Majorityrights Central > Category: Modernity

The Conservative Woman, one of the last remaining Brit Disqus sites where it is possible to speak nearly honestly, published a piece this morning on the co-incidence of “the bio-security state” and fascism.  The connection was dependent on the veracity, or otherwise, of the late Umberto Eco’s undisciplined Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt.

There is so much nonsense written about fascism - mostly by tediously conventional minds who insist that Mussolini was a socialist so fascism was socialism - that I thought I would post a comment very generally expressing my own comprehension of the dread philosophy.  Here it is.  Naturally, it will not be understood by the tedious.

Eco was an Italian so one would have thought he might have something useful to say about fascism, but evidently not.  Perhaps it’s just not possible anymore.  So much rot is now talked about fascism, with so many people enworlded in liberalism and modernity so incapable of reaching its essence, that the thing itself is reduced to a mere hate-label.

The first and most essential point is that it was an extreme and assertive nationalism of becoming.  It sought to be historically active and nationally transformative and, therefore, it had to be Nietzschean or it was nothing.  It was not traditionalist but modernist and radically forward-looking - “Fascist Man” was newly if not freely self-confected.  He followed the party’s prescription for the rebirth of, or return to, heroism and action.  It is not, of course, traditonalist merely to recognise that liberal modernity has reduced Man to a meek and compliant instrument of the economy, or to ask if he was something more than that in the pre-modern age.  However, its modernism meant that it accepted modern capital and sought a new and inhering role for the corporation within its transformative scheme.

The second point is that it was against the massifying tendencies of the modern world, including democracy and equality.  It was not, therefore, socialist in the sense that socialism is understood within the liberal thought-world.  It did not apprehend class but nation, and not class consciousness but ethnic consciousness in an age when ethnicity was naturally and beautifully synonymous with the nation state.  Socialism in nationalism refers to the singularity and solidarity of the folk, and the natural bonds thereof.  A huge number of somewhat simple-minded folk assume for the horseshoe theory of a single universe of thought.  It’s a falsehood.  We live in an intellectual multiverse in which the politics of genetic interests never come near to the politics of the unfettered will.  They mutually seek the other’s destruction.  Within nationalist thought, fascism (with National Socialism and Judaism) stands at the imperialistic pole of the axis, in opposition to nativism.

The third point is that it was peculiarly statist.  It rejected the destining of the folk (which inhabits National Socialism and Judaism).  Instead, it encompassed everything within the vehicle of the dynamic state as the centre of a restored greatness and empire.

This is the general flavour of the thing.  If we dispense with the horseshoe, the hate-label, and so forth, do I really see it shining through modern global elitism?  No, not at all.  Most obviously, global elitism sees no precious folk but a deracinated, a-causal, coffee-coloured mass from which its own rare and perfumed subjects are uniquely different and, by that difference, may royally inflate themselves and endow themselves with all the world’s riches.  It is not a politics like fascism, or politics at all.  It is the crime of the century.

Here is the central difficulty with Heideggerian philosophy - the being of a thing does not, in itself, supply a cause for the thing to be.  This is not quite an example of the Naturalistic Fallacy, because there is a difference between ethical choice as a construct of the higher emotions and thought, and sheer instinctual survival.  It is a qualitative difference, obviously, but it is also an operative difference.  For example, as the flame burns the hand, the nervous system signals the brain and the brain signals the muscles to tense and contract. The whole action is completed an eternity of microseconds before the emotions of fear and alarm well up.  The intellectual faculty ... the considering mind ... lumbers into view only much later still.  Considering is redundant.  So, in this case “must” is operative, not “ought”.  We don’t have a problem with Hume and Moore.  We have a problem elsewhere, in the categorical separateness of being-there-then and the animus.  Being (for example, being at the point of acquiring a burnt hand) never leaves its own site of reference.  The animus has another site, in the organism’s primordial defence mechanism.  If we hold that essence precedes existence (and we “ought”) we might consider that the animus is the cosmic will-to-be of the organism, while being is the consequent action of the organism in Time and Place.

This separateness is the reason that nationalist folks often see folkish-ness and traditionalism as tainted by a solipsistic “shire” mentality devoid of the politically necessary, hard cutting edge.  That may or may not always be fair.  But in the matter of a people’s existence there is a relatively small number of positive forces which supply, or contribute to supplying, such a cutting edge.  Survival and continuity, identity, home are the stuff of the naturalistic, nativist pole of the nationalist axis, which just might array like this:

Interestingly, these causes are also the stuff of jus bellum.  Heidegger is in them but he is not them.

These few thoughts follow from a hearing of a conversation, distinctively Heideggerian in parts, conducted by a very interesting nationalist, a thinking nationalist, named Scott Mannion with my old friend, the cultural critic, essentialist, and speaker of truths, Morgoth.  Indeed it is titled, “Morgoth – How to find trad meaning in modernist hell”:

It is clear that Scott is a genuine intellectual, possibly an academic, who has journeyed into Heidegger, arriving at experience, or re-experience, of what, I suppose, we must call our cultural heritage and tradition as signifier of our shared, particular and ethnic being.  It is clear that Morgoth’s celebrated practise of rural walking in search of the permanent and authentic in his native north-east England holds a particular significance for Scott.  I very much liked the easy overlap of their worldviews, and the courtesy with which Scott granted Morgoth time to speak of his.  The whole conversation had a positive and hopeful mein.

Scott repeatedly referred to our being as a tangible permanence which the estrangements and machine-living of modernity can never banish or besmirch, and this is true enough.  Of course, when listening to the thoughts of friends there are still always a few points of divergence.  I am primarily interested in the ontology of racial awakening rather than in cultural archeaology.  But it would be churlish to make too much of that now.  It is enough just to encounter another intellectual realist in the impoverished home of English nationalism.

The late W. Barnett Pearce, a communications scholar, was commemorated by colleagues and students in his passing with their reflections on his work as it influenced and inspired.

One student spoke of a eureka moment provided by a football team analogy that Barnett recommended as a way to look upon how people function together in a coordinated way as opposed to narcissistic, false comparisons that might prop-up dangerous hubris and instigate conflict for non-recognition, if not disrespect for the value, purpose and abilities, in fact, of necessary niche evolutionary differences.

By contrast to better and worse, equal or not-equal, or rendering false comparisons by trying to apply a singular comparative criteria among the people of a group or between groups on the whole, Barnett used the football team analogy to recommend to his student a qualitative way of looking upon group, systemic functioning.

Note, we’re talking about American football in this analogy:

You don’t say one of the offensive linemen positions, say a Left Guard or Right Tackle or a Center, is “not equal” to a Wide Receiver or Fullback. You don’t say that they are not as good, that the Wide Receiver or Half Back is better, the Quarterback is greater than his linemen (Tackles, Guards, Center, Tight End). Well, I guess you can say that, in that the Quarterback position might be harder to fill, but it is fundamentally a stupid comparison, particularly if it fails to recognize his dependence on the Offensive Line for his pass protection and to open up holes for an alternative running game.

Each position has a different set of procedures that is necessary to carry out if the Team is to function effectively, coordinated as a group systemic effort. And toward that end, each position has to be respected as necessary and performing an essential function to the system which is not to be dismissed if the group system is to function effectively.

The positions tend to require qualitatively different abilities, physiology and mentality, true, but they are all necessary if the team is to be a successful system.

Anyway, the analogy provides another resource, along the lines of the concept of commensurability and incommensurability of qualitative niche abilities in and between paradigms (groups), to help people coordinate our White Ethnonationalist efforts. ..as opposed to equality/non equality, false comparisons, hubris of across-the-board supremacism which may leave us vulnerable for lack of an effective “Offensive Line” or lack of respect for their function as such.

READ MORE...

State of the Fart Right: why the bum steers from Jonathan Pohl, STFU James, et. al?

Lately, I have been making the rounds on some of the prominent racialist hangouts and podcasts, trying to get attention to the ethnonationalist platform that would make most sense, be the most viable and with that, to cultivate means for its coordination. As always, I am motivated to take theoretical/epistemic misdirection and help re-direct it to solid theoretical premises for the defense and advocacy of our European peoples.

I have been lured into some hangouts in order to defend myself and this platform against misrepresentations that were happening in real time. That’s what this post is about - to defend this platform as the prominent voices presenting themselves as experts or worthy common sense critics on behalf of European/White interests continue to receive and give terrible misdirection. Recently, I was lured onto a hangout hosted by ‘Babylonian Hebrew’, a young Jewish fellow living in New York but advocating Zionism for Jews and honest, hard criticism of diasporic Jewry.

I joined the hangout in order to correct an egregiuos strawman committed against me/this platform by one of those disingenuous diasporic Jews - Kyle Rowland, an obnoxious kid made infamous in the current racialist conversation by his slathering dissimulations on Luke Ford’s weasil streams - aimed to provide ways out of responsibility for Jews.

Anyway, the world should know by now that I advocate a platform of European/White Left ethnonationalism in order to garner the underlying social organization, accountability and conscientiousness that the concept of unionization provides for, along with other White post modern means to manage our population and stave off infiltration, misdirection into runaway and betrayal - of key importance, the perspective of the union is intent on holding elites to account to our group (union) interests.

Now, Kyle Rowland has been busy peddling the Luke Fraud line that de-emphasizes the hyperbolic ethnocentrism and nepotism of Jewry in its assent to disproportionate if not hegemonic representation in niches of power and influence; at the same time emphasizing argumentation that Jews have achieved this according to objective merit; while Whites have suffered where they have suffered for lack of objective merit.

Predictably, Kyle had tried to strawman me/this platform with stereotypes of this platform being anti-elite so that he could discourage those Whites of powerful resource from taking our side.

I was happy to disabuse the world of this strawman. It is one of the benefits of defining the left for ourselves, viz., a White ethnonational left is not equalitarian, not against private property, relatively free enterprise and people having more according to their merit. It is not against elites, it is about holding all union members, especially including elites, to account - they will not betraý our unionized interests.

Kyle responded that ‘‘your kind always says that’ ...‘you are an anti-social right winger.”

Ah, I rejoined, in truth, that I am not anti-social - you want White advocates to be anti-social and that’s why you want them to identify as right wing, paying short shrift to social accountability in futile quest for pure warrant beyond or within nature, below relative human group interests.

At this point Ecce Lux joined-in against Kyle, wanting him to steel-man his argument that race replacement is immoral. Ecce did well, and I pointed out as well that Kyle was making an egregious buyer beware argument - if White people are hoodwinked into accepting race replacement it’s their fault. But I also pointed out to Ecce that anti race replacement is not the strongest angle in America, because Kyle could just hit you, as he already had, with the displacement of native Americans by Whites.

A better tack is to argue carrying capacity and from there segue into human ecology ... well, we’re sorry about the history but it is history and we’ve got to manage carrying capacity and human ecology now…

This was when Jonathan Pohl’s cohort, STFU James was encouraged by him and other half wits of the fart right to start attacking ...ME…

READ MORE...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W. Barnett Pearce

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

by Julia T. Wood and W. Barnett Pearce

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

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

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

Viz., if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate based on race, sex, etc., I judge everyone on their individual merit”, then they can charge you with being disingenuous, willfully ignoring “the long history of discrimination, oppression and exploitation of these groups.”  But then, on the other hand, if you take the measure of saying, “ok, lets take that into account and use, say, affirmative action to help these groups into positions in which they are under-represented”, then you are classifying and discriminating thereupon, hence a racist by definition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now let me revisiit GW’s statment:

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m getting a little ahead of myself.

READ MORE...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting that the newly coined “The Goebbels Report” (formerly White Right Hub, formerly ‘Shitlord Hub”) continues to carry Robert Stark, Roosh V. and other misdirection, but suddenly not Majorityrights.

The right is inherently unstable.

The right is to be conceived as feedback (in its pursuit of narrow, precise, objective warrants) to be gauged against the calibration of, and applied in, the relative interests of our people - the White Class (an overarching unionization delimited as White Left Ethnonationalism).

* Part of our interests will be coordination with other groups as non-conflictually as possible.

The right lacks the correctability through social accountability that the concept of being based and unionized in praxis sustains.

The White Class, a Difference that makes a Difference.

While DNA provides the basic criteria for union membership, I was queried by a Tom Anderson, who was complaining that we need more than DNA, and I explained…

7:04 AM
Tom Anderson
​Daniel give me the elevator pitch for your dna nations thing

7:07 AM
Daniel Sienkiewicz​The elevator pitch involves hermeneutics, like you say, “narrative” - narrative is hermeneutics, which liberates from mere facticity into the semi transcendent * and the deep.

* Above arbitrary confusion and scientism

Part 3a audio:The increased one up position of puerile females within the disorder of modenity; empowered and pandered to from all angles, their incentive escalates to incite liberalism and genetic competition

I’m going to continue this in additional posts, primarily because I was running out of the text space allowed by our posting configurations. I date this date prior to the earlier post so that it reads in its proper sequential order -

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns, that is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.” - Bateson

In this disorder of modernity, resulting of the rupture of classificatory bounds, her increased one up position emerges as it is pandered-to from all angles and with that her predilections are confirmed overly and prematurely…

In this position pandered to thus, she can become a powerful social gatekeeper despite her ignorance. She sees herself gaining in power (albeit short sighted, prior to the empathy that she would develop for the vulnerability of children of her own kind in a stable order), her most base inclination to incite genetic competition as a female (otherwise sublimated to a more Augustinian level - sperm after egg and so on) is in a charmed loop and becomes normalized - her hyperbolic liberalism institutionalized through her gate keeping auspices. Solicited and pandered to in this addressive position, she can become overly confident and articulate of her predilections; and as she talked-to, has support (e.g., can make her way up the academic ladder) she becomes a powerful and brutally liberal gatekeeper - don’t like it? She’ll call in the thugs, the anti racist YKW, whomever.

The disorder of modernity creates an atavistic circumstance where it is hard to trust and have patience for the yield of protracted patterns wherein the best tally of Whites and Asians is to be found; and this circumstance not only bumps-up the contextual force of puerile female selection, it merges to favor the atavistic selection of blacks.

Part 3b Audio: I realized belatedly that this text needed cleaning up (sorry about that) when I went to do the audio; but I have smoothed it out with clarifications and transitions. This part discusses a history of YKW redcaping “the left” as “liberalism” to Whites

And while the masculine qualities - confidence, bravery, assertion, strength, decisiveness - are certainly good and necessary in balance, these qualities can be over selected to the detriment of empathy, survey, cooperation, sublimation, intellectual query - these later qualities being of the male perspective, the bias of what they value in females; and isn’t it rather a shame to not favor that bias.

But that’s not what’s happening as the selective predilections of puerile females are as one-up as they are in modernity.

And her selective predilections are on a self-reconstructing loop as she is pandered-to from all angles and incentivized to maintain her powerful position as liberal gatekeeper with continued incitement to genetic competition.

Confirmation of the predilections of her perspective as it values, rather over-values, confidence, hyper-assertiveness, intrepid masculinity, impervious and undaunted no matter what, through incitement to genetic competition to the most brutal natural fallacy and universal maturity has one basically describing - well, you’ve just described a black man…. to the interests of black men and to the detriment of White men, their predilections and the more sublimated society that they would create.

...it becomes/became like a litmus test from her in initial interaction episodes: are you a racist, are you ok with blacks?

And modernity’s rupturing and short circuiting of patterns in favor of moment and episode makes worse the incentive and power structure for White men.

Taking our hermeneutic survey back to appropriate a more scientific, working hypothesis of black evolution here:

While evolving in the warmer climates where resources were abundant, shelter and forethought of seasonal deprivation not as much the obstacle, sublimation was less important. As hunter gatherers without as much need for cooperation, forethought and care, a hypergamous style of selection of the “alpha male” developed. Males were being rewarded for their ability to fight other males and assert themselves with females, not as much for their cooperation and ingenuity with regard to the elements and child rearing; R selection prevailed - having more babies and taking less care of them was more the birthing strategy. No need to elaborate, black behavior readily exemplifies results that would lend credibility to this oft suggested hypothesis.

But the predicament for Whites is worse than that as right-wingers and liberals have imposed them upon us (and if you think that slavery wasn’t a right wing thing, you are absurd).

READ MORE...