Majorityrights Central > Category: Liberalism

Healing that confusion, the lack of wherewithal that comes from a family with crazy and hostile communicative patterns has a price which one is not particularly aware of when still in the midst or recovering from its throes…

As one heals, regains their natural emergent form, the poise of its perspective, one is suddenly confronted with the myriad of one’s own culpability in not negotiating these family and friend circumstances better; one is somewhat braced for the fact in that one is now essentially healed, but the memories of one’s own interactive failings, i.e., to negotiate relations better for one’s own sake and to make one’s way better with them, are on constant offer to the consciousness, really too many examples and presenting from any given day that one might reflect upon.

One thematizes, taking examples, and tries to empathize with oneself as having done the best they could in the circumstance and remember that the person that you view failure with can bear some joint responsibility.

I’m thinking of my father, specifically.

Confusing, could not effectively and respectfully communicate his thoughts; questions about his confusing statements were treated like an affront, volcanic temper like you can’t believe, otherwise largely catatonic TV-watcher - infuriating the way he’d smile along with it…. but might turn away momentarily to literally paraphrase his WWII generation mantras - “you can’t fight city hall” and the liberal, “anything goes when the whistle blows”... he would say this with a smile on his face, like you were supposed to relate.

His worst characteristic, however, was his penchant to attack vulnerability - made it near impossible to trust him. This did-in my mother’s psyche; and having to deal with her broken psyche is another can of worms that we don’t need to talk about. Psychologically, intellectually, bad situation all around.

Materially, I’d be a jerk to complain. Weren’t rich, but had what we needed and a modest bit more…and that does, indeed, spill over into some opportunity to heal the psychological and intellectual deficit.

But as harrowing as my father could be and the fights that he had with my mother were (you could hear them around the block from our house), I eventually gained enough perspective to see how I might have done better as well.

First of all, a working class family without advanced education and four kids.

I could not have done better than my parents ...oh maybe a little better in some ways, but overall, probably worse…

READ MORE...

Triangulation

One of the advantages that Jews have in altercasting White identity as right wing or somehow in response/reaction to “the left’s social concerns”, is that they can take advantage of the inherent instability of right wing reactionary rigidity, its quest for pure warrant beyond social accountability and correctability, whether in Nazism’s natural fallacy or Christianity’s otherworldly nonsense (kosher diversion). It has been apparent for some time that some Jewish perspectives are using a triangulation strategy against White identity and solidarity, by encouraging singularly focused Germanophilia in WN, even to the point of encouraging ostensible WN advocates to roll around in Nazi redemptionism and Holocaust well, if not denial, then downplaying with “humor”, etc. With White America being largely German, there is going to be enough of a true believers market, people desperate enough given the onslaught of PC liberalism and lacking in time, energy and concern to see beyond an overly German sympathetic perspective (with its background of Jewish interests) - wanting to believe rather that they are in sheer defiance of the anti-White, PC narrative - such that they will go along with this angle, not particularly concerned that they are playing into a divide and conquer triangulation.

Perhaps Thamster’s shirt is funny too

Thamster, Josh Neal and Jefferson Lee. Quite articulate of liberalism’s rupture of the organic whole, but what they haven’t figured out is that Hitler and Jesus are not what is needed to keep it together. The day before Richard Spencer’s NPI channel was taken down from Youtube, he was in conversation with these guys extolling the virtues of Mussolini and Hitler (David Duke was doing the same thing the same day and his channel was also taken down after he went on about all the “peace offerings” that Hitler had made. lol). Jefferson Lee invokes the absurd, “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway” argument (i.e., so you may as well prove them right?). When unavailable for a show, Josh says that Jefferson Lee is busy planning the revival of The Prussian empire (so funny).

The Final Solution to the Denier Question David Cole Stein 30 July 2020. 32:05: “Here we have the most prominent deniers. Here is Robert Faurisson (French). He’s dead now.

See also, Do Joel Davis and Richard Spencer Want to Suck Jewish Cock? ...or would they prefer to take it up the ass?

.......

Note, I will be adding to this article, but for now, let’s get it underway, starting with that, the hypothesis.
.......

The observation of this misdirecting pattern is the important issue at this point. There is no urgent need to trace this pattern to a single or few sources, though there are some of the usual suspects, like Regnery publishing and some of its Alt-Right/Dissident Right/ come Third Positionist/ (((Alt-Lite))) orbiters…

The Final Solution to the Denier Question Here is Jurgen Graf, ok, he’s a Swiss gentleman.

While he is apparently innocuous, David Cole Stein’s Holocaust revisionism has been enough to ingratiate himself in this Jewish sponsored Germanophilism; a proud German-Jew, he is not above coddling Nazism a bit, apparently for the sake of re-routing animus against other Europeans. Cole-Stein uses the revisionist cred and attention that he gets to promote The Institute of Historical Review and “true historians, ‘Mark Weber and David Irving.”

“Hey! quit fuckin around, come on, we’re trying to teach the people something.”

The Final Solution to the Denier Question And Carlo Mentionio (not a wink and a nod but emphatic Italian emotive, including gesticulation to make it clear that he is NOT German). Aaay! ‘Scusi carabinieri, Carlo Mentionio gobadagul gabagul!’

“So this is the denier side. Here we have the three stooges on the denier side (Faurisson, Graf, and Mentionio).”

“This side is the actual historian side. Mark Weber which is represented by the Journal of Historical Review that he edits. David Irving…and then you got me. So, here we have me, Irving, Weber. We represent real history.”

Comments:

rollo clevich
Why did you ignore Arthur Butz?

Daniel Sienkiewicz

It seems to me (Cole-Stein ignores Butz) because Butz is a German name (even if a German American).  The classic, shifty pivot. David’s classic shifty pivot is apparently to coddle Germans as much as possible, including Nazi apologists, “true historians” Mark Weber and David Irving, to play divide and conquer against Slavics, especially Russian Slavics, including Russian Jewish Slavics who David Cole Stein admits to disliking.

While Greg Johnson’s “New Right/Old Right” has denounced Hitler and the Nazi project as counter to current WN interests, of late he has returned to performing rim jobs on overly Nazi sympathetic perspectives. In a recent podcast featured by Counter-Currents, Frodi Midjord goes along with Mark Weber’s (IHR) endorsement of Patrick Buchanan’s dubious, “The Unnecessary War,” to set in motion a perverted line of “reasoning” that blames everybody but Hitler, but especially Churchill for WWII. Of course David Irving’s pro-Hitler slant also works well enough for them. In fact, there are two recent podcasts with Mark Weber featured at Counter-Currents, here is one, “The War That Destroyed The West”. Here is another.

Besides the pandering of Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, Regnery Publishing has long been suspect, showing signs of promoting this Jewish/German, Germanophilic perspective to the point of soft peddling Nazism. Along with Germanophilic Regnery, there are apparently Jews involved in its executive decision making. The Regnery circus, as we might call it, was pivotal in orchestrating the Alt-Right Tentosphere, a paleoconservative 2.0 which featured tents not only for Christians and right wing Jews, but also for atheistic Nazophiles.

Regnery and Spencer

I post this picture a lot, but it remains central, and telling as these paleocon right wingers (and Spencer derivative), double down on their bullshit. Left, Patrick Buchanan, half Irish and half German with a corresponding bias that panders to the bulk of White American demographic reaction. Center, Paul Gottfried, (((paleocon))) maven and leading exponent of “THE Left” as the problem, a Germanophilic German-Jew, he is wont to distinguish Slavic Jews where Jewish culpability is to be acknowledged at all.

Many people orbiting White advocacy, like Jonathan Pohl, Right Ruminations and “Terminal Philosophy” a friend of queer Pilleater, cite Paul Gottfried as a reliable leading light. While Gilad Atzmon is another Jew who tends to pander to the Germanophilic perspective; and will get some endorsement from the likes of David Duke, as such.

The latest means of introducing Nazi triangulation has been through the promotion of “Third Positionism”....

Mark Collett and Keith Woods have been a party to this, sadly along with Morgoth (who should know better, but I already tried and failed to dissuade him). I initially took a disliking to Angelo John Ganucci because he was both popular and taking the line that the most intellectually penetrating of WN were “National Socialists” (Nazis). Typical of right wingers, he demonstrated the inherent instability of the right by becoming a defacto liberal rebounding into “Third Positionist” anti-Zionist (while diaspora Jews can be fellow nationalists with him). Just before he was disgraced, Millennial Warts made a statement that “World War II shouldn’t have happened” and added, to paraphrase, that ‘anybody who can’t accept that Britain made a mistake in entering World War II, that they took the wrong side, is just going to have to step aside, sorry.’ How about Hitler not attacking other European nations if you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight? Warts is soon to be resurrected by Fudge Johnson for an interview over there at Counter-Currents.

Johnson can be a bad judge of character; recall that Warts was indignant with me and Majorityrights when I criticized his (self admitted) confidante (((Vivian Veritas))) for attempting to define terms for White nationalism, and Warts demanded that his link be removed from our site. the_lies_will_try_to_live_but_theyre_not_white_theyre_jewish

Some flaming asshole going by the name of Tom Anderson is a definite gate keeper - he has a wrench on several podcasts and is decidedly against me for my stance against Nazophiles in particular; but strangely, he will join Christians, such as Melchy Zedech when they antagonize me, even when they side with Jews, such as Vivian Veritas.

Church of Entropy joined Wll2PWR and Ovfuckyou to attack me for not adopting a right wing position when I began talking with Ecce Lux; in CoE’s case (and she has no business in WN circles) her motive might have been a bit different, but she was joining Wll2PWR who was attacking me mainly because I’m not Germanophilic to the point of Nazism and Ovfuckyou, decidedly against me because I maintain a platform which rejects Nazism.

I lost confidence in Ecce Lux not as much because of his Christianity, but because he let Ov attack me for rejecting Nazism, trying to say that I was too sensitive because I didn’t want to entertain it; that he’d “been through that” - “brainwashed” into thinking that “the Nazis were bad.”

Ecce Lux and Faustian Spirit (who I talked to and also should know better) apparently go along with this Right Wing/Third Positionist angle encouraged by Tom Anderson; while Dennis Dale tags along, unwilling or unable to get out of the kosher discourse box.

       
        Chinese Philo-Semite, Claire Khaw, in proud photo with David Irving

The idiotic Chinese woman, Claire Khaw, panders to Nazophiles with the absurd line that she just wants to promote “real nationalism” and “Hitler just wanted his day in the sun”....  to demonstrate the innocent integrity of Nazi Germany, she brought an Israeli onto her show to talk with Nazi ovfuckyou, and he agreed that the “Nazis were really Ok.”... apparently the argument being that if that’s what it takes to sort people unto their nations [IF].

In his penchant for the laconic and incisive, GW observed “triangulation” and that inspired this article…

READ MORE...

In a recent podcast, Dangerfield ran clips from an English village in the 1970’s celebrating The Queen’s Jubilee.

Dangerfield remarks among his derision of “Post Modernity” read (((post modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity, and “The Leftists”, read international, red leftists as opposed to White ethnonational left, that these “Leftists” will denounce the celebration of “The Queen’s Jubilee as right-wing reactionary nostalgia.”

This is not really quibbling on my part. Rather, it provides a good example of why it is important to understand Post Modernity correctly, viz. White Post Modernity as opposed to its (((red caped))) misrepresentation along with other language currency counterfeiting the depth grammar of left and right.

Dangerfield says, “these leftists want to say that these English villagers celebrating the queen’s jubilee” is an expression of right wing reaction.”

However, Post Modernity proper, viz. White Post Modernity/left ethnonationalism, would say, on the contrary, that it can be fine and good for these English villagers to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Unlike the rule structure of Modernity, a practice (and a people) does not have to be different and new in order to be good; and should not be put at risk to uncontrolled experimentation.

If it is a healthy tradition, one can feel free to participate and reconstruct the practice/people without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity (as opposed to modernity’s paradoxic mandate to the individual: “be different so that you can fit it”); one invokes a willing suspension of disbelief in the hermeneutic (liberated from Modernity’s mere facticity) and one does so understanding when it is healthy for one’s people (while one is free to Not participate and can give way to Modernization when a tradition is not healthy for one’s people).

You begin to see why it is important to have a clear understanding of Post Modernity, viz., White Post Modernity.

For one clear example, for capacity that it provides for Optimal Competence, as per Aristotle’s description of performance requirements: minimal, satisfactory, optimal.

A minimally competent person could not participate in the Queens Jubilee appropriately, because they would not understand it well enough - thus, not understanding how to reconstruct the practice normally, or adjudge where the practice might be right (despite modernist derision) or where it might be going wrong (despite its having been tradition).

A merely satisfactorily competent person can ONLY participate in a rather verbatim reconstruction of the practice. But given the disorder of Modernity, lacking the stability that once underpinned the practice with assurance (e.g., The Queen has our interests at heart and would never decry those against immigration as “racist”, nor lord accountability to the universalizing Jesus over us, as opposed to accountability to our native people, nor have a grandson married to a Mulatto), there is no such thing as the kind of stable criteria for one to reconstruct; one must have more understanding of the context.

Hence, given the disorder of Modernity, especially (((weaponized))), as it were, there is no stable traditional order to practice satisfactory competence, one is either minimally competent or optimally competent.

* Aristotle’s discussion of minimal, satisfactory and optimal competence uses the example of fairness in exchange and knowing the difference.

Satisfactory competence can only make an equal exchange.

Minimal competence doesn’t understand an equal exchange, might make an equal exchange by accident, or give less than the appropriate value or more than the appropriate value, not really understanding it.

Whereas optimal competence knows the equal value of an exchange but can exchange less without being niggardly in truth or can give more without being ingratiating in truth.

It is not only necessary for English and all European peoples to understand Post Modernity properly, but it is also quite possible, not too hard at all for the vast majority of our people to understand its performance requirements; minimal/optimal. Hence, we must not be deterred by Jewish red-caping of terms and concepts.

Related at Majorityrights:

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

White Post Modernity

I watched this for the first time yesterday, and certain things in this conversation jumped out at me; though presented (((typically))) of course, in a taken for granted manner by the Weinsteins and Rubin as benign and wholly salutary, this discussion raised red flags for me regarding their positions and at certain points; and should also raise red flags for anybody who cares about European peoples.

As these are fairly clever men, presented as cutting edge academic authorities, this conversation is a good place to expose the deception, egregious bias and the kind of language games that put forth their agenda as taken for granted.

I’ll be adding remarks as time permits. Critical commentary is forthcoming and should add up pretty quickly.

My advice is to treat everything you have learned in higher education exactly as you treat everything you have learned from Christian teaching, excepting only that, knowing of it, one might investigate the damage that it has visited upon the life of our race.  It is useful to analysis.  But do not seek to re-interpret and apply any part of it creatively to the European existential question.  The philosophy of our peoples’ life has not yet been written. - Guessedworker

My learning comes not from what was then called “The Tower Library” when I first came there, renamed the W.E.B. Dubois Library after the Mulatto Marxist, at the demand of liberally protesting students, which included classmates of mine (I rather wound up hoping that the library would tip over and fall onto our department’s Machmer hall which was right near the library to one side below).

In this bit of recent “advice” from GW, I find some exoneration for the vitriol and rebuke that I’ve visited upon him - starting when some tipping point was reached in his dismissiveness. I already had strong reason to believe that politeness and respect would not work to stop him from trying to minimize, misrepresent, dismiss and bury what I’ve brought to bear. But that statement confirms it for me.

And with it, that there are total inaccuracies in his concept of where what I’ve learned comes from. Inaccuracies that suit the stereotyping of his autobiography.

I have called attention to a feature of GW’s autobiography - the non-academic David who is going to singularly slay the entirety of the academic Goliath, preparing the ground for his foundational and comprehensive world view of the requirements of European peoples - an utterly grandiose aspect of his autobiography that was formed in reaction to YKW academic abuses of social organization and advocacy.

As I have explained, I am very sympathetic to this and, in fact, returned to graduate school for the purpose of defending White men in response - my thinking at the time, that it would be from an approach of scientific foundation - the very word “pragmatism” was repulsive to me and it took Pearce’s calm and sympathetic advice that I did not like mere pragmatism, to calm me down. He added, that we are pragmatists because we have to be. If you follow the pragmatist line of reasoning to its conclusion, even our ideals and our pursuit of our depths are pragmatic - though it is not my purpose to defend the pragmatists but rather to illustrate where I was coming from and how I was helped around. I believe Pearce’s teaching would hold that pragmatism, literally, would be short on prefigurative force, if not contextual or implicative force, where perhaps it should not be over emphasizing practical force, practically speaking.

To negotiate the post modern condition, he and his colleagues, along with grad students, would focus on the need to manage coherence, coordination and mystery. Coordination would be the feature that would require a more basic, universal language to negotiate.

GW said that I made the wrong choice to not follow up foundational science. GW is wrong. While it is good and necessary for some of our people to study cognitive science, that is not what our advocacy and its philosophical underpinnings most require at this point - we’re under attack psychologically, yes, but our concerns are deeper than that, we need more of a social perspective to look at the deepest problems, as we are under attack as a species, group system, a race - largely a matter of social classification as Pearce would show:

W. Barnett Pearce

Sexists, racists, and other classes of classifiers: Form and function of “...Ist” accusations

by Julia T. Wood and W. Barnett Pearce

An “. . . ist” accusation indicts an individual as a racist, sexist, or other “. . . ist” whose thoughts and/or acts discriminate on the basis of class membership. The self‐reflexively paradoxical structure of “. . . ist” accusations precludes refutation, but response is possible. Pragmatic and moral implications of alternative responses to “. . . ist” accusations are evaluated.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, Volume 66, 1980 - Issue 3. Brief provided by Taylor & Francis Online

In late 1989, I wrote to W. Barnett Pearce to discuss his work and how it might resolve problems that I was struggling with. Noting my struggles with accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ - and having compassion! - he sent me this article, so on target and deft in the manner which it handled my concerns, that it demonstrated unequivocally that his was a discipline that I needed to be apprised of. Indeed, this article provided two of the most important clues for my WN advocacy. The first being that ‘race’ is (in an important regard) a matter of classification - at very least being treated as such by people who mattered, particularly by our foes, but also by our people, where they know what is good and necessary for them. Secondly, as the blurb above hints at, our antagonists can always shift its paradoxical structure to their anti-White agenda:

Viz., 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 in which they are under-represented”, then you are classifying and discriminating thereupon, hence a racist by definition.

Along with that article, Pearce sent me another one regarding The Problematic Practices of Feminism: An Interpretive Critical Analysis, Communications Quarterly, 1984, with Sharon M. Rossi - which I found ironic, that being the exact name (same year as well) of the girlfriend of mine who drove me to psychic melt-down.

Anyway, the (very helpful) gist of that article, which I’ve noted several times before, is that within the context of liberal feminism, even a well intentioned man can always be put into the wrong:

You can always be treated as either a wimp or a pig, no matter what you do as a man.

If you try to treat her with deference, gentleness, help and respect, then you can be looked upon as a wimp and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her strength, agency and autonomy.

On the other hand, if you treat her as one of the boys, respecting her toughness and autonomy, then you can be looked upon as a pig, a male chauvinist pig, not respecting the special quality of her gender, but rather a male chauvinist pig, projecting the hegemony of your patriarchical world view over all and everyone.

* Note: while Pearce had compassion on me for what he might deem as unfair overcompensation on behalf of people of color, neither he nor his colleagues should be construed as “racists” nor endorsing my political activism and philosophical positions across the board - that would absolutely not be true.

And part of the problem of GW’s mis-assessement also stems from a STEM mentality, a predilection that he shares with Bowery, a predilection that essentially wishes that engineering, science and philosophy were practically the same endeavors. Not so much need for the “ought” corrections of the social world, we primarily need to find and describe what is, single out and fix any broken link. Compounding problems of STEM type predilections, is the head start this perspective has had through the internet, a STEM created medium to begin, amplifying this perspective (already amplified, as it tends to pay in the market, while social concern, not necessarily).

But it’s worse than that in terms of any concern for holistic philosophy and advocacy.

GW’s situation both as an ensconced Englishman and boomer who derived some benefit - economic and the satisfaction of free enterprise - from the other side of the controlled opposition from cultural Marxism - viz. some sort of “objectivism” - contributes to a confirmation bias that independent success of individuals and nations is basically a matter of freedom from all that superfluous and unnatural social advocacy stuff - which from his perspective on Jewish laden academia, is seen as possibly serving only liberalism and misdirecting notions of choice, where English emergence is the only legitimate default.

And it is worse still than that in terms of holistic, systemic philosophy in advocacy of our homeostasis, its recovery.

My learning comes not from visiting lecturers to the campus, Cornell West and the S.P.L.C.‘s Morris Dees - who spoke of his case to bankrupt Metzger for “vicarious liability” ..lectures brought on by the university to quell racial tensions being raised by I can’t imagine the likes of whom.

The luxury (compared to American Whites) of being able to say with stronger conviction, “here in my ancient homeland, with my people”, has afforded more confidence to double down on his STEM predilection and patch up a modernist, “natural” reaction (Modernity is also largely STEM in origin) to abuses of post modernism - and, he has received support in this reaction from other groups in reaction, groups that I’ve ousted from this platform and who, therefore, seek to bury the world view that I advance.

This has given GW more confidence than he should have in a modernist philosophy and a wildly inaccurate and disrespectful disposition toward what I bring to bear. Spontaneous reactions were brought out in me - in moments when I finally could not believe that he would stop trying to mute, minimize if not dismiss what I was bringing to bear.

Disconcerting though my spontaneous eruptions may have been to a tipping point in the level of utter disrespect for what I’d brought to bear by the very host of the site, I’ve taken solace in the fact that I was asked to take the site in a direction that I saw fit. I had and still have confidence that is fine for several reasons.

Through experience, I’ve come up with a philosophical framework to form the basis of advocacy for European peoples in coordination with other peoples and natural systems.

A major feature of my platform which gives me confidence is that it holds up and makes sense consistently of what is going on.

Despite that, another aspect that gives me confidence in my position is the fact that the notion of “correctability” - i.e., Praxis takes us into engagement with the input of others, where it is not only welcome - it is a built in requirement (particularly where it mirrors good will toward our group interests). This is “my ownmost innocence”, to turn Heidegger on his head for a moment.

Some people will try to say that because this platform rejects, for the most part, Christianity, Nazism, Jewish input, scientism (a susceptibility not only of modernists, but also neo trad types - incl. women who see beta males everywhere and see them as dead wood who need to be killed off) and wild conspiracy theories, that I am not open to input. That’s not true. These positions are rejected for what should be obvious reasons for those interested in fostering the interests of European peoples. And they have other places to go, whereas a WN platform that rejects these things exists only at Majorityrights.

My learning comes not from W.E.B. Dubois’s mulatto supremacism, which proposed that an African American “feminine man” who, in joining with the more “masculine” Teutonic would produce a common human/American civilization by a racial division of labor.”

But what many of those adhering to these world views have in common and have in common with GW, I believe, is that they are reacting to Jewish abuse - academia being the generating house of misrepresentations, gross distortions in theory of social organization and advocacy, which has become more and more blatantly anti-White social advocacy (it was blatant even thirty years ago).

I have called attention to GW’s autobiography, a significant part of which was formed in reaction to YKW academic abuses of social organization and advocacy.

I understand his reaction, as I have said, I went back to academia with the intent of pursuing a graduate career in defense of White men, not for any mere practical reason, but on the basis of foundational science.

GW said that I made the wrong choice to not follow up foundational science, and GW is wrong. While it is good and necessary for some of our people to study cognitive science, that is not what our advocacy and its philosophical underpinnings most require at this point - we are under attack psychologically, yes, but our concerns are deeper than that, we need more of a social perspective to look at the deepest problems, because we are under attack as a species, a group system, a race.

Now let me revisiit GW’s statment:

My advice is to treat everything you have learned in higher education exactly as you treat everything you have learned from Christian teaching, excepting only that, knowing of it, one might investigate the damage that it has visited upon the life of our race.  It is useful to analysis.  But do not seek to re-interpret and apply any part of it creatively to the European existential question. The philosophy of our peoples’ life has not yet been written.

While I can’t presume that his misrepresentation of where my knowledge comes from doesn’t come from the bad will of his business competitor world-view and/or the other antagonistic world views that spur him on, lets give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment and presume it is sheer misunderstanding - I will clear away the inaccuracies in his concept of where what I’ve learned comes from.

I spent the first three decades of my life learning from experience what it was like to be antagonized as a White man, without the backing of a particular group, not Italian, not Polish and certainly not as an English man in England. What I’m saying is that my racial circumstance was even more radical in its existential circumstance and requirement - the absolute need to understand what is requisite.

...

My undergraduate major was Fine Art, so even though my academic requirements at Tufts were comparatively minimal, happily for me, since that’s all that I could cope with, what Jewish influence there would not be heavily enmeshed in by me - again, because I could not process the liberalism that was only gaining in America at that time - given only ostensible reprieve by Reagan’s (((paleoconservatism))) - my response to liberalism and its advocacy in that moment was to take on a semblance of identity politics in Theory of Soviet Foreign Policy with an adviser to President Reagan (viz., with a non-Jewish expert on Soviet / Polish relations; true, the texts were (((Adam Ulam and Dimitri Simes))) but what was I going to do with this information anyway?); I took religion courses for my social requirements, trying to practice pure Christianity, but fortunately these courses planted the seeds that the bible might not exactly be the word of god, but the work of many all too human hands, and it was a phase that I would totally throw off once the stress of university was over.

Christianity had been the basic recourse that my family had shown me in response to liberalism (though it was not discussed, just go to church and Sunday school and shut up).

With the pain of the utter communicological confusion of my family and of that society, art, including the beauty of White women, was my first recourse in terms of sustaining motivation. Then when I realized in my undergraduate career that that was not going to be sufficient for a man trying to cope with the liberal world, I fell back on Christian religion to cope with my undergraduate academic years. I got through while embarrassing myself trying to defend that stupid religion against people with vastly superior resources to me. But to give myself credit, I did learn that it was not THE moral order and I moved on.

A major lesson I learned from academia was what a burden it was to be told what I was required to read. Once I graduated, it was a great moment of liberation - I not only had a key to learning, through erudition, but now I could read what I wanted and needed.

And I would later learn that without the solid guidance that a scholar can provide, that there could be a lot of wasted time reading material that was off the mark of what would be most incisively helpful.

So my field of inquiry and learning moved inefficiently from art, to religion and… the first subject matter that I started reading outside of university on my own was, of course, psychology. Carl Jung was first. Then some Jews, yes, Freud and Gestalt (Fritz Perls), Rollo May, most of it not very helpful but at least suggesting that there could be some empirical anchoring, means to self advocacy and guidance.

Then a truer learning experience as I read along these things at work, my first girlfriend, who would fly off the handle screaming at the suggestion that maybe she didn’t need to scream at me, that I was a nice guy, willing to work things out, despite the fact that I had a family that screamed at me (among other communicological pathologies), so I didn’t need more of it.

This caused me to see a psychologist as Sharon was a bitch (by her own admission and words) who was going to help inspire me by destroying my mind. In fact, when she sensed that I would be quite content to break up with her, she reappeared at my desk with hands clasped in a plea that I not break up with her - so she could really lower the boom and finish my mind off, so I would find.

I needed the psychologist very badly in order to try to keep it together.

During these few years in the mid 80’s, I gleaned a little something from Heidegger and took his advice, as I’d said, to put my perspective into a historical time line and this was when I began my critical revision of the Maslowian Hierarchy, seeing the significance of the hippies in relation to feminism, Maslow’s story of Actualization and its negative implication of modernity and the systemic runaway of the American project - a rupturing of the first and most essentially human perspective, social systemic homeostasis; and how this (((American story))) of ‘being all you could be in individual human potential in the land of opportunity’ was opposed to Aristotelian Actualization and its emphasis on optimality and human nature, to be augmented with a post modern furthering of his emphasis on the difference of praxis (social world) and its requirements in circulating inquiry of phronesis (practical judgment).

I’m getting a little ahead of myself.

READ MORE...

Both are necessary for coordination of interests between people, but incommensurabilty is the more important idea - White Post Modern idea - to have people understand now in order to overcome the ravages of modernity’s emphasis as it instigates narcissistic comparison.

It occurs to me that a snag in regard to getting Whites on board with the concept of White Post Modernity has to do with the charge of there being “no moral standards, let alone universal standards” by which to compare cultures and people - hence the infamous hyper-cultural-relativism, the no-account mishmash, “ironic” da-da of the YKW promoted notion of “post modernity” - a shallow, demeaning and destructive thing indeed.

Like so many disputes, however, this one occurs as a result of misunderstandings on a taken-for-granted level. That is, I took for granted my understanding that there is a level of comparison which is universal and necessary to coordination, but did not emphasize it; so the taken for granted of others, that “post modernity” admits of no standards of comparison was probably being presumed of my discussion of White post modernity as well.

To protect the discreetness of peoples and cultures against the universalizing ravages of modernity - of which anti-racism and the prejudice against prejudice are instrumental - I have drawn attention to the fact that people and cultures may be qualitatively different, evolved for niche functions that are quite adequate within their niche, the “paradigm” that is their human ecology within human and pervasive ecology more broadly.

White Post Modernity is drawing on Thomas Khun’s* Structure of Scientific Revolutions to sensitize our people to differences that make a difference because overcoming modernity’s universalizing blender, particularly as it is weaponized against us by YKW, is by far our most urgent need.

Particularly when they’ve got Whites reacting to the abuses of “post modernity” by rendering of false, obnoxious and insulting quantifying comparisons, “against equality”, between niches and groups of people, which can unnecessarily generate conflict and disorganization, not only against non-Whites but also among Whites, it’s been important to emphasize the concept of commensurability/ incommensurability:

That is, you aren’t especially asking whether a person or group is universally and quantifiably better or worse, but rather whether their rule structures mesh and harmonize in a systemic position or whether they conflict; whether they qualitatively fit somewhere within a group system; and if not in your group system, which group system? (by inference, if they do not fit in any group system, but destroy them all, you begin looking at them as a threat of ecological runaway - potential cataclysm, a universalizing cataclysm that does not respect important differences).

However, in the emphasis of this important point to facilitate the advocacy of the difference of our distinction by its best, most broadly acceptable means, I may have not emphasized enough the idea that the concept of White Post Modernity draws a distinction between incommensurability and incomparability.

Just because systems are incommensurable does not necessarily mean that you cannot compare them on at least some primitive levels.

Comparability and InComrability would be the universal paradigm by which we could discern and compare interests that would be moral concerns legitimate to any people.

This is very important because this universal language would allow us to coordinate our differences and our interests in maintaining our human species, i.e., between those people who are not so egregious as to advocate the destruction of our species, our differences.

However, when talking about “depth and shallowness”, we must not get caught in modernist linearity of comparability being “the” deepest philosophical concern. Our similarities are a less critical matter at this point whereas the concern of our differences is crucial.

Incommensurabilty and commensurability are the differences that make a profound difference among groups and between them on a level of human and pervasive ecology. This is at least as deep a philosophical concern, perhaps deeper, but certainly it is a criteria that we must emphasize now - not just our universal similarities.

Comparabilities can be arrived-at fairly easily as a result of the internal relation of our co-evolutions (plural, deliberate).

However, the differences may be more difficult to discern (and uphold for the broad system they are a part of being beyond ready purview) and where not difficult to discern, may be stigmatic to articulate and act upon as a result of anti-racism, the weaponization of modernity’s universalizing, objectivist prejudice against prejudice.

And to overcome the universalizing narcissism of modernity and the destruction that may result for its blindness or oblivion to important differences between people, its disregard of differences that can result in their destruction, their using similar universalizing disregard of our differences (“deep down we’re all the same”) resulting in our destruction, or blow back against us for our naive/narcissistic oblivion to important differences which will not simply be put asunder, coordination between groups also requires that we promulgate the concept of commensurability/incommensurability, not only comparability/incomparability.

* I am aware that Khun was ((())).

The excellent website Conservative Woman carried an article today on a speech given last week to the Polish parliament by the leading conservative philosopher of our time, Roger Scruton.  The article ran to printing out Scruton’s words.  It is a fine speech made to a majority conservative and traditionalist body of MPs, and I don’t want to detract from it.  But, of course, there are things which Scruton will not say.  He speaks of Catholicism as indigenous religion, and though he will use the term European peoples, in the crucial passages he never makes the final step to defending our blood as a matter of simple human necessity. Likewise, he never goes deeper than Enlightenment thinking in tracing the cause of our crisis.  Neither does he address that crisis as properly existential, preferring to retire to the safety of cultural and religious decline.

This is what makes him a conservative and traditionalist thinker rather than a nationalist one; and, again, that failing does not detract from the service the man has given.  It is what it is, and he has paid a price even for that.  But, of course, as a nationalist one endeavours to offer some correction to Scruton’s elegant professional reticence; and I am happy to say that a serial commenter on conservative websites, one John Piggott ... someone of whom I have a very close working knowledge and with whom I can honestly say I share all my opinions ... did manage to post the following brief invitation to further thought on the CW thread.  How long it will stay on the page is anyone’s guess.

At its barest level, when all contingent philosophical, religious, cultural and political products are stripped away, and when only the foundation ... the historiographical first cause ... remains, the conflict is that between the Judaic struggle for Olam Ha-ba and the native European struggle to live free.

This bare and terrifying truth has been buried out of sight of serious thinkers for over a hundred years. The last such English thinker to explore it was probably Goldwin Smith in the late 19th century. It was made completely radio-active, obviously, by the competing Aryan supremacism of National Socialism and the murderous actions of its adherents from 1941 to 1945. Yet it permeates everything ... the Christian model of a soul seeking salvation, Catholic humanism, liberal universalism and the dicta of human rights, internationalism, and the elitist struggle for a new global order on the one hand, and on the other, in reply, an insistent statement of the normally quietist common instinct for life and that simple, precious freedom which abides not in choice but in being.

The European cognitive elites who pursue the universalist abstraction today may themselves be the historiographical progeny of Plato’s Athenian just man. But the form of their guiding philosophy is not Platonic but Judaic in its origins. To escape its historical dynamic we do need to understand this. But more than that we need to understand our own existential truth, for it is from that understanding that our decision to be grows.

Over valuation of objectivity and its attendant rational blindness.

Stefan Molyneux@StefanMolyneux: If you promote multiculturalism

Without promoting objective rationality

You set the stage

For civil war

@MatthewParrott: “Objectivity” is just a euphemism for what smart white males generally agree on. It doesn’t exist where we don’t exist, and is not somehow integral to the universe or something. You’re arguing for white supremacy.

@StefanMolyneux Replying to @MatthewParrott @contrastatist: Hahaha

@daniel.sienkiewicz (Majorityrights): I don’t quite agree with Matt either. While the quest for objectivity, valuation of impartiality for the solid warrant of findings based on tests irrespective of prejudice and aversion does not really exist apart from people (and their interests, thus it does not exist purely) and Whites are evolved to value it more than others (evolved more to take on Augustinian, i.e., natural, non-human challenges), and it does yield science and tech marvels, the power that goes along with it, it is a predilection that leaves us somewhat naive for the rational blindness it requires, thus susceptible to systemic dissolution (not necessarily superior then), as the quest of objectivity is virtually the opposite of prejudice against peoples and aversion (to creatures, things, physical, systemic consequences) - to people who perhaps warrant prejudicial treatment; creatures, things, physical and systemic consequences that may warrant aversion.

If objectivity is part and parcel of White supremacy as it is according to Matt, he might observe that it is also part and parcel of White degeneracy and systemic dissolution.

White supremacy is certainly not an objective claim. But to be at our best and reconstruct our social systemic homeostasis against those groups more unabashedly self interested (evolved more in conflict with other peoples rather than nature), thus willing to take advantage of us, as e.g., Africans might, to the point of manichean trickery even, as e.g., Muslims and YKW might, Whites must sufficiently overcome this prejudice against prejudice. That, in order to be accountable to our own group, human ecology, which will allow us in turn to coordinate accountability with other groups, e.g. African and Middle Eastern, and pervasive ecology.     

Rather, quest for objectivity is virtually the opposite of prejudice - it is prejudice against prejudice. Quest for objectivity - pure warrants above or within nature, below human nature - is virtually the opposite of social accountability, a “that’s-just-the-way-it-isness” as such, which paves the way for war.

Objectivity is a tool the findings of which are to provide feedback to be gauged against the calibration of our relative interests as a group system and that of other group systems and systems broadly.