” as less than human, and not worthy of life….
Having said that, note that Bowery’s idea that those who would disregard group prerogative for sovereignty – those who disrespect freedom from association – may be looked upon as supremscists and would-be slave masters seeking to bring others into involuntary contract, and therefore in violation of human integrity, choice and agency and thus not themselves worthy of moral concern.
It is operating on a different, but not overall mutually exclusive level of logical types.
It is a brilliant idea.
….As even the casual observer should note, the natural jostle of existential circumstance and intertribal competition that initially forges an ethnonation (the thrownnesss) is not a concept at all adverse to what I’ve been saying, on the contrary, but it does requires hermeneutic reinforcement… and that’s not trivial, it bears upon authentication of human being as opposed to animal reaction.
Hebrew Anglo-Saxons? – Medieval Conversion Tactics – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIbjGYY0cc
Asshole (Guessedworker) goes on to say (in his usual, strawmanning, gaslighitng, narcissistically personality disordered way) and I respond, by kicking his ass, as always:
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 15:10 | #
What is instinct? A connate and immutable, primitive reflex (and, therefore, non-“social” in origin) which instructs the rest of the cognitive machinery of the brain non-linguistically and non-ideationally to select, as urgently as is necessary, for survival and the vivifying.
Let me see you hermeneutic that into invention, imagination or fiction.
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 16:11 | #
Ok, asshole. Here is my response, which is that you miss the point as always, no matter how often you are told. Social contructionism and hermeneutics proper, not its red caped and misunderstood variants, do not deny the more factual nor even inborn, but recognizes that how these facts come to count has at least a modicum of social negotiation, contextualization, perspectives, at least post hoc; and if there is no post hoc, you are dead, can’t talk about it, others can/will talk and determine how those facts come to count for you.. Nevertheless, there are some things that are as close to mere fact as can possibly be and a person who would propose an alternative story will be (correctly) considered crazy or dishonest (or making a point, perhaps, like Bateson and von Forester).
The point is to invoke the fact of our shared social context, for what are these facts to us if we are not here amongst one another to discuss and deal with them? Hence the prioritization, a much needed adjustment among Europeans from the modernist Cartesian estrangement and instead to the centralization of praxis (our genus and species) as calibration, and the facts – such as instinct definitively spoken about – as feedback, which, by the way, as evolution reached human form, would have been furthered though social reproduction (not a sexuality). And again, even when we are talking of the instincts of our pre-human form, still requires social discourse for it to have any social import.
The bottom line being, Europeans especially, need the social constructionist perspective to sensitize our people to our social indebtedness to our kind and, if understood properly, rigorously, actually provides a better understanding of how knowledge is generated and how our lives work, what facts are.
There is no doubt that the marketing campaign against “the left” and directing White identity to the right and against the red cape misrepresentations of (proper, White) post modern philosophy – as if it were post modern philosophy – is meant to keep disrupting and rupturing (by right or by liberal, same sharp edged, purity and objectivist fetishizing root) our boundaries, keep us from this proper understanding and the homeostasis through structured accountability and systemic correctivity – i.e., the autonomy and sovereignty that proper understanding would facilitate.
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 16:35 | #
You have no grand point to make. You are arguing for something your profs said, and it’s contorted and feeble. Yes, the human personality is an overlay upon the connate of impulses, attitudes, reflexes, and so forth derived in absentia, so to speak, and from Time and Place. But the movement towards self-appropriation functions by detachment from that, and in so far as that is achieved the result is human freedom – not the freedom of liberalism, of course, but the freedom which is in Being. The connate … nature, instinct … is the ground of that perfect estate, and the mediator of Man and Being.
Perhaps it requires an undamaged personality to open out and explore this movement, or even to work out that we are not trying to communicate a critique and make social change. We are looking for a foundation for a revolution in the guiding idea of the age. And before you say that is what you are doing, no it isn’t. You are justifying yourself … your personality. That’s why, for you, it’s all about communicationism and social this and that.
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 08 Aug 2021 15:28 | #
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 16:35 | #
You have no grand point to make. You are arguing for something your profs said, and it’s contorted and feeble.
You stupid, dishonest, lying fucking creep with your narcissistic personality disorder. You never fail to disgust me at how you deceive yourself in order to adhere to your autobiography of the great slayer of academic pretense and chimera and your altercast of me as the your academic foil, merely regurgitating what professors of whatever Marxist stipe have told me.
Nothing, in the desiccated peanut that was your brain, now rattling around in the vacuous cavern that is your skull, will allow you to be honest:
To look at what I am saying as inference, significantly where not radically transformed in purpose from anything my professors have said or suggested where I have talked to them. If you were honest enough to make even a cursory effort, you could find NO such parroting on my part of things they said, nor sheer beholdenness and regurgitation of passively received information. Moreover, if you had any significant breadth of knowledge, you would know that many if not most of the things that I’ve presented I’ve generated apart from any conversation with professors; much of it not even erudition, but inference from life experience.
Moreover, I have several “grand points to make” and you are not just a stupid, ignorant man, you are a bad man, a ceaselessly gaslighting, strawmanning narcissist who places his unmerited, gargantuan ego before the requirements of our peoples.I’ll come back to the rest of your horse shit later, when and if I feel like it. For now, your first two sentences said enough of your dishonesty, ill-intent and bad will.
Let me add concisely to that especially when you see asshole (Guessedworker) railing against “social this and that”……especially because boomer morons like GW… immersed in their ego centric pursuit of self actualization, their good fortune that the social consequences of their irresponsibility did not obstruct their cashing in, ,.. and being eager, in confrirmation bias to see their individual fortune as sheerly deserved and not indebted to their social group, thus eager to maintain the (((red cape))) misrepresentation of social constructionism, …and have have been averse to social correctivity to be enacted by the x ers… it is all the more important that social constructionism be properly understood as a correctivity that European peoples are in dire need of,- i.e., sensitizing direction and means to social group accountability…
136:07 – KMG reads an interesting article discussing the finagling of NGO’s by elites to launder their money and further their liberal agenda to the detriment of native peoples.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v9UR1kfcmM
Another egregious red caping of post modern conceptualization having made it didactically repulsive, and thus “a problem” to be countered by a “solution” – i.e., “Identity politics” are “post modern” and “bad” …you don’t want any of that identity politics stuff, that “post modern” politics stuff, White man, do you? See minute 1:14, for example:
https://twitter.com/lukeford/status/1407085246315569152
Charles Murray (Bell Curve) is on this bandwagon against identity politics as well.
More (((red capes))):
Climate change red caped for carbon tax on White nations.
Covid 19 red caped to destroy White middle class and upward mobility as opposed to closing ethnonational borders and promoting social distancing from aliens.