Majorityrights Central > Category: Social Constructionism

I wrote this article and cultivated it around 1993. Although I was generally aware that there were large conflicts of interests between White men and the YKW, that issue was impossible to address in the grad-school context I was engaged in - not all but some of my professors were Jewish and all of them were liberal and would have opposed broaching the JQ. In fact, race was nearly impossible. In fact advocating White men against feminism was almost impossible. Nevertheless, having to focus here on the history, implications and fallout of Western philosophy as it bears upon individuality, the maintenance of our European Cultural Patterns, Moral Order and Gender Relations allows for an examination of our part as Europeans in our plight - our blind spots and susceptibilities to the exploitation of other groups - including and especially YKW. As such, it remains completely valid and relevant, I am proud to say.

I was told by my professor that this held together as a “Thesis” for me to enter the PhD program. At the time, I have reason to believe that it was shown to then Vice President Al Gore, though it was presented to him wrongly or came across wrongly to him, so he couldn’t absorb its significance in cursory glance. That’s an interesting story, as are the episodes that led to me not being able to follow through with a graduate career, operating on this thesis and related issues…

Introduction:

As this article examines processes actively constructing Modern and Neo Traditional Cultural Patterns of gender, it does not simply reinterpret their Stories Told but puts them at risk. With apologetic reticence if the reader would like to reconstruct Stories Told, for example, that male persons simply possess and act out from an innate constitution, say the larger hypo- thalamus and testosterone surges, directed toward derivative cultural patterns, such as religious repression or sexploit- ation, which have nothing to do with Stories Lived in interpersonal communication with female persons, read no further.

While this article’s rendering of Cultural gender Patterns may appear in cursory inspection to model Traditional Stories Told of causal necessity, the premise here is that these are Social Constructions. Though not as easily transformed by the agency of person positions as are Altercast moments, Episodes, Autobiographies, or second person Relationships, with due respect for the profundity of their various features, these Cultural Patterns may be responsibly changed as well {1}.

The following thesis cannot be enunciated in proper manner without its purveyors being ostracized by ordinary language philosophers - “Reflexive what? contextual force? What? I just want the straight facts!” This treatise uses Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory. Readers unfamiliar with the theory are referred to the addendum where a synopsis is provided to clarify essentials of the theory and its terminological usage.

Thesis: The Taken For Granted Depth Grammar of both Cartesian Modernistic Individuation and Neo Traditional Gender Differentiation is Traditional Ionic Teleology. Within this Ionic tradition, a telos of gender differentiation was Taken For Granted (TFG) as its inference was made apparent by Charmed Loops to two separate gender positions of agentive flex-abilities which co-evolved through practical activity. This TFG teleology of two positions of wider agentive flexabilities, viz., of Prefigurative Contextual force over Reflexive Effect of Practical force as bequeathed to females (e.g., “female morality”, Gilligan, 1982, more positive as its basic flex-abilities for agency are more readily satisfied), Separated from Implicative forces Reflexively Needing Prefigurative force as bequeathed to males (e.g., “male morality”, Kant, 1785, and “sociopathology”), contextualizes a Strange Loop; i.e., incommensurate gender agendas of Cartesian modernistic individuation reflexively recontexting the “need” for neo traditional gender differentiation and vis a versa.

...

This was really one of the most essential, original theses of mine even at the time, and it probably should have been mentioned more straight forwardly like this at the time as thesis number two; as it is housed within the first:

2018 update: Thesis - Cartesian Individuation of Self Actualization has Implicative Force (an upward impact, Reflexively Effecting, rupturing Cultural Patterns) to rupture Western group Social Classificatory Homeostasis which causes the “One Up”, Addressive Position of (White/Western) Females to Re-Emerge with Increased Significance - Several Charmed Loops (given the human perceptual need to classify - women, fire and other dangerous things - in order to make coherent sense despite their Cartesian prohibition and rupture, gender becomes the default classification where other group classifications are prohibited, therefore female becomes more salient a difference and they are pandered to from more directions; they become more motivated; more confident (sometimes overly, and prone to cursory pejorative conclusions), articulate and powerfully positioned gate-keepers; they are incentivized to maintain that, while their base female inclination to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) is pandered to - also rupturing social group patterns/coherence - there are loops that come into play with the high contrast tropism of White females and the atavism of blacks in this disorder as well) which keep that position and its liberalizing trajectory in place, abetting Systemic Runaway - i.e., this keeps a modernist loop in place, rupturing would be maintenance of European peoples and other traditional societies..

The cure to these pernicious loops and their runaway is recognition of key aspects [topoi] of necessity, use and enjoyment in a revised social paradigm of optimized negotiation and management of socialization, being, selfhood and self actualization; with that, recognizing moderating options for neo traditional and modern trajectories of both genders; finally, the homeostatic stabilizing of the social system’s human ecological bounds.

[2018 update: I had articulated this thoroughly at the time, but it wasn’t forefronted in this 1993 version that I’m working from): Male Self Actualization, achievement, power, in position is sometimes and in part a result of Freudean/Nietszchean privation and deprivation of basic levels of Maslow’s heirarchy and not only the result of fulfillment of basic levels - as feminists have been saying - and thus some will be punished for achieving despite privation, for their “oppressive advantage!”

Conversely, females will be better positioned to advocate for their interests in achievement and influence because their basic levels are more readily satisfied.

The YKW in particular will pander to the female position, saying that women are “oppressed across the board (ignoring basic need fulfillment) while also pandering to the propensity to incite the continued deprivation of basic male flex-abilities - being “a baby”, “not a man”, “get on with your life”, etc.

On the other hand, the propensity of the sheer liberal and liberation paradigm will put some females into power, and gate keeping positions, where they are too liberal of boundaries as their basic needs have been fulfilled a bit too easily, overprotected.

And males will be more insane, aggressive, overcompensating and violating of other’s borders, having been deprived and driven as such].

Partition: 

Section A. Correlates CMM actional terms to ordinary language (cultural terms) of agency in order to make CMM terminology and its communication perspective on the cultural gender separation of agency more intelligible; this also serves to deconstruct and transform the cultural terms into CMM’s alternative language game of Optimal Competence.

Section B. Is a hermeneutic of five cultural patterns obstructing Optimal Competence:

1. A Charmed Loop of Gender Differentiation inferred as a Telos

2. The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement which reconstructs these two positions to hyperbole (as opposed to their being delimited to reconstruct homeostatic Cultural Pattern - this parenthetic phrase added 2018)

3. The Cartesian Technology of Individuation (exacerbates the rupture of social Cultural delimited Pattern - this parenthetic phrase added 2018)

4. Incommensurate Gender Agendas of Individuation (also exacerbates in same way)

5. A Strange Loop of Individuation and Gender Differentiation (reconstructs the runaway)

Part Two - “Practical”

Section A. Diagrams a modernist male and female in episode B. Conclusion C. Recommendations

“Theory”

Section One: Hermeneutic Corollaries to the Ordinary Language of Agency

To begin with, this article takes CMM and CMM compatible theoretic terminology and establishes corollaries to an ordinary language of Maslow’s “hierarchy of motives” as comprised by constituents of four cultural terms: Socialization, Being, Selfhood/Autobiography and Self Actualization.

—-
2018: This article takes CMM and CMM compatible theoretic terminology and establishes corollaries to ordinary language of Maslow’s “hierarchy of motives” as comprised by constituents of four cultural terms: Socialization, Being (corresponding with Midtdasein/Dasein), Selfhood/Autobiography (corresponding with routine, ritual and sacrament) and Self Actualization.
——

“Theory”

Section One: Hermeneutic Corollaries to the Ordinary Language of Agency

To begin with, this article takes CMM and CMM compatible theoretic terminology and establishes corollaries to an ordinary language of Maslow’s “hierarchy of motives” as comprised by constituents of four cultural terms: Socialization, Being (corresponding with Midtdasein/Dasein), Selfhood/Autobiography (corresponding with routine, ritual and sacrament) and Self Actualization. This new way of looking at the human potential grammar of motives is provided for the symbiotic purpose of 1. Making everyday workings of the Strange Loop, its Charmed Loop context, and every workings of CMM terms, primarily, Contextual, Prefigurative, Practical and Implicative Logical Forces, more intelligible in ordinary language, and 2. Deconstructing the snares of these static monadic cultural terms and their human potential grammar of motives; derived of teleology, transformed and exacerbated through “Enlightenment” texts, the incorporative prohibitions of these speech genres have much to do with the maintenance of the Strange and Charmed Loops. In moving these ordinary terms and the hierarchy of motives into actional corollaries, we seek to deconstruct and transform them into a language game {2} of four constituents to the individual agency of Optimal Competence.

Thus, Socialization, Being, Selfhood, and Self Actualization, in a Hierarchy of Motives/Needs {3} are obviously Not proposed as universals, as “real” dichotomies, nor are they meant to do interpretive justice to Maslow. They are appropriated first, because they well represent epochal language games of a useful hermeneutic point of departure - the Vietnam crisis as it evinced equiprimordially emergent facets of a paradox of gender differentiation/individuation. Inasmuch, they are verifiable to demonstrate ordinary workings of Enlightenment texts as their Reflexive Effects pertain to gender in Stories Lived. This connects directly to a second, and more important point. As there is no way to discern and reconstruct a pattern without difference, these terms are appropriated for their cultural significance, as they provide a customary “way of talking”, a context so that people know what we are talking about when we “Differance” from habitual usage (“Differance” is Derrida’s deconstructionist metaphor for a contrast internally related to its context). They provide embedded textual backgrounds from which Social Constructionist Differences of this article are made. That is, the human potential narrative of these four cultural terms in a hierarchy toward “Self Actualization” is taken as it exemplifies the socially detached, mechanistic, and causal notions of necessity germane to ethnocentric Cartesian texts, their obliviousness to the constructed reality of social rules’ crowning achievement, to be thoroughly deconstructed, while certain of its strands reconstructed through re-interpretation of any usefulness they may have in interactive practice.

Against the linearity of these texts, we consider Agency possible because persons are variably entailed in and comprised of mutable and open-ended logics of meaning and action - paradoxically, pre-existent logics are funded by the affordance of interactivity to propel agentive constraint. And we define Agency as the Altercast Legitimation of flex-ability to afford and constrain, sometimes in bundles, tfg’s in using the inevitability of interaction to investigate variable entailings.

However comparable to “The Hierarchy of Motives” metaphor then, the theoretic backing of what follows does not entail a fixed progressive order, but is differanced instead to a notion of all pervasive “rule-abilities.” {4} Though not affixing an order, internal relation of rules by their “rule-ness”, or their common nature as rules, always provide rule-abilities to order and make sense of events. These rule-abilities provide logics of meaning and action (or “grammars”) affording and constraining “flex-abilities” {5} for Agency - with immanent or “horizontal” rules of Agency normally Constituting flex-abilities for heirarchical Regulation of Agency. These are kinds of agency socially constructed and potentially changeable from moment to moment largely contingent upon what can be Taken For Granted through willing suspension of Belief or Disbelief. The horizontal (Constitutive) partition is here used similarly as Linda Harris’s model (14 p. 197 - 209) of Enmeshment Competence [Shotter would describe this as acting into the shaping and crafting of specificatory structures (our profferings in any interaction are only ever partly finished, and thus are available for farther specification - specificicty; in fact, we may here farther specify the term to “specificatory language games”, from which, enmeshment competence also entails the flex-ability to act out of)]. The Hierarchical (Regulative) partition is here used similarly as Koestler’s (40) citation of the two leveled “self assertion vs. self transcendence” [Harre would describe this as TFG appropriation of open-ended hierarchies of interpersonal dialogues for intrapersonal use] (these “horizontal/ lateral notions are heuristics - not literally separable, but connected and created by “rule-abilities”).

Indeed, the reader should not want, in first reading, to enmesh too deeply in the perfunctory deconstruction/ re-construction of the four cultural terms (on the next page and a half) set out prior to any discussion of gender per se, as they encompass specificatory differancing in order to prevent their being used malapropriatiatively in the application which follows. This is a hermeneutic preparation so that everyday workings of embedded enlightenment text’s Reflexive Effects on gender, i.e., a narrative of equiprimoridally emergent “sides” of paradoxic agentive quests of gender differentiation and individuation, may be set, as it occurs, within a new language game comparable but differanced from Maslow’s hierarchy of motives metaphor, both in a more ordinary sense of the implications of its four corollary rubrics [Socialization, Being, Selfhood, Self Actualization - cultural terms corresponding with the static monadic tradition of teleology (see footnote #3 for elaboration) and farther differanced in a more rigorously theoretical sense [corollary content under those ordinary cultural rubrics culminate and are encompassed in Optima - theoretic moves corresponding with actional/agentive criteria].

Provisionally, Socialization and Being foster immanent agentive competence through action into (and out of) altercasting of specificatory langauge games conjointly constructed and coordinated from internal relation of mutable, open ended social criteria tfg of depth grammar. Basic levels typically Constitute and facilitate flex-abilities for Selfhood and Actualization’s more situation reflexive agentive competence in Regulating coordination of open ended tfg hierarchical grammars.

Stories of Socialization and Being Constitute Flex-ability for Agency by Conjoint Construction Acting into (and out of) Immanently Mutable and Open Ended Criteria Coordinated of Taken For Granted Depth Grammars.

1 SOCIALIZATION: Liken enmeshment in Stories Told of Socialization (or Self Transcendence) to Praxis. At birth, as Rom Harre says, a “person position” enters into “the one a-priori context, molecules and persons in conversation - practically speaking, persons in relation to one another”; and beginning with mutually acted into Altercasting of parents and child is the socialization of agency. The awkward metaphor of “Position” is used to counteract Locke’s equalitarian idea of “perceptual neutrality”, situating persons in process and perspective, as opposed to rendering them equally valid judges of sensibilities irrespective of the quality of their involvement in discursive structures (e.g., the dubious, “even as a small child, I knew the evils of…etc.”). Stories Told of Socialization, then, is a notion of 1rst - 3rd person “Moral Orders”, in which Person Positions occupy differing privileged vantages having acted into Regulative positions through mediation of langauge’s consensuality and open-endedness in application to experience.

Doesn’t begin with first to second person interaction?

In this ecological view of socialization, the virtues of qualitatively patterned disbursement of differing flex-abilities are honored as being necessarily opposed to a single egalitarian standard. These Stories Told are socially constructed by corprisocial acting into and out of Stories Lived in Altercastings (joint 1rst - 2nd person interaction) of immanently mutable tfg coordinations of embedded depth grammatical rules. The jointly negotiated rules Constitute (determine how activities count) and Regulate Rights of Display (or not) agentive abilities in skilled performance of criteria accounted by consensus as [Legitimate, Obligatory, or Uncertain, and not Prohibited by a culture’s deontical requirements (with Uncertainty, these comprise four Deontic Operative Topoi “universal to all cultures” - V.C.]. Formally stated, Socialization is “Social Competence”; in Actional function, socialization of agency is expressed Cultural Pattern [CP] as Constitutive Rule [CR] of Contextual force over [Autobiography].

Being & Selfhood (or Self Assertion) are taken as two cultural terms corollary to ordinary usage of basic satisfctions on the Maslowian “Motivation Mierarchy.” Corresponding and differancing from these cultural terms in CMM actional terminology are basic flex-abilities for agency in Stories Lived - agentive rules for personal assertion of contextual force of reflexive effect of Autobiography.

Being’s Agentive rules in Stories Lived are Constructed through the Conjoint Action into and out of Immanently Mutable Criteria Coordinated of Taken For Granted Depth Grammars.

2 BEING: Liken Enmeshment in Stories Lived through Being to Poesis. The Practice of Being constitutes an etiological organic tie to Harris’s model (10 p. 185 - 224). Being is socially constructed, continually corrigible, thus Socially Accountable. Being is not an etymological telos laid bare and maintained resolute. Nevertheless, after Narrative Postures of organic regulation are “calibrated”, the notion of Being is one of normally having the flex-ability to “feedback” on these patterned Stories Lived and to have them left alone. We cannot continually investigate everything but must be able to rest content Taking certain things For Granted as aesthetic technique facilitating experience.

Aesthetic Technique facilitating experience would include rationality (making ratios as opposed to universals) and “understanding” - only, beyond understanding, which tends only to move away from discomfort, aesthetics qualitatively include an optimal amount of pleasure and pain, balancing between its thresholds in practical, non-cognitive judgment (as in A’s refinement of Epicurianism).

Social Construction of Being - Where significant others Altercast from Stories Told Specificatory Language Games with sufficient Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy (ARF) - viz., temporal latitude of sufficient margin for error, time unconscientousness, personal (and momentary) idiosyncrasy, reticence with regard to practices/flex-abilities, and reservation of exclusionary rights of equal justice, then one’s Lived Story is afforded the ameliorative flex-ability to Constitute depth grammatical Rules of narrative constraint from which to take for granted the sequential meanderings of the CR’s optimal propriotorial, intrapersonal, and interpersonal flex-abilities. As these CR’s constrain the pejorative altercastings of non-negotiable accountability and afford “Right to Not Display”, their instantiated privacy Legitimates Regulative Rules of Release from from contexts where discrimination is ineffectual or release from a given pejorative story. The technique of these Regulative Rules may be used to afford and especially to Constrain Reflexive Effects of over-extension or impingement as they reconstruct Constitutive rules of Optimal flex-abilities. The formal statement of Being is Prefigurative Enmeshment Competence. The Actional function of Being is a ratio [CR] Prefigurative over Reflexive Effect of Contextual Biographical force. In this function as Altercast Biography, the Regulative Ability to Release (or stop short or move past) may make tacit use of pronominal directive; this first Agentive move in Constituting the Self Assertion of Personal Being is precursive to -

3 SELFHOOD: Liken Enmeshment in Stories Lived through Selfhood to Phronesis. Where flex-abilities of Being are not at risk (pejoratively altercast and exploited) if Constituted language games are deviated from, but its TFG’s are, in fact, Legitimated with wider ARF (Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy), incentive of agency is ameliorated, though Right of Display, to Go Into and purposefully reconstruct Autobiographically Asserted, thus Accountable Criteria (Harre 29/40 depending on bibliography), from Stories Lived in Public. The formal statement of Selfhood is Valence Competence; its Actional form is a ratio: [RR] Reflexive Effect of Contextual Autobiographical force over Prefigurative and Practical Autob. force; this in/out skill (affording the necessary being and constraining narrative continuity) prototypes deliberately abstractive “step” functions (like “deutero learning”); in addition to qualitative contiguity of poesis’ sequential meanderings, the distinguishing Agentive move of Selfhood is a “leaping” or a “jumping” character of phronesis’ practical judgment in everyday concerns. Or W (51b or 66c depending on bibl.) might characterize the experience not as a leaping, but more of a “moving into activity”, whereupon engagement in use situates episode. “Oh, now I know what to do, now I can go on.” These abstractive semiotic language games are facilitated by tfg open ended social criteria of Stories Told; e.g., deontological symbolism, words/grammars, semiotics of “emotion” {6}.

Stories of Self Actualization Regulative Agency by the Conjointly Constructed Acting into and out of Open Ended Hierarchies Coordinated of Taken for Granted Grammars (differancing from regulated constraint)

4 SELF ACTUALIZATION: Liken Enmeshment in Stories Told of Self Actualization to Theoria (“self actualization, the other facet of what we are calling Self Transcendence, is here used similarly as Maslow would use “The Esteem Needs”): Where the person is Altercast ameliorative right to display (or not) cultivated agentive flex-abilities of protracted ARF, using open ended hierarchization in the form of highly specialized, abstractive, or esoteric language games, and/or where Lived Cultural Patterns and Stories Told can be Elaborated and Transformed by individual agency (Differancing from Regulated Constraint), “upper parts” of the “motivational hierarchy” [agency hierarchy] are “reached.” The formal statement of Self Actualization is “Creative Competence”; its Actional expression is [RR] Reflexive Effect of Implicative Autob. force (it remains mutably context dependent).

This cultural terminology of Socialization, Being, and Selfhood toward Self Actualization is hereafter taken to signify directions (Constitutive and Regulative Rules) of logical forces heuristic to the problematic intersection of gender differentiation/ individuation. As the reflexive effect of Modernity’s valuation of Implicative force, i.e., “Actualization’s” ability to change Cultural Patterns, increases the unbeknownst but necessary mutability of whatever relative stability of deontical order traditional teleology might achieve, there is no Cultural Pattern in which to practice the Satisfactory Competence of taking for granted enmeshment in one of these four facets on a regular basis (14 or 10 p. 204-205) (7). It is necessary to play a new language game.

OPTIMAL COMPETENCE

Optimal Competence has/uses Functional Autonomy to use/afford all four of these Agentive Flex-abilities:

Socialization, Being, Selfhood and Self Actualization are thus used as four inseparably necessary agentive flex-abilities for Optimal Competence in Modern Society. With Modernity’s disorder, one must be “flex-able” to use these four aspects (perhaps with qualitative differances on Momentary, Episodic, Relational, Cultural Pattern or Autobiographical levels), and not be stuck fixedly overcompensating or reversing one of these two facets, if one, as practitioner, is to be Optimally Competent. Optimal Competence - the flex-ability to Constitute and Regulate Social Competence, Enmeshment Competence, Valence Competence, Creative Competence and Functional Autonomy (choosing to fit in or not) - by its conscientious participation in “Being/Selfhood and Socialization”, is distinguished from mere Self Actualization. Even so, just as individuals can be Minimally Competent, so too can social systems be. In those systems where Optimal Competence is Blocked, Optimally Competent individuals may strongly favor one facet. A critical point distinguishing it from Minimal Competence, which does not afford flex-ability to reconstruct given criteria, is Functional Autonomy. Optimal Competence can choose to not fit in a criteria even though it, Optimal Competence, does afford the flex-ability to participate. On the other hand, Optimal Competence, as it is not Obligated to be different (not obligated by the modernist paradox, “be different so you can fit in”), need not succumb to Modernistic “pangs of self loathing” for the appearance of conformity (including to one’s self interest), but can choose to participate in social criteria despite the fact that the criteria may not be new. If, e.g., the criteria is “the ability to judge the value of exchange”, then Optimal Competence, unlike Minimal Competence, and beyond Satisfactory Competence (which can only reconstruct stable criteria), can choose to exchange less or more than conventional requirements of exchange, despite the ability to judge an even exchange. Moreover, beyond the alienation of modernism, it can choose to make an even exchange though that may not appear novel (though it may appear conformist) (10 or 14 ibid.).

Section Two: Obstacles to The Flex-abilities of Optimal Competence -

A Hermeneutic of Gender Differentiation & Individuation

Where many acts lead to equifinal ends Pearce and Cronen’s first hypothesis is for a Charmed Loop. Therefore, it is hypothesized that Charmed Loops (viz. of sex and the division of labor) of Gender Differentiation became inferred as a telos. This telos, separating agentive flex-abilities, presents the first obstacle to Optimal Competence and the central context for the ensuing four hypotheses of obstacles.

THE CONTEXT OF TELEOLOGY

1 TELEOLOGICAL GENDER DIFFERENTIATION: Prohibits necessary flex-abilities; viz., separation of gender agency prohibits Optimal Competence by the very concept of teleology’s formal separations.

The Practical Division of Agency Constructs Separate Gender Positions of Advantageous Flex-ability:

It would make sense that in negotiation through practical activity of the pre-agrarian world, a gender role division was inferred of parturition divisions of agency and taken for granted as a Reflexive Need (read “Need” as rules based praxis!). Females were Legitimated in Taking For Granted Reflexive Effect of Contextual Force over Regulative Rules (because males evolved physically stronger and free to fight, while females were more vulnerable and ‘eggs are precious’, females were afforded the social taken for granted that their Prefigurative disengagement (disenmeshement) from competition was legitimate and that breaking the rule of this legitimacy was prohibited) in exchange for elevated, less brutal competition among males (Bowery’s thing about civilizational deal for boarders being taken care of in exchange fore less brutal male comp for females within); while males, because they were less vulnerable and encumbered, were obligated, thus (through “deprivation of feedback compulsion”) Reflexively Needed to prove (practices/flex-abilities) deservingess of Implicative Force on Constitutive Rules.

Display of successful consequents despite sacrifice on antecedent social levels (contextual force of reflexive effect) was institutionally compensated with Stories Told of Self Actualization [comprised through Stories Lived of both (Maslowian) differentiation of fulfillment and (Feudian) sublimation of deprivation]. This augmentation to the lack of competition from females in conjunction with deprivation compulsion (prohibiting basic flex-abilities) disproporionately represented males in acclivities of Implicative force of Autob. on Cultural Patterns reconstructing through momentarily Altercasts (“content”).

It also ostensibly Legitimated protecting the institution of Traditional Society’s Stories Told of male Actualization [Obligatory Reflexive Need of Implicative force] with Prohibitory moral orders of male Self Actualization [Obligatory Reflexive Need of Implicative force] with Prohibitory moral orders of ethnocentrism and supremacy (e.g., “god” as a punitive man; or “male morality”), and most radically, the Prohibitory (thus concomitantly Obligatory) moral order of Traditional ionic Teleology.

[CP] Traditional Teleology, The TFG Depth Grammar of Cartesianism (or “foundationalism”) & Gender Differentiation: Traditionalism is a way of life made coherent by story of permanence; takes for granted that the perfect form of any earthly object substands at its ends, inevitably to be uncovered if only one is reasonable enough to pursue understanding of those ends by continually putting at risk to dialectical critique any taken for granted custom and habit of tradition.

This Tradition Elaborated the gender division into Two Positions of Advantageous Flexibilities {8}:

A. A More Addressive Position - “The Female Position” of Flex-ability among basic human needs. The rules directed actively of the female’s being left alone, if not addressed, provides them with basic means of agency; this, the “Addressive” position, would be the position more often of females in the activities of everyday situations.

B. A More Hierarchizing Position - “The Male Position” of Flex-ability in quest of human achievement: Thereupon the rules directed activities of the female’s being left alone, if not addressed, facilitate, through altercasting of a more directive (as opposed to inquisitive) kind of address, hierarchical construction of male agency; this, the “Hierarchizing” position, would be the position more often of males in the activities of status situations.

{hermeneutic continues after discussion of hyperbolization through didactic inctitement and Cartesian technology}

2 THE CHARMED LOOP OF DIDACTIC INCITEMENT {9}:
  Obligates away from appealed for flex-abilities

Didactic Cruelty: A typical means of the Prohibition and Obligation which reconstruct these two gender positions would be didactic incitement. Because, though obligation and lack of altercast legitimacy, positive “motivation” (agency) is arrogated with the didactic cruelty of incitement, one must justify the instigator’s hypothesis for abuse, and can, in addition, issue forth their practices/ flex-abilities to the instigator. E.g., “the ignominious bullying of initiator in the context of Naven Ritual rites of passage produced harsh, overcompensating males” {4a}.

The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement:

[Note similar versions of this charmed loop that I’ve put on line at Majorityrights]
   
Didactic Incitement of positions of narrower flex-abilities, as it forces those positions to justify the instigation by marshaling their agency into the creation of a Charmed Loop of practices/flex-abilities a) appropriating b) instantiation c) protection, and d) hedging to the position of wider flex-abilities, constructs and equiprimoridal means to these multifinal ends for the equifinal position of wider flex-abilities (i.e., a typical means to several ends by unethical folks).

The address, strict first person accountability/second and third person absolution, in quality (inciting and didactic), may be so unequivocal that the addressee cannot tell whether they are acting as an agent, or whether they are acting in accordance of obligatory conformity or “obligatory rebellion” (“disobey me” paradox). Hence, the agency of the addressee positions of narrower flex-abilities, in sharing or expending, or in trying to avoid sharing or expending resources/practices, flex-abilities, is arrogated. As the obligations and prohibitions from from the positions of wider flex-abilities (ARF) make it impossible for lesser positions to take these important relationships for granted as background issues, their agency is regulated by an inescapable {10} field constituted through reflexive recontextings of figure/ground in the charmed loop of Didactic Incitement - viz. didactic incitement contexts reflexive need for Socialization [obligatory/not agentive], reconstructs reflexive need for Being [obligatory/not agentive], recontexts reflexive need for Selfhood [obligatory/not agentive], recontexts reflexive need for Self Actualization [obligatory/not agentive]. With the Agency of their taken for granted backgrounding arrogated, the narrow position is obligated to the inagency of a “please spontaneously care/ please spontaneously don’t care paradox.

A. “Please Spontaneously Care” - wanting spontaneous, ameliorative care - largely an unconscious, unarticulated, background wish (because if they don’t just do it, if you have to make them, then they don’t really care for your being, but what you do) - (modernist half - please care to participate in the coherence of change). In this instance agency of a person position of narrow flex-abilities is Prohibited and any agency from the person position of wider flex-abilities is Legitimated.

B. “Please Spontaneously Don’t Care” - wanting to be spontaneously left alone from pejorative care (neo-traditional half - please do not care so that I do not have to devote resources to protecting the coherence of permanence). In this instance, again, the agency of the person position of narrower flex-abilities is Prohibited and any agency from the person position of wider flex-abilities is Legitimated.

The person position of narrow flex-abilities is caught in a charmed loop wherein they must justify the abuse: no matter what they do, their agency is arrogated by the person position of wider flex-abilities.

Beside destroying themselves, a combination of the four options taken to an extreme, the narrow position might attempt the following in reaction to Didactic Incitement:

I. Do “nothing”, risk pejorative altercasting 2. Prove lack of agentive being/ justify non-accountability 3. Please spontaneously care to amelioratively altercast withdrawal/not pejoratively altercast withdrawal.

The narrower position right act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement and risk instantiation of the pejorative altercasting by doing “nothing’ 1. in “doing nothing” the narrower position accepts the altercasting and in so doing proves their lack of agentive being/ which justifies the wider position’s non-accountable incitement (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive being) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] read as follows: Please spontaneously care to amelioratively altercast my withdrawal/ to not pejoratively altercast my withdrawal. 3. in accepting the altercast primary injunction of agentive being [morality of rights], the narrow position may have to live through pejorative (perhaps tormenting) {11} language games for an indefinite period and legitimates farther abuse (wimp).*

* It is this option which produces the unwanted bodily reactions of incontinence (1b) and hysteria. For an obligatory withdrawal to such an extreme, the organic constitution and hermeneutic counteracts, betraying one’s integrity, perhaps to one’s own surprise and dismay.

*It is in fact this first option of withdrawal which produces the unwanted bodily reactions of incontinence (1b) and hysteria. For an obligatory withdrawal to such an extreme, the organic constitution counteracts, producing the unwanted bodily and hermeneutic reactions which might betray even one’s own self.

II. Risk resources/practices for understanding of a better altercast 2. Prove lack of agentive selfhood and socialization/ justify appropriation exploitation 3. Please spontaneously care to protect my practices/ do not care to appropriate and exploit them (to use them as I would not).

The narrower position might act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement by risking resources to appropriation in an effort to make it understood that they should not be pejoratively altercast thus. 1. In divulging resources/practices, the narrow position proves lack of agentive selfhood and socialization/ justifies wide position’s appropriation and exploitation (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive selfhood and socialization) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] reads as follows: Please spontaneously care to protect my practices as I would/do not care to use them as I would not. 3. In divulging resources/practices of agentive selfhood [morality of conative productivity] and in divulging resources/practices of agentive socialization [tribal/utilitarian morality] the narrower position may risk appropriation of resources before readied and without the sought for results - enjoyment of being, the practical uses of selfhood, the bartering of socialization and the distinguished recognition of self actualization. This strategy of acting-into the didactic incitement may construct the hideous experience of the narrower position issuing forth their best resources/practices to the person(s) treating them the worst (dupe).

III. Fight into altercast (with grudging, mechanistic compliance, or outright abuse in return) 2. Prove lack of agentive selfhood and socialization/ justify directive control 3. Please spontaneously care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would like/do not care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would not like.

The narrower position might act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement by fighting into it. 1. Using reactive flex-ability to fight into it, the narrow position proves their agentive selfhood and socialization/ justifies the wide position’s directive control over the use of flex-abilities (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive selfhood/ socialization) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] reads as follows: Please spontaneously care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would like/do not care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would not like 3. In having their flex-abilities directed to fight in, agency may not languish in specificatory language games naively shared or pejoratively altercast, but the narrow position reveals their hidden lack of innocence, i.e., the “hypocrisy” of self interest, and is thereby subject to pre-emption of agentive selfhood’s incentive [morality of conative productivity] to enter into a temporal story, or pre-emption of agentive socialization’s acceptance of a discursive structure [tribal/utilitarian morality] (e.g., through “forced identification”). Unlike the pre-emptive antagonism of the incited narrow position, the wide position has orientation to make sense of retaliatory antagonism. Beside dignifying the wider position with unmerited consideration, this strategy of acting into the didactic incitement risks having flexabilities maneuvered into extremely narrow ranges of functional autonomy, obligating vulgar pragmatism or criterial genericism to an extent which might leave the narrow position susceptible to blackmail [undermining Warrant (and the ability to object)] or exhaust and prohibit easy reconstruction of flex-abilities (pig).

IV. Transcend the altercast didactic incitement 2. Prove lack of agentive actualization/ justify didactic cruelty 3. Please spontaneously care to admit that this was not what I need/do not care that it was not so bad that I could not get over it.

The narrower position might act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement by transcending it 1. In transcendence, the narrow position proves lack of agentive self actualization/ justifies the wider position’s use of didactic cruelty (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive actualization) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] reads as follows: Please spontaneously care to admit that this was not what I needed/do not care that it was not so bad that I could not get over it. 3. If the narrower position transcends the context of didactic incitement, they justify the altercst didactic incitement as being “not that bad”, at worst, if not a necessary lesson or even an inspiration which takes credit for the achievement. This strategy of acting into the didactic incitement pre-empts Agentive Self Actualization’s [morality of honor] effect on cultural patterns such that the better one’s accomplishments are, the more they justify the abuse. An effort to find background TFG in transcendence of even this final justification of the hypothetically necessary abuse might re-construct a loop of runaway aberration (permanent puerile initiate).

3 THE CARTESIAN TECHNOLOGY OF INDIVIDUATION:

Legitimates imperviousness to the flex-abilities of Optimal Competence through the “unassailable god” and the furtive Prohibitive mechanism of provisionalization.

As Implications of Self Actualization made teleology’s elusive quest more evident, technologies such as the following two moves of Augustine were apparently instrumental in facilitating the Cartesian mechanism which served to maintain the Prohibitory punctuations of teleology despite ramifications of infinite regress. First, rather than an immutable and perfectly aligned telos, he hypothesized to god an Archemedian point above good and evil. But instead of qualitatively social consensus, a sensible limit to extremes, in lieu the formal telos, the concept of “individual” was to be governor of ethics as the truth of god was relational and separate from them, not relative and connected in qualitative patterns wherein the virtues of flex-abilities were recognized as they were ecologically dispersed. Second, of this Archimedian schism he inferred a primordial relationality. Coherent direction of ethics toward this Archimedian point was to be facilitated by the mechanism of relationality as opposed to relativity. With this parceling-out mechanism, certain pejorative elements within an individual’s orientation, as in the most critical example of hypocrisy, were not the ultimate qualitative limitation to their moral orientation {12}. This technology likely hyperbolized the two separate gender positions of greater flex-abilities.

{Resumption of hermeneutic: gender separation takes turn wherein it may be more usefully discussed as a quaternary system among gender differentiation and individuation}

Self Transcendence: With the addition of Cartesian technology, another way of looking at the hierarchical position more assumed by males would be to describe it as “rules directed activity pejoratively altercasting (provisionalization in addition to didactic incitement) and transforming basic male agentive levels.” He is compelled to Self Transcendence through a) privation (Prohibition)  of Being compulsion, incitement (Obligation) to genetic competition, and b) deprivation (provisionalization of what might otherwise be) Selfhood (and Obligation of excellence - i.e., something above mere reconstruction - to Legitimate enmeshment). The (need or “motive” to) Elaboration of Self Actualization probably contributed heavily to Reflexively Effecting Transformation to the less outwardly ordered society of Modernity.

The Context of Modernity

[CP] Modernity (Cartesian) TFG Depth Grammar of Individuation: Modernity is a way of life made coherent by the story of change; it takes for granted that transcendent “mind stuff” (and later empiricism) found Archimedian logics which are inevitably to be uncovered if only people have courage to pursue them by continually putting at risk the taken for granted customs and habits of tradition.

Modernity’s ostensible rejection of teleology (that is, the connection of body to its “ideal form”) and its valuation of Self Actualization’s ability to transform cultural patterns also risked traditional culture’s customs for female safety and male achievement, and thereby reconstructed Reflexive Need to re-emphasize the practical gender separation with a co-evolutionary Cultural Pattern of Neo Traditionalism.

[CP] Neo Traditionalism (Teleological Cartesianism): Neo Traditionalism is a way of life made coherent by the story of permanence; takes for granted that maintenance of faith in an Archimedian logics’s foundation of empiricism is what has been done by folks to successfully preserve them through history; thus, it will work again if only one has the will to not put at risk these taken for granted customs/habits of tradition (Neo Traditionalism must function in context of Modernity).

Thus, with the Reflexive Effect of Modernity, the Gender Dichotomy of Agency is usefully changed to a quaternary heuristic of agentive intentionalities, “individuation”. These coevolutionary patterns present a fourth obstacle to flex-abilities of Optimal Competence - miscoordinated as a result of Incommensurate Gender Agendas of Cartesian Modernistic Individuation and Neo Traditional Gender Differentiation.

4 INCOMMENSURATE GENDER AGENDAS OF INDIVIDUATION & DIFFERENTIATION:

Obliges Prohibition of flex-abilities through infinite regression of the paradoxic notion of “be different so you can fit in” (14; 51a), i.e., be a modern individual, versus the reflexive effect of ever more closed notions of neo-traditional gender differentiation (be the same as others so that you can fit in).

The intersection of Gender Relations/Individuation reconstructs, at least in occidental culture, a symmetrical paradigm of Incommensurate Gender of Individuation. A) The language game of Neo Traditionalism tries to conform the technology of individuation to teleological gender differentiation, seeking to separate and protect 1) female reflexively effected contextual forces from 2) male reflexively needed implicative forces; while the language game of Modernistic males and females use the technology of individuation to differance from traditional rules of gender separation B) Modernist 3) females - overcompensate reflexively effected contextual forces or reverse to reflexively needed implicative forces of Autob. and 4) males - overcompensate reflexively needed implicative forces or reverse to reflexively effected contextual forces of Autob. Whether Neo Traditionalist or Modernist, gender agendas of individuation are likely to be incommensurate.

With the disordering context of Modernity, perhaps Addressive positions more often occupied by females re-emerged with increased significance. In position where she is left alone, if not addressed, “the” female is 1) Not Obligated to display (risk practices/flex-abilties) excellence - she spontaneously moves in a qualitative sequence of practical personal need 2) As narrative significance of her proprioceptive being is Legitimate, she becomes articulate as of the wish, will and intentionality of her sensibilities 3) In basic position of wider flex-abilities, she is solicited (pandered-to?) with Specificatory Language Games to cultivate or reject, “shape and craft” 4) Altercasting, identification, and confirmation of Autob. from the posture [Prefigurative force] of Being is thereby socially reconstructed Selfhood. In the manner of this contexting, basic flex-abilities (Being/Selfhood) reflexively effected contextual forces {13} of Autobiography [over RC, Ep, Alt and narratively reconstructing CP] were/are achieved comparatively easier and sooner by females.

Through the temporal [in governing contextual force of Autob. (over RC through Alt Cn & reconstructing CP)], females were likely to become more: sensibly acute, happy, articulate, involved, caring and motivated than their compelled male counterparts [for many (Traditional) females, the indirectness of their reflexively effected implicative force (influence on Cultural Patterns) was relatively unimportant; that is, compared with their motive to protect context forces (Being/Selfhood)].

Self Assertion {14}: Addressivity of the female position, that is the Altercasting of specificatory language games, fulfills its basic flex-abilities for the agencies of being and selfhood, and creates flex-ability for strong prefigurative force [Self Assertion]. In this position she tends to prohibit “metacommunication” [talk about talk which allows for the power to clarify, revise and integrate one’s premises (65) Barnlund] as there is no immanent need to risk discursive practices/flex-abilities in that manner; moreover, high context orientation is abundant and uninteresting to her; further still, perhaps she has a vested interest in maintaining modernity’s disorder to sustain the advantage of the addressive position and its flex-ability to play males off one another - inasmuch, she dismisses the conversational implicature of metacommunication as weak or unmasculine. She is inclined instead to cursory pejorative conclusions (this overparticularity is discussed in note {15}), which, from the position of basic flex-abilities, tend to project justice, freedom and permanence. Indeed, it is harder to be a female from the standpoint of traditional morals since, on an everyday level, more or happier opportunities exist to break its rules. This bias may construct cultural criterial narrowness and broad natural conservatism (especially in Modernity, when less can be taken for granted).

Despite resistance to that bias, varying Autob.‘s (industrial epoch) outside of male prohibitions and control of birthing, diminish [Traditionally TFG] natural/social barriers to female Self Actualization into mere custom and habit - as opposed to practical necessity or supernatural mandate. Whether they were sensitized through violations of their [Traditionally instituted] Being/Selfhood, or they were sheerly perceptive, perhaps more females than previously recognized that Self Actualization [Autob.‘s reflexive need of implicative force beyond RC] was not vain, but essential to full competence in modern society.

In compliment, rigidity and militarism which continued post World Wars constrained some Modernistic males from “rational blindness” {16}: I.e., they could not blind themselves to the fact that the Traditional TFG of 1) the young male’s sacrificed Being/Selfhood was too profound to be legitimated by potential Self Actualization; further 2) that the modernist/ethnocentric (paradox) position of Self Actualization is now obsolete, even abetting destruction of these premises - without (Autob. reflexively effected context forces) which, Self Actualization was improbable in the less outwardly ordered society of modernity. Without a story of intrinsic value, he still had to prove his practices/flex-abilities according to extremely positivistic and generic standards (e.g., enlistment) or risk insuperable loss of personal justice (even de-sexing); i.e., either exclusive intrinsic rights or credibility and status - the only apparent societal competition and means back to his early Prohibited Being/Selfhood. {17}

The relationship between these four ways of life within the anachronistic TFG of the Traditional Story Told of Teleology and The Story Lived within the reflexively reconstructing foundational context of Modernity creates a fifth obstacle to the agentive flex-abilities of Optimal Competence.

5 A STRANGE LOOP OF INDIVIDUATION & GENDER DIFFERENTIAITON:

The Reflexive Needs of This Unwanted Repetitive Pattern - call it “The Strange Loop of Post Modernity” - Obligates the Prohibition of flex-abilties

This Strange Loop of “Post Modernity” works within Strange Loop of Modernity* as described by Pearce and Cronen; the difference being that this loop functions as a relation between the Ways of Life of Modernity and Neo-Traditionalism.

Modern and Neo Traditional accountability to the teleological context’s impossible quest for a complete and consistent theory can reflexively reconstruct a Strange Loop in perpetuity. As Accountability to Teleology implicatively forces search for non recursive separations (forms), the language games of Modernistic Individuation tend to harshly overcompensate and (then) or reflexively Reverse whatever TFG’s founded by the language games of Neo Traditional Differentiation [e.g., the language game of unhappy modernist female tends to fixate reversal to prefigurative contextual force or harshly overcompensate implicative force - by any way, the Autobiography of the Modernist must context Relational Characterization and vis a versa [i.e., the language game of Neo Traditionalism fixates its own harsh reinstantiation of gender (hierarchicization) - for a Neo Traditionalist, a Relational Characterization must context Autobiography].

As this context’s reflexive recontexting precludes taking for granted Satisfactory Competence through either the language game of Differentiation (incl. overcompensation) of Reversal, it is necessary to cure its snares with a new language game of Optimal Competence (e.g., for persons of either gender to have the flex-abilities of changeable enmehsment in all four forces). Although this loop is synonymous with the status quo of what is commonly called “post modernity”, it is actually used synonymously with the term “modernity”, for in absence the instantiation of stable, unifying Accountable Ways of Life (Autob., RC. and CP), we CMMists (13) do not presume modernity has been surpassed.

* Strange Loop of Modernity (51a) - Change counts as progress to foundation: “This is not new” - “Work to change it” - “This is new” - “Celebrate novelty” - “This is no longer new” - “Work to change it” etc.

PART TWO: “PRACTICAL”

EPISODIC ANALYSIS: Discussing Consequents of “Taking The Ten” (in the prisoner’s dilemma)

Although this analysis uses concrete elements, it is more a prototype episode as it does not situate an actual sequence of events, it only lays out a typical sequence of events. This proto-episode takes individuational language games from the Strange Loop of “postmodernity” and sets them out within a Consequent of the “prisoner’s dilemma” to illustrate an interaction between the language game of Over-compensating Modernist Male [OMM] and Female [OMF], showing how it reflexes a reverse in Regulative Rules - i.e., if they are to differance and thus fit in they must each become Reversing Modernist [RMM] [RMF], finally, in the last sequence, the cycle of the Strange Loop is completed as both start to adopt trappings of New Traditionalism. Note: Though the analysis of this proto-episode exploits coherence through the consistency of language games which, in this case, modernist types would use, another modernist female comes into play, taking the place of the Overcompensating Modernist female after the antecedent proto-episodes, and assumes the Reflexive Effect of that Episode by enacting the Consequent Autobiographical pattern, the language game of Reversing Modernist Female.

I. First, it is necessary to set up the Antecedent [A] Cultural Patterns: Contexting this proto-Episode is The Strange Loop of “Post Modernity”. As used for Autobiographical purposes, Constitutive and Regulative Rules of the two Cultural Patterns comprising the Strange Loop would read as follows:

[A] Modernity [CP] Celebrative Change [CR] Be different so you can fit in [RR] continually put practices/felx-abilities at risk in quest of foundations.

[A] Neo Traditionalism derives its Cultural Pattern [CP] from the Traditional [CP] Sacramental Form [CR] Be faithful to the permanent, ultimate, and authentic form of one’s existence (be the same as others so that you can fit in) [RR] find the will to refrain from putting practices/flex-abilities at risk.

II. Second, as this is a discourse regarding Consequents of “the prisoner’s dilemma”, it is also necessary to set up the Antecedent proto-Episodes:

The Prisoner’s Dilemma {62c; 51a}: As applied in this [Ep] - Does one act as a Neo Traditionalist and try to be fair, “take the five”, in preserving the “sacrament” of one’s anticipated “true love” [sacred RC contexts Autob.]? - Male takes the five of achievement, female takes the five of basic human flex-abilities. Or does one act as Modernist and try to bring the most to any anticipated relationship by “celebrating” life to the fullest, adopting pragmatic relationships along the way in support of individuational achievement [Autob. contexts pragmatic RC]? - “take the ten” prior to discovery of [permanent RC]?

III. Third, the Autobiographical Language Games:

Overcompensating Modernist Female [OMF]: Autob. continually put practices/flex-abilities at risk in the direction assuring basic human needs - Self Assertion [Contexual Autob. over Prefig/Practical force]

Overcompensating Modernist Male [OMM]: Autob. continually put practices/flex-abilities at risk in quest of achievement - Self Transcendence [Implicative Autobiographical force]

Antecedent Episodes

[Ep #1 reluctant foil]

1. [OMM] in hope to retain at least the five of achievement [DO] Obligatory - Transcend Self, accept attribution men privileged/ women disadvantaged - [RR] Please Spontaneously Care that this (dilemma) is not what I needed. [Act] reluctantly overcompensate Sacral Form [CR] Patriarchy

2. [OMF] “Patriarchy” [CR] Prohibitive Male Morality - “Arrogant; pretentious” [RR] “not new”

[Ep #2 sacred ministry of betrayal]

1. [OMF] [C] [DO] Obligatory: In liberation from fetters of immanence, women need transcendent achievement [RR] Subvert obstructive patriarchy [Act] Take The Ten - [CR] “Sacred Ministry of Betrayal”: (obviously another male) [RR] .....”Not kneeling before a man, only kneeling before a symbol of virility.”

By the act of taking the ten, the language game of Overcompensating Modernist Female Reflexively Effects [C] [DO] Uncertainty, Transforming a reversal in modernistic individuational quests. Read her contextual force over the modernist male as follows:

Antecedent [A] “You will never inflict on me anything as hateful as I have already inflicted on you.”

The Episode [Ep #3]

Discussing Consequents of Taking Ten in Antecedent Gender Relations/Individuational Achievement

{At this juncture the overcompensating modernist female of the antecedent episodes, having taken the ten, has moved on to bigger and better things, and a different modernist female acts into the discursive structure of the Reflexively Effected language game of reversing modernist female RMF, and thusly equipped, engages in episode the downed, and therefore reflexively reversing modernist male RMM}

Autob. +10 Reversing Modernist Female [RMF]: [CR] “The right to do what I want” RR Change [CP] “Stable Heirachical Pattern of Patriarchy [Contextual Force] [Effect Implicative Force against it]

Autob. -10 Reversing Modernist Male [RMM]: [CR]“Authentic rights have not been considered” [RR] search for Authentic foundations of “Being” [Prefigurative over Contextual force]

1. [RMM]: [Ant] [DO] Oblig: [RR] make sure incipient [RC] doesn’t repeat past mistakes. [DO] Legit. Seek “Confirmation” [Act] - Comical illustration of disillusionment with being downed ten in prior [RC]

2. [RMF]: [C] - [CR] Talk about old girlfriend [DO] Prohibited [RR] not new, boring [CR] immoral [Act] “All they want to do is talk about their old girlfriends”....[Oblig.] [Act] (scream!) “You bore me!”

3. [RMM] - [C] [CR] insulated by Altercast [Antecedent] of permanence and tactlessness - [RR] Please spontaneously care that this isn’t what I needed: [DO] Oblig [Act] Assert basic right to genuine “feelings”

4. [RMF] [C] - [DO] Prohibited - [CR] male expression of feelings counts as manipulative.

5. [RMM] - [DO] Uncertainty [A] - [Autob.] [DO] Obligatory - search for the reason behind this insouciance [Act] - Try to reason things out through “metacommunication”

6. [RMF] - [C] - [DO] Prohibited by [Autob.] - [CR] metacommunication = controlling [C] [Oblig] [Act] (scream!) “Relax!!”

7. [RMF] [Antecedent] - [DO] Obligatory - [CR] - “Refreshing candor” of pragmatic directive - [Act] “Are you jealous? It’s just her prerogative. Get on with your life. It’s that way for everyone.” [DO] Legit. [RR] “Help to do better” - [Act] Wholesome and mature expression of delightful sexuality: “women have plenty of lovers, but they complain that men aren’t good lovers. Are you a good lover?”

Consequent Episode [Ep #4 egregious analogy of Rape to inspiration]

[Ant] The importance of getting things right, “accurate and ameliorative”, become acute at this juncture for the [RMM], if, along with the incapacity to discuss the pejorative experience of his prior [RC] with his “girlfriend”, you add, say, his familial Relationship, characterized by pervasive negative Altercasting (also likely to be Prohibited by modernist and neo traditional discourse as controlling, manipulative, wimpish).

With Depth Grammar’s potential for making incommensurate paradigms comparable, take the point of view then of the reversing modernist male: if he is to assert his basic flex-abilities, the Obligatory response to the Acts in segment 7 can accurately read as follows:

1. RMM: [CR] - Mechanistic, indifferent: Like telling a woman who has been violated (in some form) “Never mind him, he was just a pig; men have all the women that they need, but they complain that women don’t (expletive) them correctly” * [C] [Oblig] [Act] Rage

* As if this “advice” is not bad enough, imagine the following scenario: Given the factors of pervasiveness and the hegemony of this CP [separating gender flex-abilities for agency] a good comparison would work like this - a rape which produces the unfortunate involuntary bodily response of an orgasm (only later to be interpreted for her as “consummatory bodily satisfaction”!), which, in turn produces a hysterical reaction (only to be later interpreted for her as “liberating happiness” !), which, in turn, Obligates an anti-rape crusade (only later to be interpreted for her as having been “inspired by the rape” !).

2. The RMM’s [Act] toward

READ MORE...

Way to go Alt-Right. You’re wise to them, don’t get played by them or anything: After decades of deploying anti-White left coalitions against the human ecology of White systems to rupture our boundaries and patterns, with YKW now having achieved hegemony in 7 key power niches, they have sought to co-opt White advocacy’s reaction in right wing alignment, if not coalition against “the left” - i.e., opposing all organization and unionization against the hegemony of the YKW and their right wing cohorts - whether those cohorts are White right winger/liberals, black biopowerists or Muslim comprador/imperialists

As of 24 February, I’ve combed-through and shored up the entire post, beyond the sake of clearer reading; as for torturing those ill disposed and of bad will, inducing them to look at what were still rough notes as I labeled the article “corrected” - that’s ok - creeps like Matt Parrott can have his petty angle that there was “bad writing” (as semiotic? what?) to try to dismiss what I say through his self appointed bureaucratic -paleocon gate keeping function. As for those of good will who kept silent, I don’t feel too bad either - they should get in the habit of bringing to bear benign questions and corrections. This is, in fact, a brand new reposting. There are important corrections.

This piece deals with matters important for our survival as a people. Much of it is dealt with in other pieces of mine that may be referenced; but as I circled back over point number three, toward a positive, active language of homeostasis, there emerged necessity to address not only relevant theoretical transgressions, but persons, or transgressions personified in the orbit of White advocacy - people and positions held that are misleading to our systemic homeostasis.

1. Our concern for our people is, in an essential sense, a concern of systems, their stasis and homeostasis. 2. In that concern, it’s been necessary to clear away confusing and misleading language games and concepts - rule structures which can tangle, misdirect and disrupt our stasis and homeostasis: call that clearing away a factual liberation from language and concepts that are false and misleading of our would-be stasis and homeostasis 3. With that disentangling of language and concepts misapplied to/against the factual semiotics of our natural system maintenance, a liberation from mere facticity and capacity for willing suspension of disbelief is necessary to marshal concepts/narrative of our less apparent group system - beyond perceptions of moments and episodes, beyond personal relationships even - to provide narrative coherence, guiding rule structures of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant in the patterns of our group interests - against dissolution, despite the Manichean forces (deception, trickery) of our antagonists or other forces oblivious to our group interests. 4. I need to address sundry but relevant examples of theoretical missteps from those acting under the rubric of “White advocacy.” These examples are relevant as theoretical obstructions that need to be cleared-away in service of operationalization.

The piece has grown to enormous length for the perceived necessity to digress in handling objections immediately - to the point where it might risk distracting and burying essential points if they weren’t fleshed them out in sufficient coherent gestalt with details and examples delimited by relevance of what I need to address at this time.

I did it this way in order to get to some important points before it quickly mushroomed beyond ten thousand words in my attempt a) to overcome the impervious gas-lighting that I have been invariably confronted with, as I try to overcome that by repeating, perhaps more forcefully, perhaps in slightly different, more elaborating ways, important points that I’ve made before; and then b) in anticipation of what underlies that gas-lighting, the incessant contentiousness of bad will, I endeavor to provide answers and qualifications in advance to any and every opportunistic objection that the YKW and their reactionaries will inevitably try to seize-upon in order to dismiss, in their gas-lighting bad will, the entirety of what I say as trivial; if not attack it, and me entirely, as bringing forth the very evil that we are up against; and thus the risk of burying essentials with a dauntingly long piece, fraught with arduous digressions as I might try to overcome these now thoroughly predictable contentions from the onset.

The YKW’s reasons for subjecting me to this level of contention make far more sense - they are acting in their imperialist interests - whether through their PC anti-White left unions and coalitions that have allowed them to march through the institutions of White power; or in their orchestration of right wing reactions now that they more thoroughly occupy the 7 key power niches; from whence they would supposedly “debunk”, e.g., what I say, treating it as if it is supposedly the same old misuse, the same old gross distortion, anti-natural, anti-White left, hyperbolic liberal misrepresentations, tangled terms and concepts as they have been promoting as the left for the past several decades - terms and concepts typically semantically reversed from what would be ethnocentrically beneficial - organizational for us - are instead represented only in one dimension and direction, only as hyperbolic liberalization of and against our bounds and borders, and promoted as such, as “the left.” White reactionaries to these machinations against them simply can’t make their way out of the box, or won’t, because of bad will, compounded mistrust, they can’t stop reacting - fundamentally against their own group interests - accepting the right-wing and “Alt-Right” altercast (where they do not self censor the semantic benefits of left conceptualization* on their own behalf by rejecting a right-left distinction as out-dated or unhelpful - when it is in fact, very helpful - we aren’t just nationalists whose nationalism the invisible hand of god and nature will look-after against elite and rank and file dereliction, defection and betrayal despite absence of unionized accountability) on the misapprehensions that they are orchestrated to believe, viz., a reaction in didactically invoked response to the terms and concepts they’ve received to believe must be geared in the same perverted, exaggerated, distorted, antagonistic way, with the same semantic content, application and implication, if not intent, that has been deployed against them; which invokes a didactic response, at best attributing received stereotypes against this “leftism”, as anti nature, etc., and at worst, but very typically, dismissing and attacking these very concepts that we need, as if they are unhealthy and Jewish from the ground up ...and characteristically of reactionaries, being manipulable and manipulated as such to actually take up Jewish “solutions” to those provocations; in alignment with their interests as they are ensconced now in the seven power niches against “the left” and any such unionized opposition against their power.

[* The semantic benefits of left “conceptualization”, i.e., working hypotheses serve as “topoi” - to take the angle that “topoi” / working hypotheses are “counter natural” (a rightist stereotype is that the left is counter-nature) is to drastically misrepresent and misunderstand the flexibility and correctability in the anti-Cartesian function - it is to be guilty of Cartesianism at “the other end”, the arbitrary “empirical end” as opposed to the “formal”, transcendent end.]

You don’t want to defend your people, don’t want to use any of that post modern stuff, that’d be Jewish or worse, “unnatural and leftist” - nothing but reactionary philosophical anachronism is authentic to our people to keep you good and disorganized (since sarcasm doesn’t always travel and translate well, let it be known as such for non-native English speakers in particular).

The same people who are prone to adopt that risible and susceptible position are liable to despair of our systemic “degeneracy”, turn around and say, that what we/you need instead is to worship a Jew as your personal savior - perhaps seeing it as the eternal guarantor of your characteristic, sovereign “Euroman” individuality - as it were, in obsequious martyrdom to, and as represented by, the Jew on a stick in delivery of his tribe’s ethnocentric homeland from Roman and Babylonian captivity.

But neither do I ignore the reactionaries secular variants as they respond to semantic deception and conceptual perversion by clinging white knuckle to their reaction formations.

I am always clear to not let the secular right-wingers off the hook either; in their reaction is phobia to any term or concept that even smacks of YKW abuses of the notion of theoretical integration with praxis (i.e., the task of integrating and adjusting theory, conceptualization and management, to deal with the practicalities of our social world, our/its particularly reflexive nature); looking upon social concept as a total Jewish project and lie, they proffer instead the pure natural struggle for power; i.e., YKW abuses of the Aristotelian project are taken in reaction to mean that the Aristotelian project is inherently Jewish. Absurd. And here we have the epistemological blunder of Hitler - our detached, unconcerned, objective assessment of facts and truth, our alignment with “pure nature” and natural selection, is supposed to necessarily provide guidance through the magic hand as guarantor of salvation - ours too, if we deserve it. Or will this minimized accountability rather guarantee systemic runaway and disastrous correction? Clearly. In ardent quest for pure naturalism absent praxis, its structuring, its correctability comes unhinged and you do what Hitler did, racial anarchism and runaway war mongering; running imperialist, supremacist roughshod over practical necessities of nationalist cooperation and coordination.

I’ve talked a good deal about the proper understanding and use of the terms and concepts in our interests as European peoples: social constructionism, post modernity, multiculturalism, “equality” vs commensurability, race and anti-racism, diversity, marginals, praxis, pragmatism and heremeneutics and will further specify their correct applications as need be - as need be being a crucial phrase, the operative term ignored by my interlocutors when it comes to hermeneutic survey - it, the hermeneutic circle as it were, doesn’t merely “go back and forth back and forth” arbitrarily, but may dwell on emergentism, focus on minutiae or provide a liberation from the arbitrary flux of mere facticity into broader historical patterns and orientation as need be.*

Despite having also talked a good deal, even in preceding paragraphs, about the misrepresentation of “the left”, why that’s significant, why it is important to Not identify as Right against “THE left”, I’ll have to come back to that again in further specification - given the aforementioned impervious antagonism and gas-lighting of right-wing reactionaries (recently I was invited to join in the initiation of an “intellectual platform” - as if this one isn’t - by contrast to the Alt-Right, proposed to be called “RadRight”, and to join under that moniker with those impervious to all I’ve said lo these years, for F-sake).

However, this imperviousness does bespeak and thus occasion my addressing another term that we’d do well to use in a different way, rather to override, to serve our interests in a philosophically competent manner. The quest for universal foundations and its semantic content, as it would run rough-shod over all practical concern, goes right to the heart of the Cartesian anxiety - which has people reacting into right-wing altercasting against the disingenuous rhetoric of the anti-White left; and against managing our interests through better method.

It’s not that you can’t, with validity, pursue and label some things “foundational”....

1. We’re talking about systems. Whether you are talking about mentality, the full body or a racial grouping, you are talking about a system, i.e., if it is organic, something that you would point to and observe as having stasis and homeostasis. This implies an optimality in sytemic maintenance which is a pervasive ecological quest of biological systems - it can be universalized but not foundationalized.

A system implies connection, extension and correction for stasis and homeostasis.

In talking about biological systems, especially, one of the governing mechanisms would be a barometer of optimality, not only the maximal delimitation of death (and it is here, regarding ownmost being toward death, that I believe Bateson is rendering a significant Aristotelian critique of Heidegger; discussing how, by contrast, that nature, biological systems, rarely operate within lethal variables but function rather on the basis of optimal levels of need satisfaction; Bateson added in that regard, “I don’t have to tall you about the tyranny of patterns, that is the (post WWII) rubric under which we meet; but what you may not know is that you have to accept them.” Living hermeneutic check points as to our systemic homeostasis such as that - optimality - should be placed, in fact must be fairly in place as harder points and structures of their being, which may be looked for in structural guidance so long as the system retains its being. These could form “check points” on the more empirical, ontological end in the hermeneutics of homeostasis. These can be scientifically verifiable in broad scope of genus and in the internal structures of individuals of species. But as humans, unlike other animals, we are born “unfinished” - our genus and species group systems in particular, require completion, homeostasis and delimitation in discursive structures - viz., as we are open systems that can interbreed with other human species, i.e., racial groups, and as that can be argued-for as an adaptive choice and as being natural, the capacity hermeneutics affords is necessary to provide systemic delimitation and closure at the other end, less clear in its empirical delimitation.

Nevertheless, it is also possible to establish operationally verifiable check points on the less readily observable end, i.e., regarding rule structures or confusingness thereof in language and concepts as they might constrain, guide and reinforce systemic stasis and homeostasis; or rather weaken and augur to destroy these systems; it should be possible to establish warranted assertability as to whether rule structures are native, from, conducive to our emergent homeostasis or not.

The means of connection with these check points in praxis (which, here, is taken to subsume ontology through accountability) is a worthy question. The word “transit”* could be coupled with “check-points” or the like of verification points, as a term deployed in the manner of hermeneutics harder end, if there’s a will ....but that remains to be seen.

I have long advocated a theoretical background of social construction in pervasive ecology: because ecology is universally applicable as a concern, and yet, with the biological requirement of optimality and context, it compels acceptance of interactional contingency and thus, with imperfect, relative foundations, prompts a sense of agency and responsibility in management; by extension social constructionism (again, with a people centric position - better, your people centric position - you don’t necessarily construct brute facts, but you do take on at least some post hoc and anticipatory ability to construct how these facts come to count and what to do about them) places our people’s relative group interests within the interactive center and essence of concerns in warranted stewardship of pervasive ecology. In a very real sense foundational concern becomes joined with practical judgment and relative, socially relevant interests.

It is most practical to say that the most universalizable moral principle is that which allows group survival along side other groups (and nature). Those groups or belief systems which do not allow for other groups to survive where they do not otherwise impinge, where it is not a matter of self defense, are immoral (including as practical defense, the survival of group habitat and environment is part of the equation).

For this reason, we may look upon the Abrahamic religions as fundamentally immoral, as they are imperialistic and recognize no importance to the material survival of other groups.

In service of our innocent and otherwise accountable ends then…..

In this regard, ethno nationalism is the proper form of morality, and its delimitations immediately invoke moral order within and in coordination between those nations.

As surely as it is valid to care for environment, land and water, endangered animal species, rain forests, it is valid to place ourselves, our species as not only objects, but stewards of pervasive ecology - our awareness thereof distinguishes this concern from sheer Darwinist competition (the mountain lion doesn’t reflect on how taking prey impacts overall systemics and reaction); particularly regarding human nature, cooperation is also part of nature (niche theory explains how symbiosis and conflict avoidance is also very much a part of even more sheer nature) and it is an eminently practical concern for peoples to look after their organic systems, along with organically derived social capital; and to hold to account, in check, those systems that would otherwise runaway to impinge upon other human ecologies and our pervasive ecology.

This concern is eminently Augustinian. Our enemies, the Abrahamics, are highly Manichean - tricksters, waging war by deception. Our more northern species especially, are, in a way, like naive species, evolved more for the Augustinian devils of natural challenge, not particularly evolved to be attuned to the Manichean challenge of invasive species, viz. of middle eastern tribal cultures; not even if it is a matter of their inflicting the sheer Augustinian biopower of blacks upon us. And those invasive species are not particularly evolved to be concerned for human and pervasive ecology beyond their tribes; they are not as aware, reflective or concerned for the consequences of what they might kill. We are not as biologically hard programmed for ethnocentrism and the deployment of Manicheanism if necessary; we are more naive and thus it is more possible to mess with the guidance of those rules and specificatory structures which would provide for our homeostatic correction. Nevertheless, as I’ve said before, that evolution or ours is not bad, as the world’s issues are ultimately Augustinian; but we must wise-up to do our part to save ourselves and serve that ultimate end, whether dealing with the ultimate consequences of super volcanoes, meteors, global warming or cooling, famine, disease, etc. and the means to stave off these catastrophes; along with the means to transcend them through space travel and farming.

Finally, talking in terms of check, or verification points, and specificatory structures, as opposed to rigid adherence to foundationalism and the foundational persistence which can, in fact, run impervious rough-shod over human and pervasive ecology, also allows one to be free for the all important liberation from mere factcity and agentive accountability; liberation from mere facticity into a more coherent and agentive pursuit of our homeostasis - that is the matter of our “foundation.”

Talking in terms of check-points and specificatory structures, as opposed to Cartesian detachment in objectivst quest of universal foundations, encourages interactive engagement and participation in systemic reconstruction.

Even if you did call these matters of our being “foundational”, you’d pretty much have to treat these as check points and specficatory structures given our circumstance in praxis. If you want Heideggerian arguments for that, note his observation that being is a verb. That we are first confronted with what he calls the thrownness, a radical contingency into which we are born though no choice and no fault of our own, that nonetheless prompts the task of authenticity, i.e., largely a matter of coherence with our emergent nature, part and parcel of hermeneutic survey; in addition, these specificatory structures would offer promptings from the “forgetfulness” which he talks about as leading to inauthenticity. Another Heideggerian argument for the formal structuralization of social praxis is provided by his recognition not only of our thrownness into Heraclitus’ constant process of interaction, but his defense of Parmenidian authentication in the formalization of substance.

2. With our heremeneutic circling back then, applied to the concern for our group systemic homeostasis, we attend yes, to the clearing away of misleading language games in the service of its truth, yes; but also endeavor to facilitate the philosophically essential, necessary liberation from mere facticity and suspension of disbelief into the protracted, time immemorial significance of our systemic patterns, so that we can coherently and competently defend ourselves where the Cartesian position fails for its skeptical non-recognition of these patterns and relational interdependence.

3. Because our relative interests in maintaining the broad patterns of our social systemic homeostasis can go beyond what is always verifiable in a moment or episode, or even by close relations, it is necessary to have that second liberation - that liberation from mere facticity and capacity for willing suspension of disbelief in narrative coherence; it is necessary to capture our broader coherence through capacity to provide criteria for the homeostasis of these broader patterns.

In circling beyond mere arbitrary facts - beyond the arbitrary, reflexive upshot of objecivism, its limited accountability a key reason for the disruption of homeostatic patterns - into the broad concern for our group systemic homeostasis of praxis, it is necessary thus, after the continued effort to sort out our language games in the service of both truth and liberation from mere facticity, to deploy terms conducive to that liberation in a positive sense -

GW observes that an ethnic group, thought of as a nation, particularly in the radical etymological sense of the word nation - i.e., natio, implying birthing and designating a people born from the inside-out - is not a “union” in a readily observable, empirical sense; and indeed it is not in that sense.

Nevertheless, like other left concepts concerned with social grouping and accounts as they are, beneath their ordinary language, “unionization”, but unionization especially, facilitates the less-empirical aspects conducive to framing, structuring and funding the liberation from mere facticity and the maintenance of our full group systemic homeostasis - not only for the settled social perspective on both elite and rank and file accountability, but as it ensconces those speculative possibilities for social systemic, homeostatic inspiration and anchoring - i.e. against skepticism, as your place is not constantly buffeted by the brute facts and unaccounted-for challenges from persons from within and from without of your bio-system, as if these travails are no-account forces of nature.

A critical difference in the unionization of left nationalism (as opposed to Marxism) being that the fundamental union bounds are the nation; the issue of “wallpapering-over” important “subsidiary class” differences is countered with a proper niche ecology, a commensurable symbiosis of subsidiary guilds - which provide criteria enough for accountability while being fluid enough to allow for individual judgement and movement.

GW adds the refrain that “you can’t start a religion in your garage”, and indeed, you cannot if you try to do it all alone there, but you can start one with other people, beginning with a determination of sacrament in agreement between people as to what check points, specificatory structures and control variables are necessary to maintain the time immemorial pattern of your people, to help maintain incentive and faith in their bio system…

Unionization and its less-empirical aspect also affords formation of parallel nations, independent of physical, territorial constraint.

....

After unionized boundaries, I argue that the option to take monogamy seriously, “unnatural” as some may argue that that is, is a reasonable and important candidate for a social systemic control variable - that is among other matters that I will begin to set out for operationalization a little later..

...to be included along with a concept of social unionization and social accountability - now, there has been marked objection to the social end of the hermeneutic circle from the old timers of MR, having remained in reaction to the exaggerated, distorted form of YKW Leftism deployed unilaterally against Whites.

Echoing that, Heidegger does talk about the enframing, and, indeed, to be maneuvered into inauthenticity is something that can happen from that Cartesian extreme, from the conceptual-social end, and the abusive machinations of the YKW deployed as such, in their shifty, no-account Manichean ruses - obviously.

In the throes of social forces which were acting against natural instinct in emergent authenticity for self preservation, manipulations against the preservation of that and with it his authentic folk, Heidegger brought forth the more empirical end of check-points of individual corporeality against the “they.”

The threat to man does not come in the first instance from the potentially lethal machines and apparatus of technology. The actual threat has already affected man in his essence. The rule of Enframing threatens man with the possibility that it could be denied to him to enter into a more original revealing and hence to experience the call of a more primal truth. Thus, where Enframing reigns, there is danger in the highest sense.

There are two things to consider here. The first is our primal truth - which has two features: thrownness, a kind of arbitrariness the taken for granted of which given condition is something other than foundation, and then the condition there, of our human nature - i.e., in praxis.

To stay stagnant there, in that concern singularly against Enframing - viz. an epistemologically erroneous (because it does not account for human nature) theory of the conceptual, social end, would be inauthentic to our being as well. It would be to miss that point of co-evolutionary and contemporaneous process of hermenteutics, to misunderstand the post modern, post Cartesian project, which is to integrate theoria and praxis as conceived to defend peoplehoods, group differences - it would be an Enframing language game at the other end, in the inauthentic altercasting as Right and Alt-Right reaction against our social group interests, justice and accountability thereof.

Frankly, after that, I am not overly concerned to be faithful to every jot and tittle of Heidegger, because that - integration (or negotiation) of theoria and praxis - is either what his project is ultimately concerned with (and that was certainly the task at hand to begin with; whether he dealt with it satisfactorily is another matter) or his project is off the mark in terms of our requirements.

Heidegger adds:

Everyone keeps his eye on the Other first and next, watching how he will comport himself and what he will say in reply. Being-with-one-another in the “they” is by no means an indifferent side-by-side-ness in which everything has been settled, but rather an intent, ambiguous watching of one another, a secret and reciprocal listening-in. Under the mask of “for-one-another”, an “against-one-another” is in play.

There are one of two possibilities with regard to this statement - either taking it out of context contingency or that Heidegger would be guilty of something of a reification: Personally, I’ve known a steady and homogeneous White system where accounts requested, people listening-in and being-against in any preoccupied sense are rare. On the other hand, I don’t want to say that the extreme of a gossip hell, or having to be pre-occupied as if accountability reaches into your private thoughts (Jesus’ “even if you think of breaking a commandment” is infamous in that regard; as is some Marxist practice) - is of no concern and not likely; as I’ve experienced that nightmare as well. It’s just that I feel safe in saying that it is not the only possible general social treatment of accountability. In that regard, the ethno-nation (or even its larger cities) offer a relief where villages, small cities, groups and tribes can be a nightmare.

Again, there is the matter of “as need be” to be addressed, specifically here the distinction between accounts offered and accounts requested - in the latter regard, the rule to be established in the optimality of paradigmatic conservatism is that accounts requested should be kept to a minimum for ordinary folks regarding their personal affairs and opinions. Indeed Soviet communism can be taken as example of the other extreme, of “too much accountability from the people.” Accounts requested can be legitimately kept to a minimum when people are secure in their national boundaries, along with a clear and simple understanding of minimal basic expectations and obligations; a homogeneous society has been shown to help in that regard of social trust and participation as well.

It is in that regard, hermeneutic flexibility for optimality and grace in accordance with necessity in the philosophy of bio-social systems and their negotiation, reveals contentions by contrast of its being “clunky” or “bean counting” as idiotic.

I am always loath to mention Heidegger in this context, as it tends to degenerate into a game of “gotcha.” While I am confident in my understanding of the general assignment Heidegger was taking on, I am not concerned if I am perfectly translating every jot and tittle, because if his project weren’t a matter of how to deal with praxis in broad stroke, I’d consider him to be misguiding.

If, as it seems in Being and Time, he prioritizes concern to defend the individual authenticity against the they, whereas I would prioritize the defense of our group-sociality more, at this time, I really don’t care if I am a bit at odds there with Heidegger - since I take heremenetics as a means always to circle back, including to individual authenticity; if one cannot see that the protection of our group is necessary for the protection of our individualites, then I am really not interested in their opinion, especially since I am accountable for the protection and circling back to this individuality; open, where not indicating ways to come back to it as need be ...the project, Heidegger’s project as well, is about how to integrate theoria with Human nature; and our human nature is in praxis; there is a non-foundational thrownness to that, interactive even as emergent, which we did not choose, but which we might, if we are true our nature, marshal into coherent group and individual defense; without loss of fairness or full humanness to both genders - I will explain.
......

Pardon my having kept the comments closed - it was only for a few days. I didn’t want to digress for contentions before I made some basic points, particularly as some of that which has come might answer those questions and contentions. However, yes, comments are now opened, as to keep them closed would be against the philosophy to which I subscribe.

Indeed, as I will add, it is rather the habits of some of the old timers who would altercast me into someone who thinks of himself as a Moses figure, supposed to receive pure and perfect commandments from god, unassailable, and then transmit them somehow, non-interactively directly to you, the audience; that models this pseudo authority figure to be ridiculed and brought down, for one thing because he (supposedly) thinks he can do this all alone; uncorrectable. Indeed, if they can find anything that I say to be a bit off, then they will try to treat the whole as if it is off. Their will is that bad.

As ever, I want to scream, “hello”, we have something called the internet now, you can interact much more than before with media sources of knowledge, to help shape and craft our knowledge. Unfortunately, participatory good will of that kind has been in short supply; the grounds here have been fraught with disinformational trolling and contentiousness - a legacy of modernist philosophy: as if the endless putting of resources at risk, buffeting and criticism, skepticism alone, will leave only solid foundational knowledge in its wake and divert nothing of merit. In anticipation of that modernist fallacy and misdirection which has pervaded here, I need this language to come into being, as Heidegger says it does, in writing; to dwell a few more days unperturbed til I’ve rounded it out with the rest of this White post modern gestalt, so to speak.

Lets elaborate in regard to this critique of practical reason; with it, the “invisible hand” that would divinely or purely somehow, supposedly free of praxis, sort-out the “natural order” of our peoples, their nations…

The quest for foundational purity has the implication of blindering to the fact of interactivity (which we are never apart from) and our evolution. The insistence on this pure quest as a priority also implies, falsely, that we don’t have enough information to begin, while in fact we have a better than adequate hypothesis about who we are and what our homeostasis would require. And even were that not the case, particularly given our circumstance, it would be incumbent upon us to heed A.N. Whitehead’s remarks that “one cannot continually investigate everything but must be able to rest content taking some things for granted” ....and in that regard, “even a false or inadequate hypothesis is better than no hypothesis ...that one must begin from a given state of partial knowledge.”

We are not standing in the way of science, we are in fact providing the grounds for its being - its nerd labs have a place in our social philosophy like no other. And scientific quest for foundations and rationale, myopic though it can be when taken to an extreme, treated as mutually exclusive to socially relative issues, does nevertheless tend to yield invaluable help - for example, in showing the genetic Jewish identity behind Ashkenazi crypsis and behavior; but even before the time of genetic science, Jews were distinguishable by behavior, allegiance and knowledge of parentage, etc., there were some things to go-by.

The term “check points” (for an example, select a prettier term that does the same thing, if you will; perhaps “points of accountability” would be better) serves to remind if not require us to be accountable to use our agency for engaged participation in the relative interests of our homeostasis, in our people-centric focus, encouraging broader social responsibility for the reconstruction of our social group system - we are not after just a foundational “periodic chart of the ontological elements” - as if we are just a closed system, mere facts the description of which is for the sheer novelty of it, since “there can be no other” - thus, of no real practical use; and it can sit on Descartes dusty shelf along-side the bible, waiting to provide its Levantine “social guidance.”

Accountability points and specificatory structures rather sensitize and attune our attention to our homeostasis and away from forgetfulness and habitual detachment.

Accountability points, unionized, will of necessity invoke a moral order. The terms of morality cannot be avoided - there will always be matters obligatory, legitimate or prohibited - and this must not be associated with the misguidance from our systemic homeostasis that comes of the affectative imposition of Christianity (the golden rule, ugh) and the antagonism of the other two Abrahamic religions: they provide some of the most profoundly misguiding terminology to be sorted from our semiotics; as the YKW seek to bring us under Noahide law and disintegrate unionized opposition from the gentiles by their endless un-differentiation (as GW observes) of our non-Jewish peoples.

Be all that as it may, there will always be matters obligatory, legitimate or prohibited - there is no avoiding that, has never been a culture that did not have those three component rule structures, and people will always need and be looking for rule structures to go by - we allow others to structure and impose these rules at our own risk - we need rather for these rules to correspond with our social systemic homeostasis. We become vulnerable to being mislead in that regard when we try to proceed in a “purely naturalistic way”, “beyond morals”, or in some other pure, objectivist, univesalizing theoretical manner by our objectivist detachment in rational blindness to our relative interests, ensconced as they are in social interaction despite us - despite understandable distaste for sometimes messy and imperfectly predictable reflexive effects.

But that is our human condition and thus morality is more a matter of practicality (viz. social praxis - the social world and phronesis - practical judgment) than objective foundations. Though praxis (the social world) is relativized by the interests of peoples, that does not mean that it is unstable and unimportant. In fact, the insistence upon pure objectivism has a reflexive effect of hyper-relativism - it is often the culprit, in fact, for that hyper-relativism - because it tends to disrupt the relative but stabilizing criteria of praxis, i.e. of social criteria.

It is significant that Kant entitles his major work on the topic of morals, “Critique of Practical Reason.” Now Kant is guilty of Cartesianism himself in trying to anchor our moral system in universal principles - but his heart was in the right place in trying to save our peoples from the arbitrary flux upshot of the Empiricists. Nevertheless, one can see that when addressing the grand matter of morality, he was attempting to critique Aristotle’s caveat that moral issues are a matter of phronesis - practical judgement - as they occur within Praxis, the interactive, reflexive, agentive social world that does not perfectly comply with the lineal rule structures of theoria. Nevertheless, one tends to find rigorous gems in the quest of those with intelligence who persevere in Cartesian anxiety, whether a GW, a Bowery or a Kant (in that regard, GW’s “Of Being” is a good idea).

Just as Kant says that it’s easier to return to sensible evidences in an instant and it is harder to rebuild a fallen principle, and therefore principles are more important to maintain, so too is it a reasonable priority to maintain the “principle” of our group homeostasis. While we are of necessity defending ourselves as a social classification since that is the basic unit of analysis on which we are being attacked and socially engineered, nobody is, or should be saying, that the hermeneutic circle should not circle back to provide for empirical correction and individual authenticity; and with that, hermeneutics circles back the issues that GW is correctly vigilant for, viz. emergentism, contemplation of psychological interiority and its gauge for authenticity.

There are also ways to fend-off Bowery’s horror scenario of eusociality, which Modernity, hypergamy, war and over collectivization can augur. I am quite aware that this circumstance can de-sex a large segment of males and that it can relegate them to functional units in something more characteristic of a de-individualized, dehumanized, i.e., eusocial group organism, but I would not look to a purer form of individualistic nature to correct for that, nor an institutionalization of a literal fight to the death. There are ways to test natural merit, to protect individual skills and group interests without lethal variable. As a social rule characteristic of our nature, Augustinian variables ought to determine who lives and who dies, not Manichean innovation (which the pairwise duel comes down to - you’ve got a trick on your opponent - perhaps inborn, which is only being selected for against our better nature) since what part a person plays in our group homeostasis and what hidden resource their genetics may contribute may not be readily apparent.

Again, the naturalism of Hitler absent the corrections of praxis is more prone to collectivization (Tillich 1961), just as the materialism of communism is; whereas a hermeneutic conception of praxis and group accountability, including to the interests of sundry individual members and their differences offers correction against that, as the liberation from mere facticity also liberates the position of members through the protection of agreement to accountability of ‘non-empirical’ boundaries; which, in freedom, one may choose to transgress, but not at the cost to the freedom of the inherent native group; itself having the right to be free from the imposition of alien DNA of the individual’s unaccountable whim - as Bowery and Renner have discussed - the transgressors are rather free to go join the foreign people that they chose to intermarry with, in their/or another accepting nation, and not impose their burdens upon virtuous but shunted natives. Now, that is a notion that probably cannot be implemented purely, for various reasons, but it can be implemented broadly, in ways that we will discuss.

One of my most original and important contributions, which I’ve frequently discussed, is in fact conceived to address the problem of recentralizing our social boundaries against the de-classifying rupturing of modernity and Jewish machination.

Modernity and the YKW both significantly impact and rupture the classificatory boundaries [the less empirical bounds, nevertheless requisite to unionization of our nation/social group/racial systemic homeostasis]; and this rupturing distorts gender relations as that classification emerges defacto and default perceptual classification among perceptual classifications that people have to go by in order to organize their lives; which, in turn, only further ruptures social classifications as gender differentiation becomes distorted, exaggerated (or subject of liberal reaction with a “myriad of gender autobiographies”) with the puerile female exponentially pandered-to, but especially from the YKW, for her power in partner selection, gate keeping - her predilection is unduly and exponentially increased in this liberal scheme - her baser, unsocialized inclinations are also exponentially pandered-to; her base inclination to incite genetic competition in liberalization, further rupturing social classificatory bounds, as the YKW especially, pander to the puerile female inclination to the base incitement to arbitrary competition; particularly taking advantage of incitement by the other default classificatory tropism in modernity - blacks and their highly “empirical” and episodic assertion, appearing very much the victor of modern disorder (or her potential Mulatto offspring) to her puerile estimation; in a circumstance where broad pattern evaluation seems futile; and that incitement to Mulatto supremacism/atavism is given institutionalized backing by the YKW as they make White people didactically live up to that Modernist-Lockeatine-Empirical - individualistic rule structure a-la-Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in the form of anti-racism and Civil Rights (“rights”, i.e., for the PC coalition only, but especially blacks). Thus, individual “civil rights” are weaponized against White group classification/unionization, to exacerbate their disordering and rupturing - a situation of exponential disorder of group classification through its rupture in a modernity of Lockeatine empirical blindness to group classification; of modernist disorder which appears very much a matter of “natural empirical law” - to which no real American man or robust Western man could object. In response to this the puerile White male, following YKW instigation, also panders to females, tying to pretend that he is above it all and that its all a matter of the pure nature of gender relations, pulling a Matt Forney, overcompensates, tries to act like he is above the necessity for left nationalist classification (then promptly flees to nations with stable populations); or he pulls a Nowicky, pretending that real men are unperturbed by the increased instigation of gender relations and miscegenation.

Absent those bounds, the YKW (in Alinsky style) making us live by the Lockeatine rules of our social classification being mere fiction, weaponized against as “racism”, not only is our psychological requirement left primarily with the classification of gender, thus magnified as a priority in lieu of race, “our females” are competed-for and pandered-to from all directions; the pandering acts on and exponentiates the baser female propensity to incite genetic competition, forming a charmed loop of modernity which only serves to further break down homeostatic functions of group classification.

These modernist, right-wing and YKW forces are acting against our midtdasein (being amidst our group), particularly White male being amidst our group - implicating the significance of our capacity for social group classification, being-within it a very low grumble on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and a highly significant motive by contrast to its rupture, e.g. by “women’s liberation to self actualization”, “Civil Rights” and the Vietnam Draft.

Because we are by nature a liberal people, who are distinguished by our quest for realization of our truth and achievement in self actualization (who wants to take women by force but some stinking Negro or Abrahamic?), we do not want to take these quests away - we are easily incited, stigmatized and ostracized as males for not being “man enough” for liberal modernity; and yet we must recognize in the singular focus of our typical reactionaries to this incitement to genetic competition, a Cartesianism, particularly by way of American civic nationalism, that requires correction for its myopic empirical prioritization (Cartesian individual observer detached from group consequence) that itself is a large contributor to the rupturing of our social systemic group homeostasis.

These destabilizing forces are to be corrected, I propose, by re-evaluating, re-ordering, organizing and systematization of “The Hierarchy of Needs to Self Actualization.” Unlike its self centered permutation through Maslow and the human potential movements of the 1960s and 70s, the connections of Self Actualization’s facilitation by and of our optimal social systemic homeostasis are to be accounted for - our Socialization, delimited social systemic classification is to be taken as as serious concern and reality to look after. Accountability of “Self Actualization,” to its indebtedness to the social group and its historical capital is further stabilized, as we said, by the profound recognition of the organic basis for our being, in midtdasein - being in social classification; and institutionally stabilized in the appreciation and reward for the place of Routine practice/ and Sacrament - to connect the episode with our profound, time in memorial social group patterns.

This is not “clunky.” These are topoi, to be administered with the grace that hermeneutics affords to negotiate optimal social group homeostasis, individuation and gender relations. These specificatory structures of being, socialization, routine/sacrament and self actualization should not be hard to promote, as each feature is useful and enjoyable; and necessary in order to negotiate socialization, individuation, fair and humane gender relations.

This new idea of actualization will include critique of the over-adulation of alphas - reappraisal of maxima and optima, beta and alpha (this is a note, marking an issue that I must come back to as it will well-up to confront me again otherwise).

Regarding the need for the liberation from mere facticity in service of coherence, agency and warrant in broad pattern accountability then, it is meaningful to come back to the concept of “the left”, exactly for its being stereotyped as the merely conceptual, hypothetical, “in opposition to brute nature and reality” position - a straw man supposed to be our great nemesis - so the Alt-Right and its kosher backers would have us believe, and encourage reactionaries to maintain.

As we properly apply its conceptual structure to our interests, it would not be “anti-nature” or “unnatural.” It wouldn’t be anti-individual either - but it would recognize purist and puritanical concern for “sovereign individual and nature” as symptomatic of reaction and misplaced priorities at this time, going off terribly to one direction of what is within our hermeneutic scope and survey. We can and will circle back to those focuses, but as we’ve said, that is not the most important issue now - the problem now is our group systemic classification and its maintenance against disruption. And again, hermeneutic “narrative” while a function of editing, is not the same as “fiction.”

You don’t have to call yourself White left nationalist or even left ethnonationalst. I’ll call myself that and explain as often as necessary why; I’ll also note when you are doing left ethno nationalism when you are doing it, which you will be doing if you are getting ethnohomeostais to work.

One more note before going further, the term “White” most consistently means people of European descent. It is obviously more practical to use that term rather than “European” when talking about European diaspora - Europeans outside of Europe. Use the terms with that in mind. If you want to use the term “European” for people of European descent, wherever they may be, that is ok with me, though it might be a little confusing for a time to come.

1. We’re talking about systems, their stasis and homeostasis when we’re talking about a concern to maintain our people.

2. One of the most essential deceptive language games that the enemies of our would-be ethno-national stasis and homeostasis have deployed in misdirection against it has been to compel over identification with the ordinary language beneath the term “right” (or with the idea that the terms right and left are meaningless - which, in effect, falls into default identification with the right). Corresponding with the term is a precarious and unstable pursuit of pure warrant in objective truth despite relative social interests and accountability thereof against the “left” - left populist ethno-nationalism, if you will - i.e, against the socially unionized delimitation that would provide for relative rule structure of accountability to our social systemic homeostasis against elite betrayal; and provide sufficient incentive and accountability through that criteria to maintain loyalty of rank and file and our marginals as well for their part in our social systemic homeostasis. In fact thus, the social organizing principles beneath ordinary language of the left are meaningful and important. We can observe there a “wisdom of the language” having come back to this in service of clarification - of necessity for the aforementioned impervious antagonism and gas lighting of right wing reactionaries and the YKW purveyors of their language. You may object that the “the right” has been associated with ultra nationalism; and it is true that (((the media))) has made this association, but the right is also associated with narrowing and destabilizing objectvist “principles” (Christianity, sheer Darwinsim, deracinating facticity) over the unionized populist interests of relative left ethnonationalism - a concept which is rendered invisible by the confusion of “Left” with “Liberal”, i.e. associated with what is an oxymoron to left ethno-nationalism - the scabbing of would-be unionized, ethno-national bounds.

Having achieved hegemony in the seven power niches particularly after the 2008 bailout, the YKW, a small minority world wide, have had clear motive to co-opt White right reaction, to promulgate the confusion in right wing populism, to identify “the Left”, paradoxically, with liberalsm; i.e. with the antagonism to reasonably, i.e., ethnonationally delimited compassion.

With the YKW’s distortions of the social concept, representing “the left” as a non-national liberal amorph, empowered by encouraging “activists” to fly in the face of facts if necessary, in order to overthrow through liberalizing of “White privilege” - a Jewish concept wallpapering over their cryptic participation in elite ranks, and the fact that rank and file Whites are not necessarily overly privileged or unwilling to be accountable. But in this denial of their possibility for their left populist interests, they tend to go into reactionary pursuit of unassailable warrant, which moves to a narrowing myopic concern* for pure, objective truth, nature, facts and principles against this “the left” - the otherwise benign and helpful semiotics beneath its ordinary language - social organization through unionized inclusion and exclusionary delimitation - buried beneath their (YKW) exaggerated relativistic rhetoric that is weaponized specifically against Whites - “a singularly privileged class” intransigently bounded (and there’s your “proof”, viz. in reaction) such that the unionized others are entitled in coalition (e.g. “people of color”) to liberalize, i.e. rupture our bounds and borders to no end (a liberalization that is called “the left”, which is in fact, an internationalist, non-national amorphous “left”); with that, against our would-be means to accountability through unionization and delimitation of our relative social interests; as that would, conceptually, require accountability from those of us in powerfully influential positions to our systemic homeostasis; and accountability to/of our rank and file for basic needs and rewards; requiring of the full class (full ethno-nation) loyalty and social accountability for their part in its maintenance.

The narrowing objective warrant sought by Rightist reaction applies to group advocacy as well, the narrowing function squeezing specific nationality and specific elite overseers to seek narrow supremacist warrant over and against the broad sphere of social interactive interests, of their own and other nations, where they do advocate nationalism: in the case of the Alt-Right, they are being used by Jewish coalition building tactics - the requirement for entry into their big tent is that you have to maintain some sort of anti-social stigma, some sort of anti-social classificatory function - against “the left” - because that’s good for Jews at this point, and for those right-wingers who’ve sold out to them.

3. Because our relative interests in the broad patterns and what is necessary to maintain our social systemic homeostasis can go beyond what is always verifiable in a moment or episode or even by close relations, it is necessary to have a second liberation, from mere facticity, to capture our broader coherence through capacity for willing suspension of disbelief in narrative coherence and as such provide criteria to look after the homeostasis of these broader patterns.

As this less-empirical end requires coherent linguistic and conceptual rule structures for its management, for our group systemic homeostasis, it is necessary, therefore, to sort out our language games - not only from “The They” as Heidegger says, in speaking about the ill fit and otherness of third person concerns. Rather, in speaking quite so abstractly he was perhaps taking for granted his group, and its part in inadvertently imposing upon individual, authentically manifest nature. We must be even more radical and concrete in sorting out habitual but misdirecting language and terminology, not only the they of our third persons as they go like right wing and liberal lemmings against “the left”; especially as terminology and both modern and post modern concepts have been abused by our enemies, notably Jewish and liberal interests, against us. But a full array of their terminological and conceptual abuse has to be sorted out, and here, in prior posts, it has been.

In fundamental terms, again, “Right” would be properly defined with a tendency for reactive narrowing from broad social accountability to union bounds, to less socially accountable spheres of interest, seeking warrant in facticity or principle, pure objectivity, pure nature, specific national, individual or narrow group power, without the mess of praxis, the agentive, social interactive world. With as brief account as possible (“that’s just the way it” is, is one of their favorites, “might makes right” another, “master-slave”, “supreme /inferior” “equality non-equality” still others), if giving any account to relative group systemic interests and ecology. It is perfectly understandable why Whites would react to seek absolutely unassailable objective foundations given the verbal skill and Manichean trickery of Jewry as it takes advantage of our nature and predilection to take on the “devils” of natural, Augustinian problems.

Right wingishness is not only the terminus of our system, in stasis confronted by our aboriginal circumstance, where other groups and their manicheansim were not the primary terminus - where natural cycles and death were the terminus. It is also a habitual reaction, as objectivity has worked for us before, as we were not especially looking after our relative interests as a people, we were looking primarily for what worked against nature.

In that predilection we are susceptible to fall into habits of the Right, to fall prey to arbitrary reaction as opposed to looking after our relative social group interests; we are susceptible to being maneuvered into an exaggerated form of that reaction - so much so that they, right wing reactionaries, react to what I am saying as if its more of the same from the YKW, even though it is copiously, markedly and importantly different - it is crucial for our ethnonational interests in fact; but Jewish and disingenuous right wing/liberal trolls will only encourage this reactionary misapprehension. “The Alt-Right” is rather a big tent the requirement for entry of which, i.e, for having your own “tent,” requires you to have and to accept the membership of other tents which maintain these stigmatic and easily manipulable reactionary positions: Jews may participate in our definition, Jesus/Abrahamism, Hitler/scientism, obvious stigma otherwise, like nutty conspiracy theory against “the left.”

READ MORE...

Tim Snyder’s 20 lessons looked at from the reality of our present situation - ethno-national oppression by universalized liberal tyranny.

YouTube, “ON TYRANNY: 20 LESSONS FROM THE 20TH CENTURY”, Published by Arts & Ideas, 17 June 2017:

1. Tim Snyder (34:00): the first (lesson) is don’t obey in advance - if there’s anything that historians of Nazi Germany agree upon, and they don’t agree on everything…. but one of the things historians tend to agree upon is the significance of consent in 1933.

Now lets consider that from the perspective of the decades following World War II. The hegemonic liberalism and Cultural Marxist political correctness that only grew with each decade from 1945 - 2008, and still prevails, but culminates now in the newly promulgated controlled opposition: the controlled right-wing reaction. The forced reactive alignment of the Alternative Right with Jewish interests (not only right-wing Jewish, but right-wing Jewish led interests upon their attainment of fuller hegemony in the seven power niches) as the proposed “solution” to their Jewish created problem - a problem the solution to which is to be marketed in prevailing “anti-leftism”, a precarious objectivity of reactionaries (desperate for any acknowledgement of empirical reality after the boondoggles and abuses of post modern relativism, social constructionism and hermeneutics) leveraged on an “anti-PC” platform which they share with their kosher fellow travelers, whether they call themselves Alt-Lite, Alt-Right, Anti-PC, Paleocon, “true conservatives”, “Judeo-Christians”, etc.; together with their complicit and instrumental goyim, elitist right-wing sell-outs to Jewish aligned interests.

The World War II generation was indoctrinated with consent giving - “you can’t fight city hall.” Their children, the boomers, didn’t have to give consent, didn’t dare oppose anti-racist politics after Hitler did his thing. They were on the side of “the winners”, to be grateful and put their nose to the grindstone - work in compliance with signal command to keep the S.S. Mulatto Supremacist sailing on course, smoothly. Though it loomed ominously over the horizon, coming into purview of generation Xers’ who were given the same command - “go to work and keep the ship on course” - despite the fact that consent was making less and less sense - what the signal augured and its early manifestations were catastrophic but unspeakable by way of televitz - its one way channel to your head told you resistance was futile; indicating the seven Jewish controlled choke points were growing in power to maintain your “consent” - and how they pandered to females, their inclination to incite genetic competition and derive short term power from the increasingly liberalized situation - how many times you were lambasted by feminists, or “traditional” western women, for that matter, that this (liberalism) was reality, to which you must acquiesce (because it served their short term convenience while they paranoically and brutally preempted imagined beta uprisings that they “saw coming” from afar). There were plenty of right wing dolts willing to “man-up” to the “reality” of liberalism if you didn’t (e.g. President Bill Clinton), willing to pander for a piece of ass, giving their tacit consent to liberal tyranny - and now the alt right girls find it convenient to sound this right-wing “reality call” to “man-up”, to rid them of the “dead wood” - none of these hippie low grumbles about “being” and “what’s in it for me?” in a draft to kill Asians. In this liberal tyranny you are supposed to be willing to die at the behest of their right wing liberal and Jewish sponsored interests.

Think of what the casual liberals, the feminists, the “trad women”, the anti racists, what the black advocates were trying to put across under the manufactured consent of the YKW and their right-wing liberal cohorts ..what they were doing to you - enlisting your ethnic genetic interests in servitude to the good ship Mulatto, gate-kept by the newly increased one-up position of young females (in partner selection), increased as it were in the disorder of modernity, their base inclination to incite genetic competition more prone than ever, pandered-to exponentially from all comers (but especially by the YKW) - they become articulate and authoritarian within the disorder of modernity, a disorder which their Jewish and brown sisters encouraged them to maintain for narrow and short term gain against the bogey White man - the amazing extremes of abuse they went in hyperbolic liberalism, “anti-racism” institutionalized and “normalized” against the EGI of White men - going beyond any reasonable law and human treatment, the lengths they went in order to compel “consent.”

“Consenting” to the rule-structures of America, such as they are, leading toward the destruction of the ethnic genetic interests of normal White men - their servitude to the reckless panmixia of universalized liberal tyranny. While betas would make for relationships and systemic homeostasis, the bastards of hypergamy leave chaos and systemic vulnerability.

Tim Snyder Ibid:

When we imagine a Hitler or a Stalin, we imagine that they come striding on stage as fully empowered super villains, capable of doing anything. That’s not how it happens at all. In the case of Hitler there was an election in the background, which his party won. There was a legal appointment to power and then there were other things but what was necessary for Hitler and what is almost always necessary, because there are almost never pure revolutions, is consent.

Consent doesn’t have to be by voting or by marching, consent can be just not doing anything. Looking away. Saying that its normal.  Saying that it can’t happen here. Saying that the institutions are going to save us ..and doing nothing. That’s consent. That’s the kind of consent that authoritarian regimes need.

They need some active participation, but mostly they need that kind of consent.

And so the hardest thing, and the crucial thing that enables all the other forms of disobedience, is Not to obey in advance. And it’s harder than it sounds. Its harder than it sounds, it sounds easy but it’s actually the hardest one. Why is it so hard? Because psychologically, this is what we do. We look around for cues as to who has authority and then we react.

I was introduced so I knew that I was supposed to give a talk, so here I am. You, as audience, know what you’re supposed to do. And you generally do it and 99 percent of the time that’s appropriate; and so it’s hard, it’s physically hard to say wait, this is not normal. The apparent rules do not apply. But that’s a precondition for being free, it’s a precondition for being a citizen, in fact. You have to feel that discomfort. You say wait, there’s something not right here. And now I’m just going to be a stick in the mud until I figure out what I can do myself - so that’s rule number one - don’t obey in advance.

Our audience may be gaining a clue as to why I do not consent to the “Alt-Right” and its right wing alignment with Jewish interests against, “the left.” They are effectively controlled and blindered (through objectivism) opposition to the universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism. Just as I am slowly gaining more sympathy for my younger permutation, as I spun my wheels unable to give consent to this universalized liberal tyranny, despite the vast hegemony, including our most precious “resources” largely arrayed against my dissent.

What was spooky is that White people really, honestly could not understand my dismay as I witnessed horrors unfolding all around me. They gave consent all over the place indeed. Why didn’t I just put my nose to the grindstone to keep the SS Mulatto Supreme running smoothly? Why don’t you just accept this, the imposition of men who have nothing you want and who take what is most important to you? - inflicting significant casualties and destroying its sustaining way of life in broad form before too long.

Tim Snyder Ibid:

The reason why number one (don’t obey in advance) is so important - if you don’t get that one right, then psychologically, you’re done for. Because if you don’t disobey in advance then you normalize. You normalize the world beyond you, which means normalizing yourself. It means adjusting to what’s coming from the outside world. Psychologically, that is extremely hard to un-do later.

And politically, to make matters worse, here comes the point about time, historians love points about time - if authoritarian regimes are to be resisted, they have to be resisted within the first 6 - 18 months. If they are not, then you lose the chance to do anything. The devastating psychological-political connection is when you say, well, it can’t happen here…or well, I’ll do something tomorrow, or well my friends aren’t doing anything yet. ...and then the time passes and the tragedy is, you have lost time that you cannot get back. So that’s why lesson number one is lesson number one.

2. Lesson number two is support institutions (basically, the state tends to provide some recourse against arbitrary abuse of power).

Snyder basically observes the social constructionist perspective, that institutions require social construction, people do not take stands alone and cannot succeed alone. This is the kind of knowledge (proper social constructionism, hermeneutics, post modernity and leftist social unionizing) that the YKW want to keep us away from in order to maintain their universalized liberal tyranny - “consent and be on side with the objective reality of the Alt-Right White man!” Join your kosher brethren against “the left”, for the hermeneutic circle would never circle to empirical verification, reality testing and pragmatic correction, would it, in its anti-Cartesianism, would it? (oops, that’s right, it would).

This next lesson lines up nicely with the right wing’s control over reaction to PC’s hyperbole. You don’t want any of that willing suspension of disbelief stuff, nah! None of that coherence, accountability, agency and warrant….  just the hard facts for a real (stupid and incoherent and socially irresponsible) man… we’ll do the thinking for ye, nose back to grindstone techno-slave…my daughter’s Mulatto child is getting cold in her house.

Tim Snyder Ibid:

10. Truth: “What is truth?” - I’m trained-up in philosophy, but… in politics the notion that there is some kind of factual world out there is pre-condition for everything that we take for granted… Who understands this, maybe we don’t. We can say hey, what is truth? Maybe Trump’s tweets are just as valid as the New England Journal of Medicine. Maybe you think that’s cool, that’s fine, that shows that you are cynical and great - like hey, doesn’t he have access to his own truth? Isn’t it just my narrative and your narrative, isn’t life just a story? My point is that in politics, that way lies doom.

And who understands that? The authoritarians understand that. The fascists denied every day empirical truth in order to affirm the myth of an organic unity of the people - not all people but “the” people. The communists denied your every day experience in truth, or rather they sacrificed it, to what they saw as the one truth, the utopian future which justifies doing whatever in the present.

Modern authoritarians don’t have these visions, but they still go after the truth and they go after it according to a three part scheme that is so widespread that it might as well literally be a handbook.

1) The first part is that you filled the public space without any conscience. You fill the public space with lies (Tomasz Marcin Pacocha) and contradictions and you don’t acknowledge that there is such a thing as a lie or contradiction. You don’t acknowledge truth standards at all - that’s step one.

2) Step two is that you say it’s the journalists who lie. They’re the professional liars. Not me, they’re the fake news peddlers, them.

3) And then step three is, if you win, then people say, ‘well, maybe he’s right, what is truth, who knows? You have your story, I have my story…...I’m just gonna watch Netflix’ ...and “I’m just gonna watch Netflix’ is basically what Putin has tattood on his thigh.

“I’m just gonna watch Netflix” is basically how Russian style authoritarianism works, Russian post modernism, our untruth is better than your untruth,...you create this state of doubt, and if you haven’t noticed it (happening also) in the United States, you’re not getting out enough.

...none of its true, the media, the media, and yet you prefer your own untruth. That’s what modern right wing authoritarianism looks like.

A nationalist will say that it can’t happen here, which is the first step toward disaster….a patriot says that it could happen here but we will stop it.

“What is truth?” -  who understands that creating an atmosphere of hyper relativism, hyper-skepticism spells doom for political opposition. The authoritarians understand that. 

The fascists denied every day empirical truth in order to affirm the myth of an organic unity of the people - not all, people but “the” people

A people doesn’t have to deny empirical reality, but they cannot be beholden to the arbitrary facticty of objectivism to steer their relative interests at all times - there must be at least a modicum of willing suspension of disbelief, taking for granted its narrative virtue - in the relative good of one’s people, if they are to cohere and have a chance to be maintained systemically in a protracted sense against antagonistic and oblivious forces.

A nationalist will say that it can’t happen here, which is the first step toward disaster….a patriot says that it could happen here but we will stop it.

One problem, difficult problem, is that it has been the matriots who’ve “pre-empted” correction of liberal runaway from a perspective of beta male interests…. because the matriots have been pandered to in their hypergamous aspirations and, as we were saying above, as if we were the bad and scary guys who wanted bad, unfair, “beta uprising”, unjust and unfree things, to take away their choices from them.

And who understands that? The authoritarians understand that - indeed they do, and what they understand and right wing reactionaries, Alternative Right, etc., don’t understand is that when considering post modernity, hermeneutics and social constructionism for themselves, in their high places and among people who know - for their interests (and should be for ours) - is that these conceptual tools do Not deny truth and reality, nor verification, scientific or otherwise; they provide for accountability and social systemic governance.

...saying that [this liberalism, imposed mixing] is normal, that it can’t happen here ...they need mostly consent, even if passive

it’s harder than it sounds; it’s actually the hardest one…psychologically, we look at who has authority and we react… most of the time that’s appropriate..

....it’s hard to say this is not normal, the rules do not apply.

Conditioned as some of our women folk are, they might talk about how a black woman pulling a White woman’s hair is out of bounds, how manspreading should be allowed, but they will not discuss how being forced to live with blacks and under the same governance is inhumane for Whites and should not be given consent from any White person hoping to act responsibly and in broad self interest.

If you don’t disobey [Imposed “tolerance” of liberal, racial imposition] in advance then you normalize in advance.

Tim Snyder:

Then Lesson 18: Be calm when the unthinkable arrives. The sudden disaster that requires the ends of checks and balances, the dissolution of opposition parties. Suspension of freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, is the oldest trick in the Hitlerian book. Do not fall for it.

The Reichstag fire was the moment when Hitler’s goverment - which came to power mainly through democratic means - became the menacing and permanent Nazi regime. It is the archetype of terror management. What matters is that this spectacular act of terror enacted the politics of emergency. Whether or not the Nazis set the fire, Hitler saw the political opportunity - “there will be no mercy now” - anyone standing in our way will be cut down. Hitler’s claim was that the fire was the work of Gemany’s enemies…round up of left wing political parties and placement of them in improvised concentration camps.  ...the authoritarians of today are also terror managers, and if anything they are more creative.

For the Nazis the event that allowed them to take totalitarian control was the Reichstag fire. For our enemies - viz., universalizing liberal totalitarians, the enemies of ethnonationalism - the Reichstag event was the Nazis.

That event happened and allowed universalizing liberal tyrants to take control and smash ethnonationalism, manufacturing consent with hegemonic and near total control.

You might think that I am especially worried about Nazism. I am not at all worried about it as a direct threat. I am only “worried” about it in the sense of misdirecting our efforts into failure in the face of our enemies - their vigilance for a Reichstag event again, whether by way of right-wing reactionaries or false flag, to ostensibly legitimize the further clamp down that might ensue is not half as bad as the disorganization and diffusion of our efforts for rational blindness and the hyper relative upshot of objectivism and natural fallacy - on the moral low ground, in disdain of normal and humanitarian concerns, into the internecine among conflicts that will be instigated by overcoming “bad optics”, “equality”, “social justice.”

Even if universal foundations were possible and believed to be prerequisite of perfect ethno-national guidance, particularly given our crisis, which by definition calls for immediate practical responses; and particularly as that way of pursuing truth and comprehensive serviceability is unnecessary, we cannot abide delays for radical skepticism in service of that end in lieu of what is already clear and indubitable in ethnonational interest.

Pragmatic philosophy has conceptual tools that could serve and save us as ethnonationalists, but it is necessary to wrest their application from civic democracy, taken for granted as a virtue at its onset by its liberal American charter members, and taken over the top in universalizing that application against ethnonationalism by the YKW.

It is not far fetched to believe that they have taken good conceptual tools, exactly which we would need as ethnonationalists, only to apply them against our interests; moreover, taking them so far over-the-top in misapplication as to get a didactic reaction from ethnonationalists - who react by playing opposite day from the tools that we most need - and who, in reaction so overdrawn as to reject its humane virtues, repel and antagonize the would-be sufficient bases of ethnno-nationalists that they might otherwise coordinate with. That is not far-fetched, it is by now highly detectable as standard operating procedure of YKW academia with regard to conceptual tools which would best serve ethnonationalists.

Nevertheless, there are important differences between a philosophy necessary to uphold ethnonationalism as opposed to the philosophy of pragmatism as it has been taken into practice; but these differences are not to be found only after successfully overcoming our fallibility through establishment of universally unassailable foundations for ethnonationalism.

The difference that makes a difference for ethno-nationalists is rather in emphasis and elevation of the concept of indubitabililty - working hypotheses of which there is no reason to doubt as being in ethnonational interests; whether a logic so plain that we may take it for granted, or more complex, but warrantably assertable through operational verifiability - we recognize no need for anything remotely like a relentless critique of these working hypotheses - especially not from those known to hold antagonistic ideologies to ethnonationalism. Thus, we de-emphasize critique and presumed correctability of working ethnonatonalist hypotheses, particularly by those with antagonistic motives and ideologies - markedly, those advocating civic democracy drawing upon genetically universal population; and those advocating imperialistic and supremacist ideologies which would not allow for ethno-nationalist sovereignty.

The principle working hypothesis of ethnonationalism, of course, would be the assertion that in our given genetics we are warranted to go on existing as a nation while our nation is warranted in turn to maintain our genetics inasmuch as we can allow for others to maintain theirs; and vice versa.

We may proceed without the pseudo-prerequisite of universal foundations, recognizing radical skepticism as being misdirected for that aim and an expression of Caresian-anxiety caused by philosophical abuses such as those promulgated under the rubric of pragmatism; alleviating that Cartesian anxiety in fact, by attending in contrast and emphasizing instead pragmatism’s finer virtues, which are three:

1) Acknowledgement of fallibilism and affordance of its participatory correction not only provides ongoing availability of correctability of our knowledge, but it can do so for ethnonationalism as such, providing for a correction of mere pragmatism, and into an institutionalizing of ethnonational delimitation. As such, it allows us to build our ranks qualitatively but also quantitatively in the varied contributions necessary for our community to flourish and defend our people against infiltration, exploitation and genocide.

2) As such, it is not just any correction, but an ongoing correctability which, when coupled with pragmatic delimitation in the aims of correctability to the requirements of our community as ethno-nationalists, can relieve “the Cartesian anxiety” - an anxiety given our antagonists’ relentless attack on our ethno-nationalist community (and yes, they have made me hate that word too, for their didactic abuse of it - the disingenuously vague, merely cultural, non-genetic connotations they’ve associated with the word “community”), we feel a sense of anxiety, a longing for the grand Cartesian either/or. To explain that further..

“But lets turn to the ideas of these thinkers [Pierce, James and Dewey]. I’m going to present a composite picture with some dominant themes. The first theme is anti-foundatonalism and the critique of Cartesianism. Descartes, in his meditations, was searching for a solid foundation for the edifice of knowledge. Something that is indubitable and incorrigible; a truth that can be known with certainty, and that can serve as the real basis or foundation for knowledge. Descartes is haunted by what I have called in some of my writings, “the Cartesian anxiety” - the grand either/or. Either, there is some support for our being, a fixed foundation for our knowledge, or we cannot escape the forces of darkness that envelope us with madness and intellectual and moral chaos. Now, there is a way of reading a good deal of philosophy from its beginning, to its present, and especially from Descartes to the present, as a search for a firm foundation. Whether we take the foundation to be the intellectual grasp of eternal forms, or the direct grasp of immediate empirical intuitions, or the cogito itself.

The appeal to such a basic, rock bottom foundation, cannot be underestimated. In our time, the failure to discover, quote, such a foundation, is said to lead straight right to a defeating relativism, that denies the very foundation of truth, objectivity and moral fealty; and I think unfortunately to a great extent, that still infects a great deal of popular consciousness. ‘If I don’t have something basically to believe in, then anything goes.’

Now the pragmatists, all of them, challenge this way of thinking, challenge this kind of grandeur, they seek to exorcise this Cartesian anxiety; they reject the ideal that there is an absolute grounding or foundation of our being. I think one of the best statements of the pragmatic alternative was succinctly stated by Wolfred Sellers, when he writes, “for empirical knowledge, like its sophisticated extension, science, is rational not because it has a foundation, but because it is a self correcting enterprise that can put any claim into jeopardy, although not all at once.” The alternative to the foundation metaphor is to think of inquiry as a self correcting enterprise; that has no fixed absolute beginning points and no absolute end.”  {1}

What is requisite is what is required, not a universal foundation.

In fact, participation in our fallibilistic correction can include contributions as deep, abiding and scientific as any - i.e., you can, in theory, question anything, even the most verified scientific law; though sane people, in vast percentage may consider you insane, dishonest, at best engaged in some speculative inquiry that will require you to compile verifiable information for you to bring to bear once you’ve completed your rather impractical inquiry; but the skeptic is not owed a privileged position of non-accountability for the initiation of inquiry over that which the community holds fast (the burden of proof is on the skeptic, so to speak, given) that which shows no practical need to change for the rather impractical inquiry; this holds true for many requirements of ethnonationalism -

3) The great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible:

This alternative paradigm, this alternative way of thinking, leads me to a second theme, that I think is characteristic of the pragmatic tradition, and that’s the theme of fallibilism. If inquiry is a self corrective activity, that can put any claim into jeopardy, then this means that all knowledge claims, indeed all validity claims are fallible, in the sense that we never can claim that we know anything with a type of certainty that cannot in principle be questioned. But there is a difference between indubitability and fallibility. Many of our beliefs are indubitable in the sense that we do not doubt them; and indeed may not even be aware that we have such beliefs. But what is indubitable today may turn out to be false tomorrow. Furthermore, fallibilism is not to be confused with epistemological skepticism. Hilary Putnam, who is one of the outstanding pragmatists of our time, and still alive, once wrote that the great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible. Pierce, for example, never doubted that we can know a reality that is independent of ourselves. But he also argued, that we’re never in a position to claim that we know this with absolute certainty ...and I think we can illustrate what is meant by anti-foundationalism and fallibilism by an appeal to an understanding of scientific inquiry (or we could relate it to all kinds of inquiry). The validity of a given theory or explanatory hypothesis in any of the sciences is not dependent on showing that it rests on an absolute foundation, but rather that it is supported by the best empirical evidence and the best reasoning. Every serious scientist today knows, that our current theories and hypotheses will most likely be mollified or even abandoned in light of further inquiry and evidence. So strictly speaking what we take to be true today might turn out to be false. Nevertheless, it would be hyperbolic to say that consequently, we don’t really have any knowledge because any knowledge claim that we make may turn out to be false… rather the pragmatic point is that all knowledge is fallible and all knowledge is corrigible - in principle it can be corrected.

[...]

The question arises, if we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, how to warrant and secure our knowledge claims? And answering this will bring me to our third theme, the importance of the community of inquirers and the sociality of our practices that shape us. {1}

The principle working hypothesis of ethnonationalism, of course, would be the assertion that in our given genetics we are warranted to go on existing as a nation while our nation is warranted in turn to maintain our genetics inasmuch as we can allow for others to maintain theirs; and vice versa.

That our genetic genus and species exist as significantly discreet from others on the planet is indubitable. That sheer skepticism of the “reality” or “significance” or “sufficient grounds to defend” these classificatory differences will jeopardize these differences, particularly when discriminatory rules in their defense is prohibited though anti-racism and anti-discrimination laws is indubitable.

That there are good reasons to want to protect these differences is indubitable.

That game corresponds directly with an attack on any would-be gentile left, i.e., socially accountable, nationalism and unionization; particularly as Jewish interests have reached clear hegemony, they have sufficiently greased the palms of right-wing elitists to be complicit as they take control of right-wing reactionary platforms as much as possible; and have promulgated the vilification of “the left” (“speculative” social organization/unionization) as much as possible to try to counter any gentile social classification gathering as left, social nationalism to challenge their hegemony.

However, whereas the pragmatists stance against foundationalism and Cartesianism and its charge for us to accept fallibilism has been co-opted against us, it also offers us the best tool, weapon in fact, by which to warrant our defense - viz., that anti-racism itself is Cartesian. As such, we may come loaded for bear against the enemies of ethno-nationalism:

The attack on the ethnonational community comes principally from Jewish community’s extrapolation on the prejudice against social classificatory discrimination, with facilitation of their fellow Abrahamics (note that Abahamics are not nationalists, they are imperialists; and we do not have to respect them as nationalists) and the liberal community: The central component of anti-racism is a game of weaponized social classification against gentile ethnonationalism.

This Abrahamic attack is well cast in terms of Manichean as opposed to Augustinian devils. Judaism and Islamics were coming from a place in evolution to compete more against other tribes for resource - thus, how to trick (Manichaen devils) them became a central skill.

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

How is anti-racism Cartesian?

By artificially separating us from engagement in account of our broad, but very real, biological patterns and relative interests as such; as opposed to approximating our natural homeostatic delimitations, we are prohibited from observing these relative delimitation by means of classificatory delimitation - incited for the modicum of vaguery, ambiguity, arbitrariness and contingency at the edges of these classifications; for the history, where classifications were often used by one group to abuse another, we are obligated instead to put these patterns at risk to pure objectivism - on universal foundations - which is Cartesian.

Because our classifications are fallible in the sense that we can interbreed with other races, their communities charges that there are no important differences to warrant discrimination. This is Cartesianism on the empirical side, where the classificatory distinctions are held to be arbitrary and of dubious, if not fictional significance. Furthermore, as our antagonists and liberals confront us with the fact that all races can interbreed, they can and do argue that evolutionary competition and integration will produce good, if not the best results.

It is not practical for our community to try to foundationalize as an objective fact that this cannot possibly, in any way be true; and fortunately, it is not necessary.

The best we can do, and we can do very very well, is make the best arguments (practices, e.g., might of arms, count as “argument” here) in our defense, achieving warranted assertabilty - with operational verifiability of that warrant so much the better.

How do we argue in the face of this Cartesian incitement?

To begin, it is practical is to acknowledge that we can interbreed, but to argue and assert, in the event that their hypothesis just might just be wrong, that it is nevertheless indubitably valid to classify peoples according to genetic groupings for the sake of accountabilty; to keep “reserves” (i.e., the vast majority and their prerogative for a separatist homeland) and with that to build counter-arguments in warranted assertability that we and our qualities are worth saving despite their purported infallible claim that they aren’t. We establish warranted assertion in defense of our classification - as having distinct and long standing evolution, merited to remain in its trajectory, provided we allow for others to maintain theirs. The act of classification and its implementation affords agency thus, coherence, accountability, warrant in inherited social capital and human ecology.

And again there is a crucial difference for ethno-nationalists from academia’s (particularly Gadamer’s/Derrida’s ) crucially abused (as Cartesian) notion of “marginality” - where “marginals” are taken to be those who are from without, outside the classification and/or antagonistic to it, as opposed what would be the ethno-nationalist concept of marginality - i.e., those remaining just within the classification despite pressure, but well disposed to its reconstruction; and having the additional existential benefit of “knowing where the shoe pinches.”

As such, marginals would contribute to a homeostatic function of the ethnonational system, against incursions and crass exclusion of sufficient basic function and of outlier advance.

What is practical toward that end is the unionization of our relative interests as classifications so that we may not only have criteria to be accountable to our relative interests, but also to objective facts beyond our relative group interests; and to the relative interests of other genetic classifications.

But either way, pure racial distinctions or “one race, the human race”, it is an unnatural and impossible standard of purity which, when observing history and what happens with this void in means of bio-historical accountability, will show that it is prone to reaction and attack on other classificatory groups. It is a game that can be countered with pragmatism and hermeneutics applied, as I have said, with ethno-national delimitation - but we must ask, why has that not happened? To answer that question we have to know a bit more about where the prohibition of classification comes from, the context it operated\s in, and where these remedies came into play.

Where does this classificatory game, a game that is weaponized against us, particularly as Whites, come from? a little history is in order:

The YKW, in their ordeal of civility, as a self interested group classification, were confronted and threatened by the civic nationalism of America, viz., its civil individual rights which, as an instrument holding no proviso to recognize their group interests, observed that America’s civil rights were based on the Cartesian and following that the Enlightenment and modernity’s prejudice against prejudice - viz., given Locke’s prejudice against social classifications as they happened to operate against him; he took a position against social classifications that they are necessarily, universally pernicious fictions of the mind, only a machination of the dishonest; and against that deployed the Cartesian notion (on the empirical end) that only sense perceptions of the individual mind are real and that group classifications are non-empirical, nefarious fictions which should be prohibited in favor of civil individual rights.

To deal with this, the YKW made American Whites live up to their rules (Saul Alinsnky style), but weaponized them over the top as “civil rights acts” which denied White freedom from association, thus effectively put them into involuntary servitude where operative. Moreover, they made Whites live up to Locke’s prohibition against classification and took it over the top as well in the form of “anti-racism.” Anti-racism is essentially a prohibition against social classificatory discrimination.

Kant had anticipated the dangers of Locke’s purely empirical perspective, how destructive it could be perhaps especially to conscientious people, and his major work, “The Critique of Pure Reason” was an effort to solve this problem, to provide universal foundations in “the nouminal concept” against this empirical arbitrariness; a noble effort, thought it failed; as Heidegger said, it was still Cartesian.

The analytic school’s Whitehead and Russell, in taking it upon themselves to try to solve the liars paradox [classically, “all Cretans are liars, I am a Cretan”, or plainly, “I am a liar”] provide a later example of a philosophical method insufficiently equipped to deal with skepticism of social classification. The analytic school’s tools in fact would be susceptible to paradox and dealt with these issues clumsily - with Russel admitting that the “theory of logical types”, viz, “that a class cannot be a member of itself”, was “the most ad hoc thing he’d ever had to do.” Nevertheless, while it may have been ad hoc to his analytic sensibilities, logical types did have practical applications.

We are all pragmatists - because we have to be - and Whitehead, a renowned mathematician was acknowledging this when he said: “we cannot continually investigate everything, but must be able to take some things for granted and proceed from a given state of partial knowledge. Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”

And he was in the ballpark before WWII forced a shying away from more explicit, concrete applications, when he said “philosophy must now perform its final service and save a race of people sensitive to values beyond mere physical pleasure.” If his having used the word “race” was not made radioactive by the supremacist Nazi campaign of WWII, we might have been sooner to implement the idea of classificatory function, despite its fallibility.

The experience of Whitehead and Russel of trying to solve the liar’s paradox with the ad hoc theory logical types, that “a group cannot be a member of itself”, is an example of the clumsiness of a sheer analytic philosophy in dealing with classificatory paradox; while right-wing purity spirals to go beyond social problems are equally prone to paradoxing and hoodwinkng into runaway. By contrast, these are matters which a judicious implementation of pragmatic correctability could handle, well, practically, and matters which an additional hermeneutic component can handle gracefully - it will deftly put aside “paradoxes” with narrative sequentiality, furtive, hierarchical and other provisos.

The Vienna School of Logical Positivism (from which the Vienna School of Economics derives) was another effort in this vain. The tried to establish a pure positive language free of metaphor and failed for confrontation of the fact that words have more complex, ambiguous and contingent relations to their referents - they couldn’t avoid metaphor, in a world. The later Wittgentsein was forced to acknowledge this, calling the Tractataus upon which the Vienna School of Logical Positivism was based, “not a very good book.”

Heidegger’s invocation of hermeneutics was effort in the right direction as a way of dealing with Cartesian duality, the Cartesian anxiety, and our authenticity of dasein. As one might guess following the coherence of this article, I would add the dasein of social classification, some facimile thereof to round out his philosophy, falling a bit shy of a sufficient philosophy as it did for phenomenology’s first person overemphasis and lack of emphasis on group pattern connecteness, criteria and accountability - there was something like that in Heidegger but not emphasized enough; his philosophy strained in the reification of anxiety before individual death as the source of meaning, being, dasein. Like the pragmatists, the method for our interests was there, but underused for lack of proper basis (for what we’d fallen into) and emphasis, especially among later practitioners.

Like pragmatism’s “participatory correction” from an ever more enriching and diverse basis of civic democratic universalism, hermeneutics could serve the YKW in its academic big business of selling talk, to any mathematically challenged, verbal brained undergraduate with an axe to grind against White men in particular, in non-stop culture of critique; and any fallback they might take in science: as if hermenutics is anti-science simply because its capable of critiquing scientism, viz., bad science or bad scientific application. 

Thus, what happened when I tried to talk to Professor MacDonald on the basis of hermeneutics - he insisted that “hermeneutics was anti-science” because all he’d seen in academia was YKW fostered abuse of the concept - they’d done what they always do; they’d taken concepts which would be most serviceable to ethno-nationalism, de-emphasized the aspects which would be most helpful to ethnonationalism and put over the top those features which when exaggerated would be most destructive; made them didactic; so instead of the coherent means to pursue our authenticity in organic form, and take hold (responsibility, the other interpretation of ownmost “guilt”) for our historical and systemic breadth, hermeneutics is associated with people who think that history and events can mean virtually anything they imagine, rather what cultural Marxists might think, divorced from empirical reality.

The pragmatists have shown that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible; that we can hold up to our opponents outlandish metaphors, speculations and narraties; while asserting and warranting our interests instead, more imperfectly at first and less so with ongoing correction by community interests. And together with that, hermeneutics has shown the means to overcome the Cartesian anxiety, a way to overcome paradox, arbitrariness and nefarious positivist chicanery against ethnonationalism. However, given (dasein’s thrownness into) the setting of its charter, America’s civic, democratic nation, the liberal democratic motives of its charter members and YKW co-opting, pragmatism has over-emphasized and rather exaggerated fallibilism’s correctability through social participation - viz., extolling a “diversity” of critique, alternative “narratives” in an ever broadening, and thus ever more arbitrary “democratic community”, giving us an “enrichment” which is, like classical liberalism, insufficiently committed by state administrators charged with accounting for the upholding of biological groupings, and citizens accountable to uphold their biological grouping, as would concern the ethno-nationalist; nor do they conceived to account for protection of these protracted historical bio-systems by delimitation of ethno-nationalism (that classification = “racism”); hence the predictable denouement into radical skepticism, as it becomes more and more the case for gentiles that one must look after one’s narrow interests completely (a problem not sufficiently helped by the pragmatists or Heidegger, and especially not as they’ve come into popular discourse), whether that position is most advanced by those who’ve managed to do well for themselves, despite and perhaps because of their complicity with group classificatory disintegration, or those, notably the YKW, who also do well for this disintegration, hypocritically promoting the prohibition of unionization of social group classifications where they cannot be exploited by their own institutionalized group classification.

This democratic correctibility, now called “social justice warriorism” for its didactic form as promoted by YKW pragmatism and neoliberal complicity, is already a skepticism of gentile classifications, its relentlessness and hyperbolic attack provoking a longing on the gentile part for otherworldy foundation by contrast; and offered (((“neo” reaction))) in kind to promote a new skepticism to social justice and unionized, participatory means of correction; the (((alternative right))) is offered to institutionalize their new position in defense of their supremacism, YKW and complicit supremacism, at the expense of institutionalizated accountability to ethno-nationalism.

Skepticism toward the unionization of group discriminatory classification is institutionally perpetuated, assimilating the “reality” that one must accept - this “inequality” not only has force of itself, but also the intellectual cache of the elites; both elitist gentiles and now also promoted more as a form of activism by Jews via the alternative right; promoted more now as a mere fact of nature, to which only the delusional and unrealistic would object and try to be so leftist as to unionize against, given their increasingly obvious hegemonies. Radical skepticism, especially toward the practicality of ethnonational classification and unionizations thereof, is almost part of our DNA and its inherent susceptibility to be exploited by now; it is the last things we need.

Nevertheless, gentile vulnerability to skepticism of group unionization and aversion to taking what we might refer to as the anti-Cartesian turn with the Pragmatists and the hermeneuticists, has also been exploitable not only because their anti-Cartesian remedies were taken over the top in didacticism; but because anti-Cartesianism came only after Cartesiansim and its means of exploitation had already been institutionalized, taken for granted and embedded in civil individual rights - divorced as they were, in fact prohibiting discrimination of group classification - while especially promoted through the rule structure of America - that is no small matter; as its rule structure spread in ostensibly warranted hegemony to further purity spiral given its victory over right wing reaction in WWII; a reaction which was similarly a purity spiral, though more explicitly seeking to throw-off, to purify itself of the guilt and burdens of the YKW and their priorly institutionalized means of infiltration and exploitation of group classificatory interests; viz. to throw off Jewry and their ensconced purity spiral of guilting the gentiles with ethno-sacrificing Christianity by means of “natural law”. American victory only increased the hegemony of liberalism’s liasz ez fair relation to the YKW purity spiral of Christianity, a liasz ez fair relation reinforced initially by its Cartesian constitution; and later, as intersectional (where Jewish hypocrisy is confronted) reaction increased to the point where it might notice Jewish ethnocentrism, paleoconservatism and its spawn, the alternative right, were unleashed to maintain that liasz ez fair - “our Judeo-Christian, ‘western’ culture.”

On a level of more common concerns, as Cartesianism was institutionalized in the American Constitution, leaving patterned concerns only implicit, and suspicious of groups, particularly those suspected of Aristocratic snobbery, Locke’s form of empirical individual rights increasingly ran roughshod over biological systems, doing its purity spiral, in prejudice against classificatory prejudice - mostly done naively by the gentiles, but often disingenously by elites beholden only to their narrow interests and a quid pro quo with an equally disingenuously YKW.

Note: we are not proposing doing away with the concept of individual liberties and rights, only that the Locketine technology was not the way, we have better ways now. But failing the implementation of those better ways, the ethnonationalist community remains largely in reaction to hermeneutics and pragmatism’s participatory correctability for the exaggerated misuse of those disciplines against our classification and truth; laregly in a reaction not only instigated with didactic exaggeration, but on pain of social ostracism. You gonna question muh rights? - nothing more sacrosanct than to an American (or to many UN charter activists for that matter) than their rights; you a Nazi? - need I say more? We remain stuck in the Cartesian realm of reaction, where analytic at all - and failing that, engaged with its faith cousin - you gonna question muh Abrahamic religion?

But another factor which had lent to the taken for grantedness of Cartesiansim and its increasing hegemony was the impetus of its yield to science and technology (and the lucrativeness of that); modernity’s progressiveness indeed, running roughshod over the human ecologies that left nationalism might otherwise serve and protect - commie leftist pinkos.

You gonna question muh capitalism, science and technology? muh manly pristine theory with that messy pinko lefty rag girly social pragmatism stuff? With this amateur understanding of the philosophical remedies that we are up against, the lack of understanding of the problems that we are up against and the means to correct them for the inability to see past and get past their abused forms; even though we would get past theme if we use of their correct forms. However, so long as we remain in reaction, we remain outside of our advanced philosophy and correctabilty for ethnonational ends. And in this mindset bereft of hermeneutics liberation from mere facticity, we remain stuck in the physics envy of clean lines and highly predictable cause and effect (to our enemies too), as opposed to the (only somewhat) messy but facile narrative coherence, agency, accountability and warrant to wrest our ethnonational sovereignty. And in this wish for pure analytic coherence, we remain unduly hindered by paradox and chimera that can be used by our enemies to hoodwink casual, implicit ethnonationalism.

Thus our plight begins with a form of skepticism, that such patterns exist that can and should be classified for their discriminatory protection, and that terrible things will not necessarily happen if such discriminatory classifications are rendered. The YKW version of universal civic democratic participatory correctabilty is a steady, grating skepticism writ large.

The assault by the YKW on our people, as if we are not importantly distinct - neither ideally nor practically, in classificatory assessment of genus and species, and not precious in such distinction, is centuries long.

As GW observes, it is an assault evidently prescribed by Jewish tribal interests to rupture differentiation and defensive exclusion among “the gentiles”, viz. the non-Jews, as gentile distinctions, complementary, coordination and the defense thereof may threaten Jewish power and influence. 

This centuries long assault on our distinction began with neither Boas nor Descartes. It is narrative of classificatory disintegration, divorcing us from our complementary relations and coordination, from our land, nature and and earthy connection; it is a narrative that has been hegemonic over European peoples through and of a YKW mass media control that is not only decades long but, as Bowery observes, it is centuries long, with their Bible having functioned as the predominant “mass media” and medium of this narrative transmission for the better part of two centuries - promoting a narrative culminating with Jews as the chosen people, the light of the world, while the gentiles might only enter the hereafter by being purely altruistic, non-self interested. Dissent of that narrative, on the other hand, was on pain of otherworldly damnation, or literal, this worldly persecution - at times, even penalty of death.

And when in church, the priest did not say “let us think”, he said “let us pray” - viz. repeat by rote the priest’s call to submission to the Jewish god. It is a narrative trajectory increasing in hegemony and culminating in their story told as light of the world over the correspondingly undifferentiated gentile other.

European thinkers only began to shake this hegemony, throw it off as imposed superstition and return to the rationale of the Greeks and our own northern lights in The Enlightenment. Nevertheless, European peoples were not fully emancipated, as they would need to be in distinction of our peoples, by means of Luther’s proclamation that “here I am, I can do no other”, nor by Descartes, proclamation that “I think, therefore I am”  ...as he was, in pursuit of universal foundations.

These pursuits would have a loyalty nevertheless, but a loyalty not to the organization and relative interests of group patterns, but rather a loyalty to elitist objectivism, to mere facts and the upholding of the pretext of their objective pursuit - if one was to have the tacit approval of the scientific mavens and engineers who were becoming a new priestly caste, and that panderers (and pandered-to, frequently puerile females) against those who would operate against our classificatory interests.

...as with Nazism, warrant was not to be located in the differentiation and coordination with the other, but in the demonstration of purity of “natural law”, and supremacy that served the purging reaction of the meme virus.

Speaking of what is indubitable, taking advantage of the obvious disagreeableness of this concept, a reaction really, like a massive fit of coughing and diarrhea - a case of your struggle and stink is ok only if you are German supremacist - the YKW have with this indubitable didacticism amplified means to lay guilt trips and cause the gentile other to pursue warrant of innocence by a doubling down in Cartesianism; particularly through the victorious American enshrinement of enlightenment Cartesianism in the Lockeatine notion of civil individual rights - as they serve their aim to rupture the danger of opposing group classifications as “non-empirical”, a rupturing imposed on lines of “anti-racism”, “anti-Nazism” etc.

Marxist and neo-liberal YKW both would, in their elite mentorship, recognize the susceptibility of European peoples’ defense in their adherence to Cartesianism, and the YKW operate against it in mimicry of its own terms, in anti-racism, naturally - with particular emphaticness after WWII, they would be marching through our 7 institutions, and let us add another, even more so would they march through our very genome.

If the young White man is to have hope to be let past their gate-keepers - often the bitches who didn’t want to be fair, but want to incite genetic competition beyond their merit (their typical shit test in initial interaction episode, “isn’t racism terrible?”) - he must embrace the advancing meme structure, loyalty all the more fiercely to objectivism, to anti-racism, to the incursion of African and Arab hoards - if he hopes to extricate himself from the broader community of subjects as they are beholden to objectivist naivete, blind to individual and group Manicheanism (rule changing devils), who only mimicked adherence to Augustinian (natural) devils where it suits them in their “objectivism” as it is bound to be infiltrated by YKW: from Wittgensteins’ Austrian school positivism to its heirs Hayek and Austrian school libertarianism, to its neo forms, neocon, neo anything, as Irving Kristol admits, it is weaponization against Whites, still holding the undifferentiated gentile other as template of purity, innocence and warrant - the prejudice against prejudice was to make Whites live up to their own rules, as those rules worked against them.

Categorization, what I call classification, is not an artifice, is not Cartesian - it is a perfectly natural and necessary emergent function, to sort out, to discriminate healthy social patterns from unhealthy - “Women, Fire, and other Dangerous Things” (lets call that chocolate women, fire and other dangerous things). 

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent and it is killing people.

Even if it is by means by a crass version of Darwinist competition:

As I have said many times in one of my original theories, Modernity’s Cartesianism has had a vast disordering effect on society. And the “anti-racist” extrapolation of anti-social classificaiton is a union busting function of the YKW writ large, playing manichean games with social classification/anti-classification as it suits their interests. Just because European peoples are prohibited from discriminating by social classification, doesn’t mean that other’s aren’t doing it, allowed to do it; and doesn’t mean that classification (categorization) doesn’t happen naturally - it happens anyway; with the categories too difficult to ignore, because they are basic, even in “universal” human terms: particularly male and female.

The result is that the patterns of our protracted maturity as K selectors are truncated, our female co-evolutionaries are pandered to from males from every direction, predated upon by R selectors, particularly as the YKW foist race mixing upon Whites to demoralize White men and to bust gentile unionization; they pander to the basest tendencies of females to incite genetic competition.

They take advantage of another category impossible to ignore - black men, particularly by contrast to White females, a category and contrast so stark that it is almost impossible to ignore as a tropism. They take advantage with their “anti-racism”, with the fact that blacks are not necessarily at a disadvantage as they say, in all cases and ways - not given their license to discriminate on their behalf and make coherent sense; not within the disorder, where black aggression, hyper-assertiveness and abilities on an episodic levels are a more salient criteria for partner selection; they are not disadvantage in these circumstances of anti-racism, if you take into account that opportunism is acting in concert with their ancient history, the bio-power of their long pre-evolution to Whites; which serves them in this mix, to privilege them over females, to provide them with females and children (frequently at the zero zum expense of Whites); along with the fact that their coherence, their classificatory identity is allowed, they are offered remedial programs by the liberals and YKW, to make up for a history of oppression that we had nothing to do with; furthermore, their daring is increased as expectations of them, as individuals, are low; group ethnocentrism backs them in their risk taking. They often have less to lose (some of their women are nice, but….). Whereas European men have a lot lose, and become skittish; furthermore, the merit of European men tends to show over protracted patterns, patterns that are ruptured by anti-racism; and truncated by the opportunism of males, R selectors and what-not, that they are not allowed to discriminate against.

Meanwhile the one up position in partner selection that females occupy (because eggs are precious, gestation vulnerable and sperm is cheap) emerges with increased significance, with puerile European females gaining in premature confidence and discretionary power as gate-keepers, as they are talked-to, solicited from every direction and pandered to - her opinions matter; as she has ready recourse in all directions to brute enforcing males, if anyone objects to her prerogatives. As she is pandered to, she is encouraged by the power of her position in this liberal mix. Her base tendency as female to incite genetic competition, which would be vastly and healthily sublimated in classificatory maintenance, is exacerbated, probably exponentially. This incitement further ensconces the Cartesian rupture of ethno-natinonalism, as liberalism affords puerile females incentive to maintain the easy advantages her increased one up position affords in the disorder - it is, as it appears, “only natural.” - Just as the gamers will tell you, as they promote R selectionism to move through European girls. And the disorder and disintegration absent the assertion of our classificaitons is perpetuated as such.

Thus, the Cartesianism of anti-racism is disastrous for our species.

The central component of anti-racism is game of weaponized social classification against Whites. As exemplified in the racist’s paradox:

Again, the “racist’s paradox - if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate, I judge everyone by their individual merit”, then you can be charged by the anti-racist with disingenuously ignoring the history of (your alleged) classificatory discrimination and exploitation of blacks ...on the other hand, if you say no, “I take affirmative action on behalf of their group to take into account the history discrimination and oppression against their group” then you are classifying, thus a racist by definition.

Thus, by means extant of Cartesian structures the proposition nation was brought to bear in exploitation by the YKW and complicit liberals against our fallible hypotheses, with predictable results..

It is a purity spiral ever more Cartesian and divorced of practicality in its reaction than that of the Cartesian anxiety which they had already exploited.

And their rhetorical flourish magnifies the anxiety that we must have a foundation somehow prior to words and discourse for our peoplehood, otherwise we cannot potentially challenge with their rhetoric, anywhere in the universe.

But toward our defense and in defense of human ecology broadly thus, it is necessary to overcome the Cartesian anti-social classification that underpins anti-racism ..its Cartesian detachment from land and resource relation as well.

With the pronouncement, denouncement really, of the Cartesian prejudice against prejudice - specifically its proposed innocence in prohibiting discriminatory social classification - that:

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

Given the existential threat to our people for the devastating, decades long march through our institutions, of the YKW and their lackeys wielding the wholly unnatural, weaponized Cartesianism that is “anti-racism” ....the last thing that we need is mis-applied skepticism regarding the very antidotes to mis-applied skepticism - i.e., mirroring the anti-classification which is “anti-racism.

And we must avail ourselves of pragmatic correctabilty and the hermeneutic turn delimited to ethnonational aims - that is the way to resolve Cartesian anxiety. It is the way that allows for historical and conceptual breadth to capture the “non-empirical” classifications, that would provide for agency, coherence, thus accountability and warrant in maintenance, use and protection of our social capital and human ecologies.

It is not my purpose here to defend Pragmatist philosophy nor to proclaim myself a Pragmatist philosopher - Pragmatist philosophy is rather to be treated as a tool. It is not only to be taken to where the school of thought has been taken by academics, against the loftier aims of our people…  it has made its way to the ordinary language of our “communities” that it might otherwise serve, to be taken as concerns ranging from laboriously dull to obnoxiously undeserving of participation. No, rather something like Sam Dickson’s suggestion that we subscribe to a kind of race idealism - that might be most pragmatic; and those who complain that Aristotle’s turning away forms was a turning away from the breadth of European imagination, they can find imagination resurrected in hermeneutics, along with rigor! Finally, though pragmatism tends to be associated with a lack of deeper concern in a particular respect - that is a lack of sufficient respect for prefigurative force - for matters of enduring importance - it is a bit unfair, particularly if we see pragmatism as a tool.

If GW wants to tighten the connection between what is, the ontology, and what ought, that could be part of correctibility - any organization of sense making in that case, in an instant anyway, would have to a part of inherent evolution.

Emergentism has kindred aims with pragmatism and hermenuticism, namely and aversion to the reductionism and anti mind body distinction, if not anti-Cartesianism on the whole; however, it has run into some problems that may receive aid from pragmatism and hermeneutics. Again, pragmatism and hermeneutics proper would not look at emergentism as necessarily adversarial, but rather a closer reading, at a more rigorous and of an ongoing survey.

It is confronted with difficulty in managing dichotomy that may perhaps be mollified by hermeneutics.

At least one problem for emergentism is:

Jaegwon Kim

Figure demonstration how M1 and M2 are not reduced to P1 and P2.

Addressing emergentism (under the guise of non-reductive physicalism) as a solution to the mind-body problem Jaegwon Kim has raised an objection based on causal closure and overdetermination.

Emergentism strives to be compatible with physicalism, and physicalism, according to Kim, has a principle of causal closure according to which every physical event is fully accountable in terms of physical causes. This seems to leave no “room” for mental causation to operate. If our bodily movements were caused by the preceding state of our bodies and our decisions and intentions, they would be overdetermined. Mental causation in this sense is not the same as free will, but is only the claim that mental states are causally relevant. If emergentists respond by abandoning the idea of mental causation, their position becomes a form of epiphenomenalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism

It is true that more (and more) information about more genetic and emergent levels will help guide us better; the process of ongoing correction does provide for that.

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

“Anti-racism is anti-broad classification of peoples and against classification of peoples being used as criteria for discriminatory accountability. This prohibition of discriminatory classification is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.”

That’s a safer mantra because anti-anti-racism is less likely to be misunderstood as such, in a supremacist or other needlessly aggressive, exploitative, destructive senses.

READ MORE...

Where you lost the right to discriminate in private business as well.

Women Without Class

Originally Published November 26, 2011 at VoR; republished here for the sake of editorial correction and update - By Daniel Sienkiewicz

It was the ultimate YKW perversion of terms — civil rights, freedom and discrimination — culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Even a cursory glance over its statutes reveals obsolescence, disingenuousness and evil.

It takes no more than a glance at its statutes. One goes into an American institution and sees a placard looming overhead declaring “discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin…” to be illegal. Suddenly seeing discrimination rendered pejorative, illegal even, one experiences a vague feeling of dread.

You sense immediately that you are being told not to have so much as eyeballs by way of discriminatory capacity. You are to be utterly defenseless against biological antagonists, to have no present recourse against the destruction of that which is most important.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

I) Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. II) Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term “private.” III) Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin. IV) Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act. V) Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act. VI) Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding. VII) Prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.

In detail this Act is more Byzantine than that, and the ramifications of these prohibitions of discrimination are horrendous.

Even freedom of association, as it does not account for full processual development of those within the class, would not be sufficiently deep by itself, were it allowed. But while that objectivist, rational blindness leveraged by the technology of “civil rights” was bad enough, YKW interests perverted its meaning to violate even freedom of association by means of the Civil Rights Act.

Alabama Governor Wallace confronted by school desegregation in the personification of D.A. Nicholas Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, working alongside a Kennedy clan willing to sell out and open its country to catastrophic integration in order to gain power, along with a similarly disposed Lyndon Johnson, making a good bid for worst president ever, sundry other YKW and objectivist Whites, oversaw departmental operations (implementing the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education decision) in desegregating the University of Mississippi in September 1962 and the University of Alabama in June 1963 – where he personally moved Governor Wallace aside to open the door for Blacks; also worked with Congress to ensure the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and had significant help from Javitz and Celler (of 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act infamy), to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

These initiatives also established precedent for California’s Rumford Fair Housing Act of ‘63 which prohibited discrimination regarding whom one rents or sells property; and the ‘68 Fair Housing Act which extended that ruling to a national basis.

Waiting at Woolworth’s

We have here in culmination the ultimate in doublespeak terms: “civil rights” equals being told whose babies we must pay for, with whom we must study, whose children we must educate (with precious knowledge tortuously acquired), to whom we must rent, to whom we must sell, whom we must hire, whom we must serve even in private businesses – and this is called “freedom.”

Waiting at Woolworth’s

The related decision regarding the Woolworth’s Lunch Counter, telling a private business whom they must serve, was always one that caused my mind to glitch, even at a rather young age. M.L. King, with help from YKW overlords organized Blacks and others, including a few no-class White women - such as Joan Trumpauer Mulholland - to “sit-in” at Woolworth’s and force a legal decision regarding desegregation of its lunch counters. The decision never made sense to me from the moment I heard about it – not in terms of anything that you can call freedom, anyway. Telling a private business whom they must serve, how, and whom they must hire – that is called “freedom”? It must be a YKW definition. “Freedom marches, freedom riders, civil rights” – right? Wrong. Rather quite civil wrongs.

Mulholland and Dr. King

Mulholland participating in the “sit-in” at Woolworth’s

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 went further by banning racial segregation “by businesses offering food, lodging, gasoline, or entertainment to the public.”

Original Woolworth’s sit-in counter enshrined at The Smithsonian Institute

This would seem to be a clear violation of civic freedom, but YKW are skilled at promoting the self-destruction of Whites, who have been high on objectivism, while Blacks are hyper-assertive.

It is a civil right and its opposite is called illegal discrimination punishable by law. Do not discriminate; do not see the terror that you are confronted with; do not see that you are in something like a monkey cage, a planet of the apes (I can tell whether one has or has not been around many, depending upon an indignant response to that analogy or not).

M.L. King Jr. and Malcolm X

In the article on Kant’s moral system, I mentioned a kind of anguish bordering on torture that I experienced when I was groping after a moral order: That anguish stemmed from having inherited an obsequious Christian rule structure - the golden rule - by which I was to somehow go up against America’s rule structure, lording as it did competition as noble for all and yet presenting me with still another obsequious and imperative rule in the form of the 64 Civil Rights Act; in confrontation with antagonistic demographics. Having experienced more than enough of them through forced busing to go to school with them, their riots of 1967 and 68 in the town of my birth, I was largely convinced that I did not want anything to do with Blacks. I assumed in my young age that it would be my prerogative one day, and that sane people would make the same choice. How could I believe that others, women even, could do other than legitimate separatism after seeing such things?

M.L. King Jr. and Malcolm X were at the U.S. Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill. This was the only time the two men ever met.

With Blacks rioting in Newark in the summer of 1967, my father’s generation repeating the “greatest generation” mantra that ‘you can’t fight City Hall’, the Vietnam War escalating unintelligibly so that no young person with a penis was immune from the draft, yes, I did have a certain yearning for the San Francisco version of that same summer of ‘67.

Beatle’s guitarist George Harrison did go there - to the Summer of Love Be-In festival in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park - but came away with a bad impression having dropped a bad batch of L.S.D. He saw these kids around him hideously spotted and vacuum-cleaner faced. From our perspective now, naturally it does not seem like such a bad scene, certainly the better option in the tale of two cities, Newark and San Francisco 1967. No wonder I was a bit reluctant to let that go, particularly enchanting it was to me as a child. I was a little disappointed when traditional women and men would say that was “all nonsense” or “the source of our problems”; and I was disconcerted to experience similar antagonism from feminists, particularly when the war had ended.

July 1967 Newark riots, left and center images.

Right, “The Summer of Love” follows the “Be-in” in San Francisco, 1967; George Harrison, Pattie (& the vacuum cleaner faces lol).

Before the late 80s interracial couples were rare.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 goes further to say that, “An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.”

Just Great (for non native English speakers, note the sarcasm please): You cannot discriminate against people that you do not like, whom you find immoral and dangerous.

While the dam had not burst through the 60s, 70s, or even into the early 80s, it was a period of ominous buildup, the implications of the rule structure and demographic make-up were pervasive and auguring catastrophe…

Once the Vietnam War had ended, traditional women were rearing their ugly head and feminism went into high gear, steam-rolling any agenda for White male needs, though many boys still had need for being, communal being (midtdasein). I had just assumed that everyone would naturally reject forced integration and charges of “racism” but young women did not seem quite as inclined. Why?

Let’s qualify all statements made about young women below to mean, at their worst/most opportune, given defective social structure and pandering. It would be clearly wrong to say that there are not plenty of cool White women. (1)

Thesis: Within the disorder resulting from civil rights (a feature of Enlightenment/Modernity) rupturing of classificatory (racial) bounds, the natural one-up position of young females (“you’re so wonderful, may I have a date?”; i.e., an expression of sperm being cheap, ovaries precious) emerges with increased significance as they are less accountable to their inheritance and more competed for, pandered-to even, from males of other groups.

READ MORE...

The White Left has NOT issued its first, or any fatwa, as Nick Cohen asserts, but what The SPLC has done is tantamount to aiding and abetting one.

One may argue that Nick Cohen is as confused as his audience about the terms “left” and “liberal”, but it is not likely that someone with the name Cohen and entrusted to a prominent writing position at The Spectator is trying to be careful about clearly describing a platform to serve the full class of White interests - i.e., a White Left, not to be confused with liberalism, a confusion of terms promoted by his fellow tribesmen, and by which they’ve been able to confuse the public for decades now.

In fact, he does indulge in a new twist. Whether he fancies himself as being descriptive of White liberals (in his view, Jews, such as Mark Potok of the SPLC, would be included as White) or he has some idea of the power of our burgeoning White Left platform, and therefore seeks to confuse it pre-emptively, he is attributing to the term “White left” logics of meaning and action which do not follow from our platform of White Left Nationalism - The White Class.

Indeed, I had discussed the case of Maajid Nawaz with Kumiko, who had explained to me the irony of The SPLC placing this man on their “hate list.”

While I am against making the distinction between “radical and moderate” Islam, as I recognize all of Islam to be harboring and wielding our destruction, whether most active in a present episode or not, I would not go so far as to put at risk to a fatwa a man who has, in fact, come to denounce the more violent and destructive expressions of Islam and is trying to encourage other Muslims to take advantage of more healthy, moderate and liberal life possibilities.

Kumiko showed me this video of a speaking engagement of Nawaz’s, where he describes his project. She and I agree that Nawaz is a bit off in his recommendations - we would ultimately prefer a full denunciation of Islam in favor of Left Nationalism for his people, but also agree that such sudden prescription is both unrealistic and would be even more dangerous to him; as would our taking his side, in defense of him against the SPLC. Kumiko figured that we would not help him, that we would contextualize him in a way that exposes him more to Muslim violence by associating him with platforms (such as this) of White advocacy; while making an association here would also expose him to further Jewish vitriol, such as The SPLC placing him on their “hate list.”

Nevertheless, we think, “of all the Muslims to put on their hate list!” ?

The last straw for me though, making it a bad option to keep silent, was this Cohen guy trying to say that “The White Left” has issued a “fatwa” on Maajid Nawaz, when in fact it is The SPLC that is putting him at that risk, with a clear signal to more radical Muslims - “have a go at him, we wash our hands of defending him in his attempt to moderate Islam.”

Now then, for a look at the article which attempts to blame something which Cohen calls “the white left” for this.

The Spectator, “The white left has issued its first fatwa”, by Nick Cohen, 31 Oct 2016:

Maajid Nawaz

[Cohen]: I have never advised anyone to use the English libel laws. I spent years helping the campaign to reform them, and am proud of the liberalisation I and many, many others helped bring. I have to admit, though, our achievement was modest.

...and hypocritical, as now you misappropriate the term and in fact libel what would be a proper articulation of The White Left, if the term were disentangled from decades of Jewish journalese confusing “left and liberal;” and understood properly by contrast - by the public, and somehow by copyright law.

Ibid: Libel in England remains sinister in intent – the defendant has to prove he or she was telling the truth – and oppressive in practice. Parliament and the asinine Leveson inquiry into the press failed to tackle the horrendous costs, and kept libel as the preserve of the rich and the reckless. You can risk spending £1 million before a case comes to court. Despite reform, libel courts remain the place oligarchs and charlatans go to suppress the truth.

Well, I will not initiate a case against the sinister intent of Jewish media, even though I believe it is their sinister intent to prevent White (as in not Jewish) people from organizing, unionizing in their exclusive defense - a defense of those Whites who are relatively innocent, who are not right wing supremacists, but are rather characteristically cooperative, non-coercive separatists: White Left ethnonationalists -  that there is by contrast an antagonism, a persistent, sinister intent on the part of (((media, academia and other niches))) to confuse the term “left” with “liberal” when it applies to Whites and a would-be “White Left” in order to keep them from defending themselves against the genocide that is being launched against them by Jewish and neo-liberal interests: by means of open immigration of exploding non-White populations, “anti-racism” (i.e., prohibition of White discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic groups, even in national interest), ubiquitous promotion of race-mixing, endless propaganda of Whites as evil, advancing non-White interests with and against the concept of “White privilege” applied across the board, to all Whites, as something to be “legally corrected” ...their right to abstain from forced contract and imposition undone - a feudal differentiation of laws which disadvantage White organized defense; compelling their mere servitude, their ultimate extinction enforced at the behest the YKW and neo-liberal PTB.

Not only would Cohen libel the term, “White Left,” saying “it has issued a fatwa” but he’s libeled The White Left also by associating it with neo-liberalism and the SPLC in its nefarious irresponsibility to put further at risk a man who is risking his safety to try to encourage more reasonable ways for Muslims.

The White Left is issuing no such fatwa against this man, and rather believes that his heart is in the right place, even if still a bit misguided.

Ibid: Last night, however, I found myself advising the anti-fascist campaigner Maajid Nawaz to sue in the London courts.  I even gave him the names of lawyers who would be happy to help. The attack he is facing is so grotesque, ferocious remedies seem the only response.

It is not “fascism” that he is campaigning against inasmuch as he is articulate - it is the right-wing feudalism of Islam and its (terroristic, if need be) imposition of imam compradores, radical shock troops and the feudal Muslim way of life against what would have been Left ethnoationlaist nations; if not for the destructive imposition as aided and abetted by neo-liberals.

Ibid: Nawaz’s enemy is not the usual user of the libel law: a Putin front-man or multinational. It is an organization that ought to share Nawaz’s values, but because of the crisis in left-wing values does the dirty work of the misogynists, the racists, the homophobes, the censors, and the murderers it was founded to oppose. It does it with a straight face because, as I am sure you will have guessed, the fascism in question is not white but Islamic. And once that subject is raised all notions of universal human rights, and indeed basic moral and intellectual decency, are drowned in a sea of bad faith.

Lets clarify what is really going on here, Nawaz’s enemies are right wingers, Jews (such as the SPLC) and neo-liberals who seek Islamic compradores and shock troops to disrupt Left ethnonationalsm.

Ibid: Nawaz is from Essex. He has fought and been beaten up by white British neo-Nazis. He fell in with Hizb ut-Tahrir while he was young. When he ended up in a torture chamber in an Egyptian jail, he abandoned Islamism for liberalism. Since then, he and his Quilliam Foundation have struggled against both the white far right and the Islamist far right. They have defended liberal Muslims and, indeed, all of us from lethal blasphemy taboos and the threat of terrorism. They respect freedom of speech, including the freedom of their enemies to speak. (When they asked me to introduce their report on online extremism, I was pleased to see them warning the state against the folly of trying to ban extremism rather than argue against it.) Quilliam and Nawaz support women’s rights and gay rights. They believe that there is no respectable reason why men and women with brown skins should not enjoy the same rights as men and women with white skins. They think they should try to stop young Muslims joining Islamic State, not just for the sake of the Yazidis they will take into sex slavery, or the civilians they will tyrannise and kill, but for the sake of the young Muslims themselves.

And now you would try to say that we, “The White Left,” are issuing a “fatwa” against a man who is trying to do this good work? Who is libelous here? Not The White Left: we issue no such fatwa. On the contrary, we commend his good intention.

READ MORE...

First is not the same as most essential (inter esse), a take-away from prior thread.

Updated (significantly) the morning of October 18th CET

I agree that it is important to not set the bar too high and that is something which GW helps to articulate very well - i.e., the Heideggerian place of MidtDasein - by ensconcing the authentic consciousness of the subject in a world view that is not all that conscious - not feeling constantly compelled by the instrumental, for reasons too subjective, too objective, or too “the They” but resonating rather, with the emergent - he contributes thus significantly to the articulation of its authentic form, in this holding fast attention to resonance, from resonance of subjective emergence to resonance of the objective field, a position which does partake of the calculative (Cartesian) while not remaking stuck there, generally. On the other hand, also generally, Heidegger helps to not set the bar too high, by suggesting that authentic thinking generally occurs slowly, in a meandering, qualitative survey by poesis. While the subject is the inevitable entering point of caring interest, its viewpoint is calibrated authentically from there, taken away from inauthenticity and into engagement with its full organic process by re-attention to “there-being” (which occurs, I suppose, when resonance with a relative concern is particularly acute), from momentary concerns to a broad systemic view based in the relative interests (inter esse) of one’s folk (social group/midtdasein) within the emergent world - that is another description of midtdasein; and if the subject is centered not in objectivity, but within the purview of the folk, in praxis; and folk leaders share this view to their relative interests, the calibration of the group should feed back to serve the authentic interests of the subjective starting point which the subject will come back to inevitably in resonance - a resonance that should meld with the group’s interests, in the moment they seek to re-orient anew, to call back from estrangement their authentic position of caring. But if the subject is not getting sufficient feedback from the system, marginalized as such, their authentic concern would bring to bear their subjective perspective on the system’s inauthenticity, acting as a homeostatic corrective (I believe it was Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, who fostered this idea).

Thus, First - subject - isn’t the same as most Essential (inter-esse) - Midtdasein - subject ensconced in a world view of relation within the folk. In fact, the first subjective relation is not to this third person (Cartesian) point of view, but rather, the subject acting into relation of second person address - parental relation, as biological creatures with reflexive capacities unique among biological creatures. From that starting point, it moves into emergent and third person relation (us) to calibrate midtdasein - if the social system is correctly oriented - which it presently is not (because it is estranged, all too Cartesian: objective/subjective, all too moved into the third person “they”) - hence the need for centering not rigidly stuck in the Cartesianism of the psychological perspective, but in the communication perspective, in interaction, its affordance of a view confirmed and delimited by the relative interests of the human ecological system, beginning with the first to second person relation and then prompting engagement in non-universal maturity, to socialization in midtdasein - a worldview gauged against the relative interests of the social group. The interests of the subject as participant in the social group, its authentic being, are held fast as they naturally resonate in emergent delimitation against material reality, including its own affordances and constraints, matters of physics; and for the need to coordinate caring activity/existence in relation to the emergence of other authentic social groups, biological creatures, the necessities of their organic systems in emergent relation to our systemic organic necessities.

Heidegger does advise or describe as authentic then, a holding fast of this essence, the resonance of emergent qualities of the subject, the people, the MidtDasein and its world setting taken to heart.

The holding metaphor is interesting because it implies two separated appendages, or at any rate, the capacity to embrace and coddle that which is inbetween and captivate it to one’s subjective attention.

Adding

GW: Cartesian epistemology, then, is dangerously self-referential, and that applies to the Cartesian sum as well as its cogito ... to what the model can say about the subject.  Subjectivity truly is a chalk circle.

To break this, Heidegger proposed that every thing from a single particle to the universe has a being of its own and, therefore, a truth thereof which discloses itself to an action or state or site (depending on one’s interpretation) called Dasein.  Now, to overcome the difficulty of representation in the Mind, because thought, emotion and sensation are each, in their own way, representational, Hiedegger proposed essential thinking as the mind-activity which is active in Dasein’s way of seeing what is disclosed.

This is good in that it helps supply a much fuller understanding, encourages attention to where our subjective emergent qualities resonate with the emergent qualities beyond the subjective; but you are sweeping aside other aspects that Heidegger suggests for relieving Cartesian rigidity, viz., the idea of Caring, there-being (taking attention out of one’s head), the folk and their delimitation as such - these are not an affectation to Heidegger nor an arbitrary application.

You have reminded me of the aspect of Heidegger in which he calls attention to “spreading out what is interesting - inter esse - and taking to heart what is most essential - then holding fast” - that would be a Heideggerian means for subjective emergence resonating with emergent qualities of the objective…

The holding metaphor is interesting because it implies two separated appendages, or at any rate, the capacity to embrace and coddle that which is inbetween and captivate it to one’s subjective attention.

What you may not be respecting in what I am getting at is how Heidegger’s system would assign being to the folk - and how the subjective would have a different qualitative relation to it, within it, in midtdasein, than to the rest of the “site of disclosure”... it would be a relative quality and a Caring which goes beyond and then delimits the subjective perspective from The They and The The which would make a non-Cartesian difference. The holding metaphor which you remind me of in your attention to emergence is interesting.

Heidegger does advise or describe as authentic then, a holding fast of this essence of resonance of emergent qualities of the subject, the people, the MidtDasein and its world setting taken to heart.

GW: Only by fitting the two realms together may one reconcile false Dasein to “midtdasein” ... may one reconcile the formed personality, with all its error, to the “site” of disclosure of the thing which is the people.  That is what my Ontological Transit, in all its gauche simplicity, is designed to do.  Understand it before you criticise it.

Well, you can put it that way, its implied in what I’ve said, but rather than its being incumbent upon me to “understand” a reification like “the personality”, you might be open to understand before criticizing the reason why autobiography will provide a better means of fitting predilections of the corporeal self to the “site” of disclosure - which includes one’s folk.

I can appreciate that you want “personality” to fit a closer reading of the corporeal and its genetic expression, but the concept of autobiography is not mutually exclusive and will, rather, facilitate “the fitting together” of authentic expression of the personality and the “site of disclosure.”