Part 1) Note: though it was written earlier, of course,  I’m moving this text here, to a later position so that the text can be read (and heard) in order

Welcome to my cozy apartment, where we’ll be setting out theory and philosophy of European /White ethnonationalism.

My use of the term White should not be controversial - it simply refers to the genus of European peoples as they may occur outside of Europe as well, since the use of the term European to refer to Europeans in diaspora outside of Europe would otherwise be confusing.

This is DanielS, the man who proponents of Jesus ergo Christianity, Hitler ergo Nazism, those meeting the kosher seal of approval, as well as other right wing reactionaries, the scientistically hide-bound, those given to nutty conspiracy theories say has ruined Majorityrights.

This is DanielS the man who Brundelfly said has a unique perspective, but will not be given a chance to discuss it because he has the charisma of a paper bag - and if Brundlefly says it, if his wife says it, must be true, even though he said that after having heard me for the first time in a hostile envirnoment; motivated to run interference so as to include his wife’s kosher interests.

Welcome to my cozy apartment, where we’ll be setting out theory and philosophy of European /White ethnonationalism.

Praxis, Theoria

Audio Part 2a, as I did not have room for all of part 2 at once. There is a significant edit from what has been the long standing text in that I should have, but do now, mention social constructionism straight off the bat as part and parcel of the post modern turn into praxis.

This first talk elaborating theory and philosophy of European/White ethnnonationalism will be entitled Praxis and Theoria, subtitle,  and not much about Poesis, to set out the framework of Western Philosophy.

Both for the sake of making a better presentation, but more importantly than acquitting myself in the matter of style, because rather the theoretical / philosophical backing of European/ slash White ethnonationalism that I’ve ascertained is highly significant in that it works to make consistent sense in diagnosis of problems and prescription of solutions for the homeostasis that is the ongoing reconstruction of European peoples systems, I need to lay out my findings at a comfortable pace, unperturbed by interlocutors who are either hostile or who find it difficult to allow for understanding given their habits, commitments, conditioned as they are, disinclined to suspend disbelief in what I present.

It hurts me to listen to my talk with Greg Johnson and GW as I came close to articulating this important matter but misspoke a word that could cause important misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, it was on the mark but for one misspoken word: I said “veer into” when I meant to say that we veer out from the pivotal and should be centrality of praxis when we get caught up in Cartesian detachment, taken up in estrangement as Heidegger would put it.

There are reasons why I was tongue-tied, but again, its not merely for the matter of saving my personal face that I want to address these matters with proper clarity. The matter that I was attempting to address here was of primary and most profound importance to European peoples.

I don’t know exactly why I said Cartesianism causes us to “veer into” as opposed to “veer out of praxis” but at any rate, this three way distinction of Theoria, Praxis, and Poesis was not being granted the gravity of its import as the basic framework of western philosophy from Greek antiquity to Modernity to Post Modernity; for its capacity to make sense of the ancient to post modern project - from Vico to Heidegger, that they were seeking to recentralize Praxis and take Theoria back into subsumption of Praxis as the context of pre- eminent relevance.

There was just a slight complexity that added to my tongue tied, as I was not comfortable to straighten the matter out there, though I had thought Greg Johnson might help, in this discussion, perhaps for their commitments, my interlocutors could not help to clarify this matter and other matters with the gravity deserved.

It has been a generally inhospitable climate at Majorityrights for its modernist commitments and of course more recently, on Luke Ford’s Jewish friendly hangout were I sought to test out my hypotheses. My admittedly badly halting and hesitating presentation gave them all the excuse they needed to try to dismiss me. But again, it is not just a matter of showing the weasels there and saving face in my manner of speaking, but because the content of what I have to say is simply too important that I will set about these matters at a pace comfortable for me and without interference from interlocutors disinclined to suspend disbelief.

The essential framework for understanding the history and project of Western philosophy, that is to say, the philosophy and requirements of European peoples is Aristotle’s three way epistemology of

Theoria, Praxis and Poesis.

Theoria is what Aristotle called the law-like principles that serve to guide inquiry as in maths and sciences. It corresponds with pure objectivity.

Praxis is what Aristotle called the social world of people in relation to one another.

Because Praxis is in the realm of biology, with people as biological creatures requiring optimal not maximal need fulfillment, and as mammals in particular, concerned to adjust in their concern for relationships, but moreover, with special agency as humans in their capacity for epistemology, that is to say, to think about thinking, the capacity to learn and engage imaginative solutions; and because, in contemporary terms, there are reflexive effects thus, Praxis is more mutable than the concerns of Theoria, therefore cannot be satisfied with claims of thoroughgoing foundational laws to the extent that Theoria can. The inquiry of Praxis requires thus, more of a feel and practical judgement which Aristotle called Phronesis.

I am satisfied to have phronesis be cast as working hypotheses and topoi, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves. For the moment, I need to set down this framwork - Theoria, Praxis and Poesis - you will understand why.

The third major category of Aristotle’s epistemology he called Poesis. This was the realm of arts, including poetry, literature and drama.

Now we come to a chief contributing factor of my tongue-tied and where I had hoped that Greg Johnson might help, that I might crib from him where I’d lost my notes from grad school lectures but where he and GW could not help.

I’ve since mended the confusion on my own by interpolation.

First my confusion over what I took to be Aristotle’s methods for achieving Theoria, Praxis and Poesis.

Aristotle held that Praxis, the social world, required Phronesis, practical judgement for its inquiry - I had no confusion there.

But Aristotle held that Epistemology, that is to say, thinking about thinking and pure reasoning was the means to theoria, whereas techne, that is to say technique and craft was the means to Poesis.

I had the means to these other two categories reversed in my outline - I had looked upon techne as technology, corresponding as the means and method to theoria, while perhaps some sort of pure inspiration like eudaimonia corresponded with poesis. Frankly, I was not even considering the means of Poesis as that was not the problem at hand.

The problem at hand was social destruction and the urgent concern of how to remedy that - i.e., the central philosophical concern was praxis and its means - hence, why social constructionism was invoked as the means to inculcate social consciousness and practice in order to counter the ravages of modernity. We’ll come back to that later; how social constructionism was one of a myriad of corrective post modern ideas misrepresented to Whites through its kosher academic implementation of an opposite semantic content (i.e., representing social constructionism as the idea that you could make of yourself just anything that you imagine, when if fact that would be in violation fo its non-Cartesian mandate - e.g., “race is a mere social construct” ..if you have to add the word “mere” before social construct, it is not social constuctionism proper) in decption and diversion from the intended remedial effect of protecting group interests. Against modernity, against antagonistic other groups and their ethnocentrisms.

Now, I maintain that the corollaries that I was using - technology to theoria and prhonesis to praxis are more correct for the modern circumstance and that my reasons for maintaining techne as corresponding to theoria was also a result of my learning. Though I’ve lost my lecture notes and recordings, my professors saw no need to correct my understanding, apparently for good reason.

That is to say, with the advance of modernity and its empiricism, technology was becoming the accepted means to theoria, as it provided set means of discovery and warrant through means of verification.

I believe that this is the prevailing understanding of the most important western philosophers.

That is to say, as the apex of modernity - Cartesianism/Locketine empiricism - technology as a means may yield great results in the realm of theoria, but it was having mixed and even destructive results as applied to the realm of Praxis - an epistemological blunder as it were -for its impervious, quantifying trajectory running rough-shod, irrespective of qualitative differences and niche evolution.

Now, while I sought confirmation from Johnson et al. I don’t rally need it as my framework makes consistent sense of the post modern project exemplified by Heidegger’s philosophy; and before him, it makes sense of Vico, and why he is sometimes called the father of social constructionism.

As a non-Cartesian project in correction of Modernity’s runaway rough shod over the relative interests of Praxis, these philosophers were seeking to bring Praxis back into the central matter of concern, to where Theoria, technology and its means were subserviant to the relevant interests of praxis, of practical human concern as opposed to the prejudice against prejudice that caused the self estrangement of modernity’s cult of objective and technological detachment irrespective of the relative interests of Praxis.

Now, GW is correct to observe that Heidegger was maintaining a certain telos of emergentism and the importance of holding fast to it - but while this telos was close to theoria, Heidegger recognized its circumstance was Praxis, the throwness - i.e., it was not foundational in the same sense to which theoria might aspire.

Still, Heidegger is not the bottom line, providing the perfect specs to our salvation. My reason for invoking him, besides many good ideas, is to show how he was using Aristotle’s framwork of Theoria, Praxis and Poesis to engage the project of the post modern turn - to redress this Cartesian veering from Praxis and to take us back there in centrality of concern; at least his version thereof, which was a bit more individualistic than i would recommend, but done by him in order to secure the emergent basis of being.
Heidegger has his short-comings, not biological enough, not social enough.

Praxis is in human biology, therefore mutable in anything but a social constructionist claim of “foundation” - it is not foundational beyond terms of how matters, including how the less contestable facts may count, and especially not given the fact of human agency and reflexive effects, particularly on other people.

This is an epistemic realm of what Carl Jung and Gregory Bateson called “Creatura” and it has a different manner of coherence and necessity, than does the realm of what they called “Pleroma”, the hard sciences, with its more dumb cause and effect in Theoria.

While our circumstance, thrown into this flux precludes absolute, unassailable warrant, the good news is that it affords more agency in coherence, accountabiity and warranted assertability of our human ecology and social/historical capital.

Modernity has had a very destructive side to human group differences and coordination in their mutual co-existence, and the post modern project in proper form - which I call White post modernity to distinguish from its da da misrepresentation - has been devised for its correction.

Passing from a trajectory from Vico, to Nietzsche to Heidegger and the American pragmatists, one observes the Western Philosphical project as being one recognizing the necessity to correct modernity’s runaway problems by returning to the centrality of Praxis and relegating Theoria and its technology to its subsevience - hence, you have clues in Heidegger’s statement that even Poesis, poetry, is closer to authentic thinking than is science and technology.

Heidegger’s embrace of the non-Cartesian, post modern, circulating process of hermenuetics, that is to say, the capacity for narrative to embrace units of analysis beyond the episode assimilates the grace - beyond the episode and the moment, the present - assimilates the grace of poesis in its capacity to negotiate coherence and coordination of rigorous inquiry and the virtue of holding fast to our emergent forms, while affording imaginative hypothetical perspective giving us breadth toward the end of establishing accountability, agency and warranted assertability over our personal and group identity.

The breadth of perspective that gives us orientation and allows us the capacity to negotiate ostensible contradictions, paradoxis and the arbitrary flux of a merely facticious empirical take. If you’ll recall I discussed how Kant attempted but didn’t quite succeed in rescuing morals, human dignity, that sort of thing from the abitrary flux that Lockeatine empiricism had taken us into, well hermeneutics and other post modern resource does succeed in that rescue.

Despite the valuaton of agency, anti-Cartesianism and anti-reductionism, I want to be sure to not play into the misconception that White post modernity is anti-science. It is not. Heidegger’s method for negotiating this non-Cartesian means of inquiry and maintaining coherence despite the non-foundationnal basis (what he called the fundamental circimstance of our thrownness - another indication that he is working within Praxis) - the hermeneutic method he took up was a circulating process that is NOT anti science, it is anti scientism - that is to say, anti bad science and bad application of science - as bad applications might be to the realm of Praxis, epistemological blunders as per modernity - “we are all one race, the human race, as science shows us very closely related.” - bad science.

That’s bad science and the kind of thing that hermeneutics fosters the remedy of, the correction of, as do the pragmatic philosophers which we’ll come to later.

Nevertheless, heremeneutics is not anti-science or anti truth. It allows for the regulation of frameworks of inquiry, so that one may deploy rigorous inquiry of close empirical readings where most useful or one may take a step back for a broader perspective to enhance the relevance of one’s inquiry. But objectivity and detachment is not to be fetishized as the permanent state whereby the modernist reactionary might wish to find perfect warrant. Objectivity and detachment are temporary methods to yield findings to be deployed in our relative interests - that’s the basic framework, our relative interests, not objectivity.

I’m going to have to re-visit how this post modern project as it has been perverted and distorted where not entirely misrepresented largely by YKW academia and their liberal minions.

They’ve completely misrepresented to the goym the why and what of post modernity and its remedial methods for re-establishing the systemic homeostasis of Praxis.

In subsequent discussion we’ll address philosophical correctives of modernity, by post modernity and how these tools for the homeostatic management of peoples and their cultures by contrast have been misdirected by the YKW.

But I need to make a note before leaving off, that none of this is liberal - in fact, these philosophic resources are necessary to maintain group systemic homeostasis and the homeostasis of emergent forms, against the ravages of modernity, and antagonistic outgroups whose ethnocentrism in their relative interests would take advantage of modernist, narcissistic objectivist naivete.

Hence, the central corrective that Western Philosophy has undertaken since the full realization of the destructive side of Modernity has been to centralize Praxis and to subsume even theoria into the realm of praxis.

While the post modern project, lets call it the White post modern project, to keep it from being derailed into YKW DA DA, is conceived to maintain the best of inherited forms and ways while allowing for the best of modernity as well; conversely, to ward off the ravages of modernity and to be free to leave behind unhelpful tradition.

While that is true, the starting point is the Aristotlean framework of Theoria, Praxis and Poesis; and how from the modernist perspective of making Theoria the paramount ideal, he primary perspective, the Post Modern project correctly wants to take us back into a centrality fo praxis - Ok, so we’ll stop there; and begin again, I don’t know, maybe tomorrow.