As I came through my studies to understand how Post Modern philosophy was supposed to work in White interests – i.e., to sustain group systemic homeostasis despite the oblivious rough shod of modernist ideology and hostile or backward tradition (whether of one’s own people or in conflict with the ethnocentrism of other peoples), I just assumed that my correctives of the misrepresentations of Post Modernity would be welcomed by what appeared to be the generally intelligent people of older and younger generations concerned with afflictions against European peoples.
I would figure that the following statement, which I have been making for decades, and publicly for over a decade, would be greeted by floods of White Nationalists of every generation seeking to steel man and confirm it for the monumentally important statement in its significance to our interests that it is:
Anti-Racism is Cartesian; as such, it is not innocent, it is prejudice, it is prejudice against prejudice (it is Cartesian in its prejudice, i.e., against social classification, accountability and discrimination accordingly) and with that, it is hurting and it is killing people.
Arguments can be made against supremacist, exploitative and genocidal deployment of classification, but in the Jewish weaponized modernist form, to where any classification (at least as rendered by Whites) is to be prohibited as egregiously racist, it is a Cartesian absurdity. Telling people to not discriminate on the basis of group classification is almost like saying, “don’t have eyeballs” to see that wild animal… the horror of seeing that 1964 Civil Rights placard over entranceways in American public institutions… “discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion” etc. is prohibited.
But it is worse than that, of course, as it is primarily weaponized against White people, Alinsky style, making us live up to ‘our; Cartesian rules.
In Ant- Racism, we are under attack as a group, effectively as the classification, “White people”, and we must defend ourselves as a group; they are going to treat us as a White group, attacking all of our members, not drawing distinctions between our nations, though some would try to say their European differences are overwhelmingly important and other Europeans are of underwhelming concern.
Thus, regarding classification, I must note that I use the term White to represent the genus classification European peoples, and I do this particularly as it is awkward to refer to diaspora as “European” since they are in other continents, citizens there, not in Europe. And I take this genus classification “White” as a necessary unit of defense, as anti-racism is a targeting of the full genus classification of Europeans, not only in Europe.
A warm reception and steel manning from White advocates was not what I’d get for this, and especially not for the explanations of Post Modern correctives to this Cartesian estrangement – notably, modalities of group (leftist) advocacy, including social constructionism and hermeneutic process in order to sustain group systemic homeostasis against Cartesian estrangement and the systemic runaway that it was thus susceptible to.
It seems no amount of explanation of how Post Modern philosophy proper is supposed to work in our interests – lets call it White post modernity to distinguish it form the hyper relative, ironic deconstructionist da da red-caping that they’ve grown accustomed to and want to believe is “post modernity” – no amount of corrective explanation could bring them around.
Now, the essence of the post modern project for European concerns is to re-centralize our world view through praxis – that is, to re-calibrate our world view through the relative interests of our group classification as opposed to objective Cartesian estrangement – which has been a byproduct of modernity, intoxicated overvaluation of its perspective for its success in the fields of science and technology. And there have also been these negative consequences of its (((weaponization))) in purity spirals and the misrepresentation (((red caping))) of post modern corrective so that people think that hermeneutics, social constructionism and so on is against science, truth, nature, etc. That is not true.
As I have expressed the case, objective science and truth inquiries are invaluable and should serve as feedback to be gauged against the calibration of our relative subjective and group interests (i.e., in accordance with the post modern corrective project); while scientism, i.e. bad science and bad application of science should obviously be subject to critique, gauged against our relative interests – what we Care most about.
Again, the philosophical critique of Cartesianism, its place in modernity’s scientistic abuse, is not to say that Cartesianism has no valid application; it does, as in the example of microwave engineering, which uses Cartesian coordinates. The philosophical concern, however, is to not get stuck there, overwrought with anxiety in Cartesian pursuit of some pure warrant and position while losing sight of relative concerns in Praxis. We want to use theory not be used by it.
I recently heard the ‘great genius’, Ecce Lux (complicit with Boomer right wingism, because he thinks he’s too smart, knows how to patch up that bullshit), in conversation with Jonathan Pohl (fat x-er Gemanophile with mixed Asian kids; but satisfied to trade in false currency popular with the U.S.’s predominant demographics), commending ‘our one glorious period.” He was referring to the Nazi epoch; displaying the fact that he did not see the great hazard of trying to warrant what should be your people’s cause instead in pure nature, natural fallacy, below the anchoring and correctivity of their Praxis.
He said (in a poor attempt to take a page from my book), “I’m always thinking about how we should align with nature.”…
Well, we should try to align and harmonize with nature, but not be so stupid as Semiogogue and try to make it the central world view as opposed to the anthropocentrism of praxis.
To be without the relative gauge, anchoring concern and centralizing correctivity of praxis, to use an absurd example, is like saying lets align ourselves with a meteor hurtling to earth like the one that killed the dinosaurs.
And just as Hitler was very appealing to puerile females, so too will this right wing bullshit be appealing to a number of puerile females in the fall-out of modernity, making it all the more dangerous; being pandered to in their base propensity to incite genetic competition; for whether right wing expression emerges in them as opposed to their liberal expression, they are still based on objectivism; and within the disorder, they are powerfully positioned to be gate keepers over the mode of correction; incentivized to let through liberal objectivsits (where things haven’t gotten bad enough for them personally)/or right wing objectivists (where things have gotten bad enough for them personally); but the same objective basis taken for granted in their gate keeping, whether liberal or right wing, to let into power liberals who will open boundaries or right wingers, who will attack them imperialistically; and as they come unhinged in the right wing side of the purity spiral of their natural fallacy, they will be happy to see the “dead wood” (i.e., “unnecessary” males to these sated females) cleared-out; they are not really on your side when unsocialized; they just know, rather, that they are going to breed with the winner.
Ecce lux is smart enough then, to function as an Xer who (tries to) patch up the defects in the conduit of right wing Boomer reaction and back again from the internet bubble that they’ve fed into among Millennial Nazi fans “Will2wr” and “Ovfuckyou”, who literally encouraged him to sympathizers with their Nazi fan position in antagonism to my platform which seeks to coordinate all European peoples.
It has been a long standing curiosity of mine, how people who can be so intelligent on one level (Ecce claims to be able to rapidly solve a Rubiks cube) can be so stupid on the most important levels. Ecce is also a Christian. This would be the other side of the Cartesian divide, beyond nature, Praxis and accountability thereof. Talk about taking accountability beyond Praxis – the Sermon on the Mount and your accountability is to Jesus. I suppose you can make arguments that when he says, “even if you think of” sinning, you’ve done it.. therefore you can’t keep the ten commandments in purity and so you have to make judgments in Praxis, but that’s awfully convoluted; that golden rule and sermon on the mount remains an awfully confusing “guide” for conduct in the reality of Praxis…
The Cartesian anxiety is certainly due in part to this Christian purity spiral to avoid the guilt trips laid on them by the sophists in Praxis.
Christianity is not just a Jewish trick. Though it is that, it is not just that. It is a profound hijacking of our moral order, the structuring of our most sacred concerns by which to govern ourselves. The red caping tends to either have us submit through fear – that has been, after all, “our moral order;” or it has us chasing the red cape, rejecting morals altogether as an invalid concern, believing in natural fallacy instead, whether Hitler, some Cartesian purity spiral beyond the relative concerns of our people, or whatever, instead of doing the work to wrest a suitable moral order for ourselves (as there is no rising above moral concern: there will always be some things you can do, some things you cannot do and some things that are optional).
Hard to imagine a more egregious imposition on a people than the red caping of our moral order.
But I digress..
As much as those who object to what is called “post modernity” are dismayed by “relativism”, what they are not appreciating is that the upshot of the objectivism of Cartesianism is hyper-relativism. That is because in the anxiety to establish pure warrant, the “that’s just the way it is, no need for further human account” than the principles within nature, below praxis (group interaction of relative interests) or the principles beyond nature and praxis, they are abrogating social accountability and the group systemic anchoring that it would otherwise establish.
The Cartesian anxiety, that would take this divide to one extreme or another, above or beyond nature, is largely a reaction to sophistry, abuses within praxis, which would abuse our relative and most cherished relational concerns; hence the preoccupation for pure warrant that will not be assailed by any rhetoric.
However, as the Cartesian reaction typically latches white knuckle to the empirical end, looking for things palpable to latch onto, viz., if the purpose is to establish the distinctness of individual and group identity and their warrant to maintain themselves as such, they are confronted with the arbitrariness of the empirical end, thrown back on what Heidegger calls the existential “thrownness.” In the case of human group identity, the empirical fact is that we can interbreed with any people on earth and therefore, there is at least a modicum of arbitrariness to the distinction of our personal and group identity.
It is true that they YKW exploit this fact to no end, and it does not have to be a great problem – i.e., the differences are still real, even if patterned – but it cannot and should not be denied, as there are problems with denying the truth of the matter and there are advantages in acknowledging it – coherence, accountability, agency, correctivity and warrant.
It will be noted that heremeneutics not only facilitates coherence, accountability, agency, warrant, group and pervasive ecology, but it also facilitates overcoming paradoxes, dilemmas, pernicious charmed and strange loops, confusing ambiguities, tangled relationships and more. It is absolutely imperative to a successful individual and group life and mind boggling that any of our people, let alone leading exponents would object (although there are apparent reasons, due to the misapprehension (red caping, which I will get to) by tenured liberal professors in conversation with undergraduates from 18 – 24 in perpetuity.
Hermeneutics is the distinctly human capacity, a non Cartesian capacity for language, narrative to open up time and history, space and systemic expanse, liberating us from the arbitrary facticity, flux and tangles of the moment and episode.
In fact, it was Heidegger’s student, Hans Georg Gadamer, author of “philosophical hermeneutics” who turned the brilliant post modern phrase against Modernity and its “Enlightenment”, calling it “the prejudice against prejudice.”
..without prejudice, in pure objectivity, of course we are subject to the arbitrary flux of the moment and episode; the pattern is unaccounted for.
From this (with honorable mention to another student of Heidegger, i.e., Arendt), I derive, “anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.
And if one is looking for empirical grounds where they might find post modern classificatory bounds, Gadamer has an excellent suggestion of at least one check point in the case of “marginals” – they know where the shoe pinches, can be a kind of centurion, noting where systemic bounds might be breeched and have perspective to provide valuable feedback on the system, necessary accountability and correctivity thereof.
You want an empirical basis for group bounds? Marginals, i.e., those just within our system but pushed toward the edge, are a great place to look. Furthermore, everyone is a marginal from time, if only because they are “better” than others…
But what has happened with our tenured liberal professors pandering to 18 to 24 year old undergraduates in perpetuity?
In their Cultural Marxism, they have red caped the concept, to were “marginals” are presented not as those precariously just within the system, but rather those from without, who should liberally be let into the classification to no end (or rather to end White people).
The concept has been red caped. But with its proper understanding, this engagement of inquiry as process, will allow us to deal with our problems, gracefully move from vast imagination, the suspension of disbelief necessary to manage a working hypothesis, to the most critical and rigorous verification, down to operational verifiability and warranted assertability.
It is is a small price to pay for the agency that we wrest by acknowledging the modicum of arbitrariness of our interactive relation; and to keep our people, especially our people (with our penchant for objectivism and individual detachment to lose sight of our social relations and indebtedness), to be sensitized to the post modern significance of centralizing our world view through our relative group interests (praxis); we are thus advised to engage in the social constructionist program proper, and that’s understood as a necessary corrective, right? For in its proper form, like hermeneutics, it has an anti Cartesian mandate which facilitates coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.
At least a modicum of agency is always recognized through social constructionism by one of four means:
While Social Constructionism’s red caped misrepresentation is taken for granted by right wingers, “race is just an optical illusion” and “I can make of myself whatever new gender that I like”…
This ANTI-SOCIAL, solipsistic misrepresentation of social constructionism obfuscates its true purpose, which is to foster social accountability, correctivity and agency:
Social constructionism proper, maintains that there are four aspects of social construction, always entailing at least a modicum of agency:
1. The more literal: as in constructing a building together.
2. The metaphoric: as in parents “constructing” a child, with the help of some sort of input from any number of people around them at present and historically…
3. The hermeneutic: to manage the non-Cartesian process of inquiry between rigor and imagination as need be to facilitate systemic maintenance (individual and group). Hermeneutics is necessary for the liberation from modernity’s mere facticity and the arbitrary moment and episode into coherence and accountability for both individual and group to follow the historical expanse and temporal systemic breadth of our people.
4. The post hoc attribution as to how facts count:
That guy may think he’s a woman, but he has a weenie and a Y chromosome, that’s a fact and for us as sane people, that means that he cannot use the ladies room.
…….
Trumpets, Red Carpet, Nobel Prize, a Million Dollars, White Nationalists cheering in legion, right? Wrong.
To begin in a word, you can call “anti-racism”, the prohibition of classification and discrimination accordingly, (((weaponized))) modernity. While concepts of Post Modern correction have been (((weaponized))) to misdirect Whites against systemic homeostasis.
I will thus need to venture further elaboration of reasons as to why even White advocates have been kept in positions of antagonism to these ideas, in order to overcome this misdirection.
This post, “Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer” has emerged important as a changing of the guard of leadership and requires discussion long enough so that I’ve had to break it down into a series of installments.
Furthermore, as it is important, I will be taking my time with it and proceeding organically with it as an ongoing process. The one drawback here is that you’ll be seeing what amounts to first drafts – fraught with mistakes and confusing phrasings – at times in what I put on line in installments. I encourage readership to come back from time to time so that they can see the corrected form and clarification of what might have been confusing to them.
Part 4 was a particular example of an installment draft put up when I was tired and in a hurry. I have since made quite a few corrections and clarifications.