Majorityrights Central > Category: War of Discourse

Richard looking down unironically on the post modernists. In truth, where pomo is not otherwise misrepresented by (((red caping))), Richard is assisting the disinformation through his customary misdirection, now misleading White interests by characterizing the erstwhile eminently necessary concepts of post modernity with one of the few concepts associated with it that should be left behind - Rorty’s shallow concept of “irony” and the ironic stance.

The astute in concern of White interests will observe and understand that Jewish interests are generating and marketing misdirection of concepts that would be essential to White group defense, and Whites continue to fall for it.

The basic strategy of Jewish group antagonism is to take a good idea, necessary to group defense, advocacy, homeostasis, and deploy it in the interest of non-Whites or anti-Whites; then exaggerate or reverse these advocacy concepts to the point of utter misrepresentation, absurdity, to where they are perceived as alien and repulsive to the common sensibilities of Whites, causing them to react even against the concept underlying this red caping and against thus, the very concepts that Whites need to understand and organize their group defense.

Since their assent to greater hegemony than ever with the 2008 financial bail-out, Jewish interests have been confronted with an intersectionality where their prior advocacy of social justice positions now threaten them in their elite power, and hence they have sought to align and co-opt White right wing reaction, elitists in particular, though any sort of no account liberal (notably, “conservatives” conserving liberalism unbeknownst: US Constitution’s “civil rights” weaponized against conservation of White group interests; Christianity’s individual souls irrespective of group interests; scientism’s liberal conserving of animal drives as opposed to the “artifice” of human group organization) to their cause against “the left” which might otherwise provoke awareness suggesting the unionization of White ethnonationalism to hold to account those who are fucking our race over - Jewish interests along with the naive or disingenuous complicity of White right wing elitists, who are fine with selling-out our people, and other no account liberals, happy to take the license offered in the disordered, no account fallout of modernity - the wake of “objective superiority” taken for granted.

While Pat Buchanan was disgusted by “the sewer of multiculturalism” (all Americans should be Judeo/ Christian, speak English), (((Gottfried))) and he took up the response of integration by carrying forward the mantle of (((Frank Meyer’s))) paleoconservative “fusionism” of Abrahamism and enlightenment values; handing it off to Richard Spencer for a paleocon 2.0 big tent called the “alt right”, until Richard’s “Faustian imperialism” blew that up. The paleoconcon false opposition has now been handed from Gottfried to Nick Fuentes’ court.

And since WN continue to fuck things up, reacting against (((red caped/ i.e. misrepresented))) “post modernity” as so much “left wing, da-da nonsense”; acting into the reactionary right wing positions altercast them by Jewry, supposedly on behalf of pure truth and morality, somehow transcending human interests, while chasing misrepresentations (((red capes))) of the erstwhile necessary concept of Post Modernity on the whole, along with (((red capes))) of its ancillary concepts, I must repeat, hopefully in a more clear and compelling way, things that I’ve said before but for some flourishes. However, it is a great advance of Post Modernity properly understood, to emphasize the fact that an idea does not have to be “new” in order to be understood as good, useful, important.

The essential move of the Post Modern turn is to call attention back from Cartesian estrangement, to re-centralize and provide means to sustain our world view in praxis - our social group – through an engaged process to protect inherited forms and helpful traditions of our people from the ravages of modernity’s linear “progress”; while allowing modernist change where salutary, and leaving behind tradition where unhelpful in sustaining praxis; but the post modern turn from modernity’s linear notion of progress would not take praxis so far in ethnocentrism as to be supremacist and imperialist, unable to respect and coordinate with other groups of people, let alone go so far as to revert to a more primitive form yet, Monoculturalism, to where the humanity of non-members is not recognized:
         
Rockefeller, oblivious to the fact that he will shortly become dinner for the natives.

Just as the Monocultural worldview of cannibals might view a White interloper as non-human, rather as something good for the communal stew pot, so tribal monoculturalism would perhaps view we “racists” as less than human, not worthy of life.

As Modernity has been on a trajectory for the reflexive effect of Monoculturalism in its globalizing pursuit of universal progress, particularly as its rule structure, performance requirements, narcissism and rational blindness are (((weaponized))), many of our right wing dupes have dutifully reacted against Post Modern responses to Modernity, which are also (((weaponized))) - (((red capes))) of concepts such as “multiculturalism” and “diversity” - and they double down against them in Cartesian reaction, in Modernity’s quest for pure universal warrant with objective detachment and its abiding rational blindness that opens the way for subversive infiltration and monocultural integration.

Liberals, operating on the same “objective” Cartesian premises taken for granted as currency by right wingers, have long found a way to prove their objectivity - by means of “color blindness” - “not seeing” the most obvious differences, such as black and White. That’s been an easy way to establish one’s legitimacy in the world’s liberal hegemony, the fallout and disorder of the enlightenment. But a reflexive effect of objectivity over-stressed is hyper-relativism, as corrections of Praxis and its means (means of social systemic homeostasis by way of human agency/correction in interaction) are thwarted.

Perhaps European Nations and all White Nations, markedly led by The U.S., its Constitution being the beacon of Enlightenment philosophy, had to reach the present level of destruction to White genetics for our advocates to look more critically at our own philosophy - observing vulnerabilities to our genetic patterns; notably on the empirical side of Cartesianism, in Locke’s conception of individual civil rights (so integral to the American way) as a technology to supersede the “empirical fiction” of social classifications.

The US Constitution and Civil Rights, held to be sacrosanct - the “ultimate warrant in defense” for a modernist, liberating them, so they believed, from the influence of suprafactual narratives and superstitious traditions  - came into doubt.

Indeed, the vulnerability of that Cartesian purity spiral was exploited against Whites, Alinsky style, making us “live up to our rules” in “Civil Rights”, 1964, which prohibited White people, anyway, from making group classifications and discrimination thereupon. In subsequent decades, the prohibition was stepped-up with Anti-Racism - basically anti-group classification and discrimination thereupon, for Whites, anyway.

Were it not for the (((red caping))) of the post modern turn and its attendant concepts, as our philosophers properly conceived them, our people could have recognized the countervailing significance to us.

Following a clear trajectory from the apex of Modernity in Descartes, to its empirical side in Locke, to Vico, the first major critic of Cartesianism, to Kant’s failed (still Cartesian) attempt to rescue our moral order from Lockeatine arbitrariness, then on to Nietzsche’s criticism of Modernity and through to Heidegger and his student, Gadamer, we can make the inference that:

Anti-Racism is Cartesian, anti-group classification and discrimination thereupon; it is not innocent, it is prejudiced. It is prejudice against prejudice (Gadamer), and as such, it is hurting and it is killing people.

As opposed to the Cartesian estrangement from praxis - which is a typical reaction to disingenuousness and the arbitrariness within our primordial human condition - Heidegger recognized that a second liberation was necessary, from mere facticity and into the hermeneutic turn.

Heidegger also called attention to the need to hold fast to emergent qualities, individual and group, within this otherwise arbitrary condition that he called the thrownness.

GW deserves much credit for holding fast to Heidegger’s concern for the emergent (basically, our inborn qualities, following a kind of teleology but in the end of which, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts). While holding fast to Being in one’s land, place and amidst one’s people is characterized by dwelling.

Hermeneutics is not anti-science. It is even necessary for non-fiction accounts.

Despite the fact that there is inborn capacity for agency, it is much more like animal reaction until it participates in narrative capacity to sustain a plan, make choices, and verify success.

While the emergent provides an important, deep guide to an authentic path of our telos - and though indeed, hermeneutic capacity is part of the multifarious emergent qualities - our biological foundation is not foolproof for its occurrence in our arbitrary circumstance (wherein it is still possible, for example, to breed with other peoples), particularly absent the corrective capacity of narrative facility shared of the social realm beyond our personal biology. Following a natural concern to maintain our species, it is necessary to have that second liberation from mere facticity, as narrative is necessary to maintain even non-fiction accounts - such as holding fast in coherence to one’s individual and group kind in overall homeostasis.

Post Modern coherence is not to be misunderstood as linear and impervious, as with the modernist tendency; it is rather knowingly interactive and coherent in overall trajectory.

This coherence is the first requirement of authentic human existence. With necessary concession made to a modicum of arbitrariness in our primordial condition, we may partake of that second liberation into narrative coherence, and with it, achieve accountability, agency, correctability and warrant to hold up deliberately - necessary for our homeostasis given that individuals of our group can rather decide that they find it healthy to betray us. And there are antagonists willing to tell stories about how our emergent qualities are evil, misdirecting people against our social systemic maintenance. More, narrative form is necessary to transcend paradoxes, contradictions, confusions, tangles, strange loops, etc. (which can be weaponized against us). We require thus, sufficient hermeneutic, rhetorical capacity to maintain our individual and group coherence.

The post modern concept of hermeneutics has been (((red caped))) as “anti-science”, as if it is conceived to facilitate narrative flights of fancy in which one can make just whatever they like of themselves - 57th gender etc.. But this is a red cape misrepresentation of hermeneutics anti-Cartesian mandate. Yes, hermeneutics is critical of and liberating from scientism - bad science or bad application of science - but as hermeneutics is engaged in circulating process of inquiry which facilitates movement from broad perspective, the imagination of hypotheses largely detached from myopia of the episode, and back to rigorous verification that may yield warranted assertability as need be, it is absolutely necessary to the scientific endeavor - facilitating it, not opposed to it.

Disordering Effects of Modernity Complicate Gender Relations

The rupturing of group classificatory bounds as a result of their “fictional status” yielding to individual civil rights, particularly as (((weaponized))) in “Civil Rights” and “anti-racism” instigates the disordering effect of modernity, particularly for Whites as they are prohibited from classification and discrimination thereupon.

As people have an inborn need to classify in order to make sense, despite the prohibition, the general classification of gender will remain as too fundamental to disregard, and classifications too highly contrasting such as black and White will remain as default classification by tropism. That is to say, these classifications will become heightened while others are diffused.

The naturally one-up position of females for their precious child bearing capacity will be increased within the disorder of modernity as they are solicited and pandered to from all sides given the rupture of group discriminatory bounds.

Even while puerile and unsocialized into maternal concern for her people, she may become a more powerful selective gate-keeper than ever and incentivized to as such to maintain the liberal status quo - pandered-to incessantly, markedly by (((YKW))), her selective predilections - what is merely confident, strong, impervious, undaunted no matter what will become dubiously maximized, as will her base, atavistic female inclination to incite genetic competition be without sufficient correction in socialization. Her gains may be short term and the grounds of comfort diminishing, but she can usually call in thugs to white knight for her, while the reason to hold out for broader pattern reward becomes more and more unclear. Indeed, it is harder to be a female from the standpoint of traditional morals as more and happier opportunities exist for her to make mistakes within the disorder of modernity.

Moreover, in the disordered circumstance, it isn’t only Feminists who are problematic to White men, but also Traditional women as they may not appreciate that the different circumstances of post modernity entail some different performance requirements in gender relations as compared to tradition - the disorder of modernity may not provide sufficient structure and support necessary for males to act into the traditional role, at least not quite as directly as convention might have her expect; and they get shunned aside unjustly for the circumspection.

Marginals

Even if social/political group classifications are prohibited, marginals would function something like systemic empirical border markers of sorts, irrespective.

However, Gadamer’s hermeneutic concept of marginals has been (((red caped))). Respect for marginals as sentinels of the systems’ bounds, having perspective on the system and knowing where the shoe pinches, to provide corrective feedback on systemic calibration, is an excellent idea.  And clearly, a marginal for us, is someone just inside, near the edges of the system, maybe down on their luck, they can even be marginalized because they are better in important respects, but they are marginal members within and well disposed to our group maintenance - their participation probably should be shown compassion if not respect and integrated a little better. We’re all marginals from time to time.

Nick Fuentes and E. Michael Jones’ best friend, a drag queen giving children’s story hour.

Now, what YKW have done is (((red cape))) the concept of marginals by representing them as aliens, those originating outside and antagonistic to Whites or those Whites who are anti-White and destructive to the system, advocating that they should be included and integrated into our system. Thus, repulsing Whites to this concept which would be invaluable to our social systemic homeostasis.

The drag queen story hour (((red caping))) of marginals prompts occasion to discuss difficulties in post modern gender relations. There are interesting points to be made on behalf of Whites (not exactly for liberal purposes).

While there are excellent criticisms of homosexuality that should be ready at hand (won’t go into it here) and it should be discouraged, especially for males, we should not lose site that below its (((red caped))) politicization, queers should not occupy a priority concern generally speaking (you may have particular circumstances, that’s different).

Over reaction to this (((red caping))) can have negative effects for Whites; the vast exaggeration and distortion of advocacy of this relatively minor issue - e.g., homosexual defense transitioning into drag queen story hour - can place enormous pressure on young White boys to do stupid things in order to prove that they are not gay. With ‘the universal maturity©’ of Modernity upheld, people might not discern the different performance requirements of post modernity and White boys may be compelled to emulate non-White patterns of masculinity, which fail to manifest our best, most authentic nature.

There’s too much of this “White boys need to man-up” shit, not enough ‘White girls need to woman down’ happening in reaction to the red capes. “Manning up” under the circumstance is even more a matter of border and bounds creating than it is a matter of allowing one’s self to be incited into direct competition with arbitrary males.

As Bowery and Renner note: if you try to impose involuntarily contract with others upon us then you are a would-be slave master and supremacist; be loyal or be gone; don’t impose the consequences for your liberalism upon us.

There is an apparent inverse relation between confidence and intellectualism. Especially under the disordered circumstance, a modicum of intellectual wherewithal is necessary.

But as the predilections of puerile White girls are overly favored within the disorder of Modernity, increasingly one up as they are - pandered-to from all sides given the rupture of discriminatory out-group classifications - puerile females are empowered (don’t like it? she’ll call in the universal thugs/white knights) and incentivized to maintain this powerful one up position as gate keepers of liberalism for its short term gains, their base (sub praxis) female inclination to incite genetic competition exacerbated, their penchant to over value confidence exacerbated to the detriment of Whites.

Black boys, e.g., over-weening with confidence may win the day with momentary and episodic displays for their shorter evolutionary time horizons; their long pre-evolution which has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive sort; their R selection vs K selection strategy suited to the atavistic episodic evaluative fall out within the disorder of modernity. While the value to be ascertained of the more sublimated, protracted cultural and relational patterns of White boys is obfuscated.

Besides the ill-fit of “universal maturity”, there’s another problem with the “traditional solution” to the universal disorder of modernity.

In addition to distracting urgent attention from the much more important issue of race replacement - given relative non-correctability - chasing a (((red cape))) of post modernity such as drag queen story hour suggests a (((red caped))) “Traditional solution” (((Judeo-Christianity))) to a “Traditional problem”, (((“Sodom and Gomorrah”))).

Social Constructionism

Similarly as with hermeneutics, Social Constructionism is another key post modern concept - conceived as an anti-Cartesian perspective to facilitate the Post Modern Turn into Praxis, but (((red caped))) as anti-scientific, unnatural and Cartesian by solipsistic (subjective) flights of imagination very much to our detriment. Understood properly, however, this perspective sensitizes to our relative indebtedness and social accountability to our people along with agency and responsibility to the correctability, i.e., social systemic homeostasis of our human ecology - to reconstruct the coherent species that is our group. And if we are under attack as a group, social classification, as we are with anti-racism, and particularly given our weak ethnocentrism, would it not make sense to sensitize our people to our social connectedness, responsibility, our indebtedness to our species, and agency IN FACT?

That’s what social constuctionism proper, does. It is another post modern project to bring our people back from Cartesian estrangement into Praxis.

And yet social constructionism has been (((red caped))) as if race is a mere social construct - as if you can make anything that you want of it, if it exists at all. But that rendition of “social constructionism” would be solipsism - not many people of the social world are going to agree with you that racial species have no biological, empirical bearing. Rather, to say that race - or, you know what we mean, profoundly different markers, well on the way to speciation among humans - doesn’t exist. That would be a transgression of its anti-Cartesian purpose as well.

Social Constructionism is conceived to call attention where European peoples need it: attention to the FACT of our social indebtedness and of praxis being the preliminary world view of any human merit; delimited as calibration, it provides for accountability and coherence; next, and as important, it works hand in hand with hermeneutics to call attention to the fact that there is always at least a modicum of agency while we’re alive.

Social Constructionism and its underscoring of agency takes three forms: 1) a more literal kind of social construction, as in constructing a building with others, in all facets of the process. 2) a more metaphoric kind, as in a couple getting together and “constructing” a child together, with all the social involvements necessary to bring about the conception and the raising of the child; and 3) Post hoc attribution as to how more brute facts come to count. In these cases, that much closer to sheer physics, one still has some agency and can come up with even far fetched interpretations of the event, though upwards of 95% of the human population will be forced (by dint of the will to survive, and thus beware laws of physics and biology) to look upon you as crazy. But narrative difference from empirical fact will not necessarily be ridiculous and may in fact be helpful to individual and group, distinguishing for example, hero from fool or villain in the brute case of death: “Good riddance to bad garbage” or “his virtuous sacrifice facilitated the living on of his children and people.” The brute fact can be “instructive” - what can we learn from this accident/ tragedy to avoid its happening again? The point and the reward remain in recognizing some capacity for agency - even if only as to how facts come to count, post hoc.

Even as we look back to discuss days of our pre verbal, pre mammalian evolution, if we are not here to discuss it, it is a moot point. Hence, the eminent validity of centralizing Praxis in our worldview.

If a tree falls in the woods… you want truth and morals, for what?

How can we let White children come into this without trying to deal with this mess?

With one example from disingenuous antagonists using modernist language - “there will be immigration flows” - as if these “flows” are “caused” like a brute force of nature, you can begin to glean the superiority of the post modernist, hermeneuticist turn and its attendant social constructionist concept as it invokes the means of agency to reverse these “flows”.

You can see how it would benefit our enemies to invoke such a strictly deterministic, Cartesian notion of necessity - “that’s just the way it is, no account, no arguments need apply” - in circumstances such as migration ‘flows’ auguring our race replacement.

You begin to sense how retarded it’s been for huWhites to argue against the red caping of post modernity, social constructionism and hermeneutics.

You begin to sense why our enemies have misrepresented post modernism, because they don’t want us to have proper understanding of post modernity and its attendant concepts of hermeneutics and social constructionism - precisely as it would give us that coherence, accountability, agency, correctability and warrant of our social systemic homeostasis.

Hopefully that’s enough of an interest arouser. I’ll provide more background then work through some other examples distinguishing White Post Modernity Proper from its (((Red Caping))).

Background:

Modernity’s roots

The deepest, most direct root of Modernism in European philosophy goes back to the ancients, to the Epicureans specifically. The Epicureans were committed to overcoming mere superstition, custom, habit and traditions which did not facilitate the good life; they sought instead to trace all experience to positive source and sensible apprehension to establish solid grounds to the good life. They were the ones to coin the term ‘the atom’ to designate the smallest physical unit of which the universe is composed. From there, they would propose a hierarchical ordering for the use of pleasure, with contemplation occupying top place. The Epicureans being direct forebears of Modernist philosophy are thus seen in clear line to the Enlightenment, especially the empiricists, Locke, Thomas Jefferson, later philosophers of science and the Logical Positivists.

Traditional European Society

Traditional European societies were ethnocentric, particularly in the south, as exemplified by Plato and Aristotle, Aristotle in particular with his Praxis (one’s ethnocentric bio-social-political group) providing a sound Traditional starting point for this analysis; i.e., aligning tradition and natural concern for species homeostasis.

Aristotle did place praxis at the center of his world view as evidenced by his position that politics is the first philosophical priority - if politics are out of whack, all else is for naught. And he did believe there were outsiders who were to be treated in a different manner.

A democracy limited to the philosophically capable, and those committed to group protection, is probably consonant with authentic European tradition as it provides means for correctability (systemic homeostasis). The way of government that a particular ethnostate chooses is beyond the scope of this essay and needless to say, the democratic franchise can and has been (((red caped))) as well.

Nevertheless, Aristotle is the most esteemed figure of Europeans (even more than Jesus) and understandably so, as his philosophy was profound enough to keep social systemics aligned with natural laws that would preserve our species. Thus, a tradition authentic to our nature, not an affectation. If northerners complain, it should be said that inasmuch as they survived as distinct species, they would either be deliberately, accidentally or naturally in accord with Aristotle’s philosophy.

Aristotle observed that people are biological creatures requiring optimal, not maximal need satisfaction (his golden mean applied across the board politically), as advanced mammals, they are engaged in the social world with relative concern for relationships, they have agency, reflexive effects, can learn, etc; thus Praxis does not have quite the linear predictability of the hard sciences and therefore requires a different epistemology, i.e., practical judgement, in order to maintain coherence and homeostasis.

The North of Europe probably forged a less ethnocentric evolution due to the fact that nature was often the greater challenge than other tribes; protracted spans of time passing when the differences of neighbors were not quite so threatening; but clearly they were ethnocentric nevertheless, having different rules for “outsiders” - e.g., Viking invasions did plunder others nations; and they worked out their politics in accordance with the predilections of their nature and circumstance as sustained their species.

Whether tribe, city state or nation, there was enough ethnocentrism for distinct European groups to maintain themselves.

Red caping praxis as political through and through.

One may argue that Aristotle is stretching the political metaphor, but his observations of human nature would argue otherwise. It is more likely that one would be reacting to (((red caping))) of the idea, to where everything is political and a challenge to White hegemony; and true to the (((red caping))) strategy, Whites wind up fighting against the correct underlying idea - centralization of praxis.

Maxwell’s demons

Clerk Maxwell draws a useful heuristic distinction here between “Augustinian Devils” and “Manichean Devils.”

Augustinian Devils are challenges of nature, which characteristically do not tend to have the concsciousness to change in order to foil solutions. An evolution in penchant and predilection to take on Augustinian devils can be anticipated in northern circumstances - and this would correspond with lower ethnocentism, objectivity and scientific solutions being more favored in natural selection.

Manichean Devils are trickster challenges. Given our agency, humans have capacity to change in order to foil solutions to their challenge. This capacity would be more favored in the natural selection of the South and the Middle East to sustain their ethnocentrism where the challenge was, on balance, more a matter of other people and tribes than brute nature and resource.

With this traditional background, the stage was set for Europeans to be taken as naive, to be duped by the Middle Easterners - most poignantly by YKW.

Red Caping European Moral Order

The first and probably most important (((red cape))) imposed was an affectation to become our “Traditional European moral order” - Christianity.

Its tangled, dread inspiring and self destructive rule structures which, among other terrible misdirection, compel a sacrifice of concern for the lived life in favor of some ‘hereafter’ beyond our biological legacy even.

Suffice it to say, they’ve got Christians worshiping the same Abrahamic god as Jews, except that the Jews are “chosen” as a special group by that god, whereas others are not special as groups, they are, as GW observes, cast as an ever undifferentiating other from “the chosen.”

Moreover, as Bowery observes, the Bible functioned as the Jewish media control even before the advent of Modern technology.

With threat of losing what semblance of belonging, if not penalty of death and hell, a fundamental strategy of Jewish (((red caping))) - to disrupt the ethnocentrism of Europeans and other non-Jews - was cast a central component of ‘our’ most fundamental ‘Tradition.’ Its almost like a tradition of non-tradition, as honoring “your parents” hardly constitutes a commandment to obey a long historical tradition of forebears held in high regard. Indeed, we have barely begun to be roused in indignation over the Christian church having buried our most sacred day of ancestor remembrance and replacing it with “All Saints Day.”

Another key function of (((red caping))) is established, in that it allows for Jewish infiltration, misdirection and subversion of the group - by means of conversion in the case of the Christianity. Anyone can become a member, including YKW, who are particularly disposed to our dissolution according to the red cape strategy.

Finally, as the Jewish (((red cape))) functions, overcompensating reaction can be even worse than compliance, as even the important underlying idea for group homeostasis - in this case, a moral order - is rejected in favor of a-moral concerns of Modernity - e.g “nature”, adherence to “survival of the fittest” to the point of natural fallacy, “might makes right” to the point of utterly immoral destruction.

Indeed, there is reason to believe that the compulsion to overcome these (((red cape))) guilt trips, divorced from nature, was an instigating factor in the purity spiral of Cartesianism, hence Modernity.

Modernity

Philosophers take Descartes to represent the sine qua non of Modernity, setting forth an ‘Enlightenment’ that unfolded into the epoch of Modernity.

Cartesianism is looked upon as a quest for unassailably warranted knowledge, whether above and beyond nature and human interaction or on the other side of the Cartesian divide, within nature and below human interaction.

This would come to be seen as problematic as the pursuit of these ” that’s just the way it is” warrants, whether above or within nature, where not utterly impervious to social concern and negotiation, tended to pay short shrift to social accountability.

The trajectory of Modernity did, indeed, make important contributions to overcoming backward traditions, customs and superstitions. Moreover, given the remarkable advances in science and technology that it provided for, it is understandable how a valuation of experimentalism and what is new could be derived as chractaristic of necessary progress.

The first major critic of Descartes was Vico, who anticipated the propensity of this impervious technology to run destructive rough-shod over what should be philosophy’s central concern and world view - praxis - and thus he seeded the post modern turn with its neo-Aristotlian project of retreiving philosophical inquiry from Cartesian estrangement and back into praxis.

Even so, John Locke, who represents the empirical side of the Cartesian divide, cannot be faulted for wanting to remedy an exploitative and intransigent class system divide WITHIN England. In opportunistic conception of his empirical philosophy, he proposed that social classifications were a fiction of the mind, as each individual has the same perceptions and discrimination on the basis of these fictional classifications - such as British aristocracy obstructing equal access to advanced education for ‘lower classes’ - should give way to his concept of individual civil rights. But the weakening if not disruption of social classificatory organization and discrimination thereupon as an abstraction that can be applied, on principle, to any classification in favor of civil individual rights, is risky business.

Kant anticipated the danger in Locke’s world view of myopic empiricism running arbitrary rough-shod over praxis, viz,, its moral order. Therefore, he tried to rescue the integrity of the moral order by establishing its principles on “categorical” (unassailably warranted) universal principles. Kant’s rescuing project failed, as the Post Modern philosopher, Martin Heidegger, would observe, because it was “still Cartesian.”

Digression

I’m typically greeted with strong negative reactions on this topic, especially from STEM types. Their misunderstanding me as ‘doing something bad by using the term Cartesianism’ stems from a few places.

Being outside the fray of academic humanities, they see negative use of the term Cartesianism as a sign of pseudo intellectualism, if not the down-right (((red caping))) which is all they tend to see of “post modern philosophy” in relation to science (including some useful bits of Cartesianism) and THE ‘truth’ they see as the means for combating whatever problems that we are confronted with.

Of an Augustinian nature, they may not apprehend the Manichean (((red caping))) of what is otherwise a legitimate and important underlying Post Modern critique of Cartesianism and Modernity. STEM. people, focused on Augustinian devils, are notorious dupes.

White Post Modernity would not tell you to abandon Cartesianism entirely, especially not in its utility, say, to algebra or microwave engineering. The WPM project would try to call you back from runaway of Cartesian anxiety, and encourage you instead to look upon these quests for truth and precision as characteristic of a right wing component, indispensable, but nevertheless provisional and functioning as feedback to be subsumed within its utility to yourself in tandem with the group calibration - praxis - social systemic homeostasis.

However, resistance to proper understanding - both from our people and because (((they))) don’t want us to understand - has been an intense challenge:

Firstly, you’re confronted by our high I.Q. STEM boomer pioneers of the internet, who had hegemonic presence, and who have known enough success by their way of doing things to want to see it as tried and true, and not, say, somewhat contingent upon the luck of their generation or the value of their skills in the Modern milieu. They hadn’t yet had enough holes poked in their world view to feel the need to examine its vulnerabilities with up-to-date philosophical vigor.

Their misapprehension is not entirely of their own making.

There has been the (((red caping))) of Post Modern ideas that they are reacting-to.

When I tried to discuss hermeneutics with Prof. MacDonald, because of its (((red caping))) he INSISTED that hermeneutics is anti-science.

But I need to mention that seeing through the torrents of (((red capes))) is not easy.

I understand his thinking ’ hermeneutics is anti science’ for all its Jewish red caping waved through college Sophomores. Academia is, after all, in the big business of selling talk - and the paying customers, 18 -24 year old undergraduates with Guaranteed Student Loans, are perfect consumers for self serving, anti-scientific, Jewish advanced, anti-White, liberal hermeneutic distortion peddled by tenured professors in perpetuity.

I even mistakenly presumed Gadamer to be Jewish for his association with the term. Greg Johnson embarrassed me by pointing out that Gadamer was German.

Our own Guessedworker has fought me tooth and nail on every important post modern term and concept that I’ve used, so offensive has been their hyperbolic (((red caping))) to his S.T.E.M. predilection and ethnonationalist concern.

When I began explaining WPM Proper at The VOR back in 2011, I invited Bowery, thinking that he’d be on board. Instead he proceeded obliviously to say that we needed to “reboot the enlightenment.”

Afterward, when I came to Majority Rights, James tried to forbid me from using the critical philosophical term/concept “Cartesianism” - “stay far away from it!” ... “You are demoralizing our people!”  ...and when I criticized The Empirical Philosophers (meaning Locke, Berkeley and Hume), he reacted as if I was denouncing science and its method. Finally, in indignation, he tried to tell me to not characterize Modernity as a big problem.

This wasn’t an easy challenge. They’re all very smart and have made important contributions.

However, their misapprehension may also be attributed to (((red capes))) targeted directly at their S.T.E.M. type, such as “The Dark Enlightenment” and “Neo-Reaction.” These (((red capes))) in the hands of a (((mencius moldbug))) would portray Modernity and things like Cartesianism/or its misunderstanding as THE problem, rather than vulnerabilities in our system that (((they))), along with our traitors/dupes, can exploit/can be exploited by.

There is also an apparent problem in the habit of STEM analysis that looks for the ONE problem that interrupts a circuit; a habit that can have them not see the holistic overview of what is being said here.

For a combination of reasons, our ensconced STEM boomers and right wingers aligned in a reactionary purity spiral, haven’t quickly recognized that I wasn’t myself fooled by the (((red capes))) if not spitefully wielding them myself, against our people’s interests.

Pardon the digression, but I won’t be dissuaded from using these post modern terms and concepts - not even by geniuses who’ve done as much great work for our people as those three. These terms and concepts are simply too important for our people to allow them to be confused and misdirected.

...

The better starting point for analyzing the unraveling of our social systemic homeostasis -

The French Revolution or The American Revolution and Locke?

Most people start with the French Revolution, and it is highly relevant to Modernity. There are useful inferences to be made. Among those I’ve heard, Keith Preston observing that the European Aristocracies were often not as much loyal to their own nation as to the Aristocracies of other nations. That lines-up generally with the concept of the right that I am finding to hold up cross contextually. I wouldn’t put too much concrete emphasis on this, however.

Literal mindedness in this argument takes you into the Marxian-Hegelian (((red cape))) where the Aristocratic classes all stand together and therefore the “workers of the world should unite” across national bounds; while the Hegelian dialectic works its way out historically, in accordance to its own inherent logic to bring about the withering away of the state, which is presumed an ideal result.

Marx’s internationalizing of class and revolution, as well as the slogan of equality, became huge (((red capes))) for reactionaries to chase after. Marxism and Cultural Marxism became more and more a (((red cape))) for “the left.”

There may be merit to the critique that recognized a disordering of society by the revolution that was new, yes, but bad in a different way, as it was financed largely by the Jewish (or White for that matter) merchant class to overthrow a better ordering of societal rule [e.g., priest, philosopher, warrior, artisan], other than by mercantile. However, rather than so much the who question that occupies top place in our society, I would tend to favor the ‘what’ - i.e., protection of our borders and the protection of our population - whereas ‘who’ occupies governing position would then be contingent upon their adherence to the ‘what.’

Left and Right

The French Revolution is where the traditional Right vs Left dichotomy began, with those representing the King and his leadership being on the right side of the court, while those representing the populace - who would rise up in revolution - sitting to the left of the King.

It’s of worms that I’ll open in more detail later. I will argue that the dichotomy remains useful, that “the left” has been (((red caped))) in representation as Marxist, internationalist, liberalist, equalitarian and anti-White, when it is better represented as a union of the ethnonational populace - Paris for Parisians.

The slogan, “Liberty, Fraternity and Equality”, especially Equality, has been a terrible (((red cape))) that right wing reactionaries chase after. I will argue that red cape and other semiotics that can guide a White ethnonational revolution are sorted out in the depth grammar of ordinary language patterns - necessary as currency in connection with logics of meaning and action which, in turn, direct behavior.

Language as currency and depth grammar being those connotations which hold up cross contextually over time.

For the moment, I’ll sketch a few things, and suggest that Whites should ask:

Why does Jewry want White identity associated with “the right” or “neither left nor right” and against “the left”?

And what are they doing with the connotations of the terms by compelling these identifications?

Has not the left been associated with social justice, social accountability, compassion for the ordinary, marginals and group unionization in defense against elite abuse of power? While the right associated with purported objectivity, truth, brute nature below human accountability, or principles, elite individual or narrow group interests if not a god beyond human nature and also beyond accountability?

When the audience looks with me at the reasons why Jewry has always wanted White identity to be attributed to “the right” and “far right” if not “alt right” or “dissident right” “against equality” and why they do NOT want Whites to identify as an ethnonational left, but as of late, especially, against “the left”, the audience will begin to understand my argument… it begins with the recognition of the original premise of the (((red cape))), i.e., to take a concept that is good for organizing the group and then to deploy it against Whites and make it obnoxiously didactic to Whites in order to weaken if not break up their social systemic homeostasis. Indeed, compelling Whites to identify with repugnant anti-social reactions that effectively preclude popular groundswell to our ethnonational cause.

Those of us a bit older, remembering the 80s and 90s, will recall that conservative arguments were not anywhere nearly so typically pitted against “the left.” Conservatism was pitted more against Liberalism and Political Correctness in the 90s.

It was only following the 2008 financial (((bail out))) that suddenly for fear of intersectionality of Cultural Marxism with Jewish interests, that the underlying connotations of “the left” would be discovered as useful for Whites against Jewish oppression that a (((mass marketing campaign))) was initiated with a whole pathological characterology of “the left” and what it does: it is anti-nature, does not deal with reality, wants equality, internationalism, wants unrealistic, international social justice, liberalism, sexual deviance, etc.

Whites have been shockingly on board with this characterology so convenient to the current interests of elite Jewry and so clearly indicating that this is not necessarily what “the left” has to mean as this characterology called “the left” was not the in-vogue bogey man 30 years ago.

In fact, if the left is characterized by a broad based “fraternity” of the people in unionized interests against elite betrayal, then it conforms perfectly to a left nationalism and ethnonationalism as well.

As a union, it would conserve the interests within, focus our accountability, compassion and concerns of social justice for our people, not liberalizing concerns internationally.

You can see how the red cape of “the left” as “international” and oxymoronically as liberal was used to have Whites arguing against their own organizing function through these misleading connotations.

With the heavy marketing of “the left” as Marxist international, oxymoronically liberal for Whites, as it became cultural Marxist, to where White unionization was prohibited while non and anti White scabbing/border and bounds transgressing was sponsored as a part of “the international fraternity” (marketing the idea that that’s what “the left” necessarily means), Whites felt compelled to identify as some form of Right, Neither Left nor Right or Third Position as a function of the (((red caping))) to rupture our systemic homeostasis, leaving us susceptible to infiltration and misdirection in headlong Right wing reaction. Unionization closes off that vulnerability and the neo-logism, White Left EthnoNationalism, allows us to make accountability and the definition of its aspects in our interests explicit.

The depth grammar of the right is not accountable to our ethnonational union of people: it is accountable to god, to “truth”, to principles, to the great man or small group of elites, to “nature”...but not particularly to praxis, to the broad systemic union of our ethnonationals, our people. The neologism, White EthnoNational Left, can make it clear in a way that “Neither Left Nor Right” or “Third Position” can, that praxis, the union of our people is our central concern and is where accountability is due and not in any Marxist sense precluding reasonable individual liberty, private property, free enough enterprise, abundant resource or ethnonationalism!

This ambiguous result of the red cape reaction, disrupting organization, is why they will settle for an identity of neither left nor right, or third position, failing identification as some sort of right if not liberal.

But for all the attention given the French Revolution as “the source of our problems”, I’ve found following the Lockeatine line making more coherent sense of our predicament in Modernity’s disorder, since that is where the taboo against classification (a term corresponding with unionization) for White men was set forth and ripened for weaponized (((red caping))).

This has created a mystification, disingenuously wielded or naively adhered to by those who identify as right wing as they criticize the left for wanting more state regulation of social justice, while at the same time allowing the red cape of internationalism to extend over whom the nation is comprised.

Our right wingers and other liberals are disingenuously or naively being encouraged to believe that they are objectively if not divinely entitled to be unaccountable and disloyal to the broad group of our own people and creating vulnerabilities, allowing for the rupturing of our social systemic homeostasis as such because individual rights are held sacrosanct while social classification (by Whites, anyway) is considered evil.

Locke’s anti-classification notion of civil individual rights creates systemic pattern vulnerability

John Locke was aggrieved by the Aristocratic Class’s discrimination against lower classes in Britain. His grievance dove-tailed with his concept of empirical philosophy, maintaining that all individuals have the same perceptions while social classifications are a fiction of the mind; therefore these fictitious classifications should give way to civil individual rights.

This concept suited the ‘enlightened’ Epicurean predilections of Jefferson, along with his wish to throw off British upper class and British rule all together, and thus he made Locke’s anti-social classification notion of Civil Individual Rights into a central component of the American way.

Jefferson missed the bus on Kant’s noble but failed attempt to rescue principles from the arbitrary empiricism of Locke, let alone Vico’s correct placing of group praxis at center of the world view. And the fairly arbitrary notion of civic individualism over classificatory patterns, this ‘liberation’ from traditional patterns, became characteristic of an America that would grow more and more powerful until it was the world’s hegemon, wielding power and influence over all, for better and worse.

Jewish (((red cape))) weaponization of “Civil Rights” was still way in the future when blacks and women were given the franchise. While Jews could be said to be influential, even if only indirectly through Christianity and their part in the slave trade, it is certain that some Whites were engaging a Cartesian purity spiral on the notion of civil rights.

As America’s ship sailed further into the abyss of Modernity’s disorder, Nietzsche, a critic of modernity, chided those who thought that they were merely describing reality and proper course of progress: “they are only drawing maps of maps”...

Nietzsche would be very influential on Heidegger and his Post Modern/ Hermeneutic turn.

Over in England, Russell and Whitehead wanted to tackle the problem of classification presented by the classic liar’s paradox, “I am a Cretan, all Cretan’s are liars.” In response, they came up with Theory of Logical Types, that class and membership were on different levels, and therefore, “a class could not be a member of itself.”

Russell would confide that he considered this “the most arbitrary thing he ever had to do.”

Arbitrary perhaps, but their focus on classification is interesting, and they were generating useful thoughts, indeed schools of thought in coming to terms with Post Modernity.

Whitehead would say that “even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”...adding, “one cannot continually investigate everything, but must take for granted a given state of partial knowledge from time to time.”

Note: the legitimate existence of our race is beyond a false or inadequate working hypothesis - even if Post Modern (((red caping))) would try take advantage and exaggerate greatly the significance of our capacity to interbreed with other races. White ethnonationalists should take heed that the working hypothesis of our classification is sufficient to devote a large measure of our efforts to its advocacy.

Certainly Bateson made worthwhile use of logical types in his theory of schizophrenia; and the whole school of thought generated from there made important contributions to solid Post Modern philosophy. It dovetailed well with his Post Modern, neo-Aristotlean concerns. Class functions on a level of relational patterns. Humans are mammals and therefore care about relationships. It causes them confusion, pain and destruction when they cannot invoke this level to order their lives. Of Locke’s anti-classification program, he admonished that “it could only produce dark, Satanic mills”...

From his centralization of praxis (in a necessary, non Cartesian relation to environment and others) and communication in reflexive interaction, communications scholars would develop the very useful communications perspective, that we live in communication.

From his more social and biological position on praxis, Bateson was also able to offer some corrections to the deficiencies and toxicties of Heidegger (e.g., “nature rarely works within lethal variables”); it is significant to offer corrections to Heidegger as he was, on the whole, not just a great and important philosopher for Europeans, but rather prominently manifesting the Post Modern/Hermeneutic turn.

While Heidegger was beginning to wrestle with the Post Modern/ Hermeneutic turn, Wittgenstein was doubling down on Modernity, trying to map an unassailable correspondence of language to world in his Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

Bateson would chide those who would engage in this scientistic wish to get away from any ambiguity of the language, social classification and its invocation of meta-communication what-so-ever, as having an apparent wish to “get back to the innocence of mood signs”...

Wittgenstein expressed his embarrassment in belatedly catching the post modern turn.

However, there were adherents to the Tractatus at The Vienna School of Logical Positivism, who never did catch on. And they extended the invisible hand to the Austrian school of economics, including Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, and von Mises, Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, Thatcher, Reagan, on to the guys behind H.U.D., fannie mae, ginnie mae, freddie mac and fangled Wall Street instruments, finally Bernanke, Paulson etc. to the 2008 financial melt-down.

The Vienna School of Logical Positivism held a mandate to follow through on the Tractatus to establish a language that mapped and mirrored reality perfectly - free of any ambiguity and metaphor. But a few different aspects to words (e.g., referent, signifier, context) are always found to make some metaphor and thus human judgment and convention unavoidable and indispensable.

Language as currency and semiotics

While Heidegger is clearly the more useful and important philosopher to us, the 1/4 White Wittgenstein does have a few concepts that are useful to us in his later philosophy.

For example, his borrowing of the concept of internal relation - a co-evolutionary concept - from continental philosophers, operating much like fractal technology, provides a useful alleviation from the Cartesian anxiety: how does one think? All kinds of ways. Where does one start? Anywhere. You want orientation? Look at an episode - where perhaps a practice may have begun; look at what people are doing and consider the use involved. You want to penetrate deeper? Look at the depth grammar. As language is the currency of convention, the ordinary language philosophy that is derived of Wittgenstein is turning out to be useful - more on that when we finish the historical background ..the Heideggerian school, its off-shoots and advances in post modern thought since; before we detail our thesis of the (((red caping))) of these concepts and rectification in White Post Modernity.

This attention to language isn’t superficially caught up in Jewish language games. Heidegger was also keen to follow “the wisdom of the language” for what its roots and sources would offer as suggestions.

And as we exist in the arbitrary thrownness, as Heidegger calls the contingent nature of our classification at its most radical level, post modern philosophy steps back from a suffocating quest for a perfect Kantian architectonic or Hegelian dialectic; recognizing that we have to be pragmatists to some extent, it retrieves us from mechanistic quest of Theoria and takes us back into Praxis, going the way of the Pragmatists, looking more to the development of working hypotheses and specificatory structures in its pursuit of operational verifiability and warranted assertability.

I was chided for using the metaphor of “conceptual tools”, or a tool kit, ready to hand to bring to bear to our problems, as if we should just za zen manifest emergent ethnonationalism every moment.

When GW insists that we need a complete, unshakable “foundation” to the project of universal ethnonationalism, I would ask why he thinks that we do not already have “foundation” enough to begin - a working hypothesis of our people’s existence and need for advocacy enough to warrantably assert? He and other more scientifically oriented people might help greatly by shoring up our “foundation”, behavioral tendencies, etc. but the idea that we don’t know enough to proceed in our defense is absurd…as is the idea that it is not bespeaking deeply considered philosophy, but merely political advocacy.

It fits my working hypothesis that he’s reacting to Jewish red capes of and among praxis, along with other liberal rhetorical abuse that instill Cartesian anxiety, compelling the belief that we do not already have grounds to warrantably assert our advocacy, but need to have some pure, universal warrant beyond praxis; as if we don’t know enough about our people, the value of our different European kinds that merit homelands of our own and a means to survive as distinct kinds in diaspora…not that we can’t do better, find better popular inspiration, some key fundamental connections, but enough to begin.

Genetic evidence accumulated in recent decades bolsters our concern for human and pervasive ecology - that would certainly include concern for our own kinds.

Though we can infer many working hypotheses from experience, e.g., that Asians, Africans and Europeans have different rates of maturity with different advantages that can tangle each other up when brought together in interaction, operational verification of science does contribute to warranted assertability of the fact - R and K strategy, testosterone levels, lesser impulse control and sublimation, warrior gene, etc. - the point is that concerns of praxis and science are not mutually exclusive and should not be antagonistic.

There are many occasions when science uncovers issues not at all apparent to ordinary sense (e.g. Jewish crypsis) and that sort of excellent yield of science is not discouraged, unappreciated and mutually exclusive to hermeneutics either.

The antagonism that I’ve experienced from Bowery and GW - GW’s wish to “sweep aside” everything bespeaks a failure to see the underlying importance of Post Modern Concepts to Whites, to trust that application for Whites is very different from the red caping they perceive; failing to appreciate its function to protect the good in what is and has been, the value of agency and correctability in its outlook to stave off their worst fears (e.g., in Bowery’s case, a concern of “eusociality” and the loss of distinct European self sufficiency) and to create, in fact, the grounds of homeostasis, group and individual.

GW sees a susceptibility among academics to top down wish to impose concepts over what should be concern to describe what nature will do irrespective. This imposition upon nature has come to the utility of Jewry as a characterization of what “the left does.” This characterology of “the left” is a red cape.

He hasn’t been ready to accurately grasp what I’m saying, nor its significance due to his own vigilance to slay academic pretense and misdirection as it over motivates misconception that I’ve been the mere passive receptacle for Marxist indoctrination and not one making original inferences, weighing concepts for their utility to European people, leaving some things behind, willing to have what I’m taking for granted constructively questioned, but not constantly and with deconstruction being the only “input.” 

GW and Bowery are not appreciating that hermeneutics is a circulating process - and no, GW, its not “back and forth back and forth” in some trivial, plodding manner - it is inquiry that can gracefully and as a matter of utility take starting points from wherever necessary and engage utility (including the utility of ideals).

Where GW and Bowery make well placed, rigorous observations about sub praxis natural underpinnings, they should only contribute to refinement of our working hypotheses, specificatory structures, perhaps adding operational verifiability to the already warranted assertability: the eminent validity of ethnonationalism and the working hypothesis that the White/European race and its subspecies does, in fact, exist - and well it should - at least it is natural for species to defend themselves, even if you believe that we should not survive (as a Hitler might not, in his scienstism).

A more rigorous, scientific focus, a closer reading as it were, shouldn’t be considered mutually exclusive to what I’m saying.

It can be a problem if they veer into scientism - try to say that what I’m saying should be swept aside - probably as they perceive and react to red capes or are stuck in a STEM habit of trying to isolate “the problem” in a circuit while making all else redundant (e.g. me and what I’m adding) by comparison to their “new model”...not realizing that they are attempting to sweep aside things that are far more important than their straw man contentions. They are habituated to issue straw men as they are not prepared to see friendly concepts coming from the humanities and therefore interject straw men in place of working to complement what I am actually saying with their valuable input.

I over reacted to GW’s reaction to non-foundationalism, when saying there “can be no unassailable foundations” - technically true philosophically, but stretching hermeneutics to the point of absurdity to ignore laws of biology and physics; call them foundational if you will. Our biological species is, after all, what we’re about; not some alternative narrative to that, possible though it may be. Its frustrating to be confronted with misreadings of post modernity as being absurd. In its proper understanding neither I, nor any scholar that I’ve ever talked to, deny evolution, laws of biology and physics, facts…we take these matters for granted while someone reacting to the (((red cape))) misrepresentations would try to characterize us as absurd - or, rather, going along with the (((red cape))) characterology of “the left” as not dealing with nature (as opposed to one who deals in verifiable and specifiable hypotheses).

Concluding the history and moving on to specifics should help people to see this as a collaborative enterprise, not mutually exclusive to their reasoned concerns.

Specificatory Stuctures

- are suited for Praxis. Aristotle observed that people: are biological creatures evolved for optimal need satisfaction; registering reflexive systemic effects of excess, deficiency and actions of others - as mammals in particular who have relative concern for relationships, have agency, can learn to learn, can reframe agendas hermeneutically. Social science thus differs from hard sciences, especially from physics but even from biology in our human capacity for agency and reflexive effects in interaction. To make sense of this requires what Aristotle called phronesis (practical judgment), or what Shotter calls specificatory structures: largely or partly finished general frameworks, slightly ambiguous, but having ready understanding to act as participatory currency by the public - frames that can be shaped and crafted for broad perspective, not suffocating necessary imagination to transcend moment and episode into broader patterns as need be, nor precluding re-specification in precision, down to genetic or molecular levels, as need be.

This hermeneutic capacity in liberation from mere facticity to transcend stray moment and episode, paradoxes, strange loops, tangles, defeats, is necessary not only for individual coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, but also for groups.

READ MORE...

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

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

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

As I have stopped taking her seriously, not even as providing an oppositional platform in which to air ethnonational views, I was neither carefully listening nor in attendance for all of this discussion; but I did catch Claire Khaw making some sort of assertion (in defense of those proposing rape as an unavoidable fact of war, therefore something to be accepted and to inspire ‘manly’ reaction?) that she believes it is normal for men to sit around and share rape fantasies while they are among themselves. I found this bizarre and utterly irresponsible, as I have never even had any such thoughts privately (Claire tried to say it is because I am older, but when I say never, I mean never) nor have I known any man who expressed these wishes.

The controversy flared-up with Con-Ops and That Woman leading the way to denounce Claire’s sanctioning of cohorts who were bandying the suggestion that the English might be incited to act more manly by the Muslim rape of English girls, and might thus, retaliate in kind by raping their enemy… Claire considers rape an unavoidable corollary of war; in attempted normalization of this “thought process” in discussion, she went on to suggest, as I’d mentioned, that ‘rape is a normal fantasy and desire lurking in the private thoughts of men, that they reveal when among themselves absent the company of women’....

You’d think that was bad enough, then Luke Ford got into the act of normalizing and institutionalizing rape (see below).

But first, Con Ops and That Woman review Claire and co. on rape:

Claire’s Secular Koranist disciple Ego Dik goes full Ted Bundy

Claire Khaw allies herself with incel jihadi’s

Spiritual Mamzer

Claire has tried to argue that EGO DIK’s incitements to sexual violence against English girls were just a part of a troll to trigger an angry reaction and to make a point.( https://youtu.be/RDKahR-5PwQ judge for yourself) Claire has called me hysterical and a virtue signalling liberal bitch for calling out EGO DIK and Jon Vance

For those who think these are but harmless spergs on the internet and would never perpetrate violence in real life. Think again! Jonathan’s friend Travis Patron another virgin with rage and currently the leader of the Canadian Nationalist Party, assaulted two lady’s. Travis told Vance he was going to pick up some woman and smash some puzz. He ended up smashing two faces.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...

Ego Dik and Jon Vance have naturally backed their fearless leader.

Comments

Richard Murdoch

1 week ago
Spiritual mamzer aka con ops did nothing wrong.
Big ups homie….keep it gangsta

That Woman
2 weeks ago (edited)
What I find amazing is they seem to believe that everyone secretly thinks this way and they are just being “brave and honest”. I must say, these horrible things they have been posting and saying have never crossed my mind.

As if normalizing rape wasn’t bad enough, Luke Ford gets into the act of institutionalizing rape..

Luke Ford’s barbarous right wing religion:

A Yazidi woman who had been a sex slave to Isis confronts her former captor:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7743453/Moment-Yazidi-former-sex-slave-comes-face-face-ISIS-rapist-attacked-14.html

       

Luke Ford shows this video (22:24) and then comments, shockingly…
       

Luke Ford (25:00) “Ok, let me move on so, how does the bible deal with rape in battle? So it’s been a very typical male behavior in battle * that after you win the battle after you take female captives from the out-group, that its traditional that if they’re attractive you rape them. So, how did the bible deal with this? It instituted a practice whereby yeah, you can rape them once; but after that you had to allow them to cut off all their hair and to mourn for I think, thirty days, for their parents who are presumably dead, then you have the option of marrying them, bringing them into your household or setting them free. So, I think that the bible understood that men are going to rape in battle. What it tried to do was restrict (holds back a chuckle) the amount of raping, tried to cut down on it, and provide some rituals to control male lust.

So, Judaism is a very practical religion, very much in this world.” - Luke Ford.

Luke Ford’s Judaic religion ‘understands’ that men WILL rape in times of war, therefore the bible prescribes that you may do this once, after which time the woman must be given an opportunity to shave her head and grieve for lost family (presumably dead parents and so on) for 30 days; followed by the rapist being given the option to marry the woman or to set her free..

The “that’s just the way it-is-ness” that “men WILL rape” is a tell tale sign of the right wingishness that Luke adopts in accordance with his brutally supremacist religion’s obscene prescription for the event - Luke speaks proudly of this prescription, saying how it illustrates that “Judaism is a very practical religion, very much in this world.”

Do you see what’s happening here with the language game that Luke Ford is playing? He and (his people) don’t want White people to have a social constructionist understanding, because that would provide us with social accountability and agency. He wants to continue to argue on behalf of a ‘beleaguered right wing facticity, a that’s just the way it is-ness for the ‘we’ on the right, who are dealing with reality’ (to protect our unjust Jewish hegemony, right wing and liberal complicitness with pseudo objectivst bullshit, that is).

The social constructionist understanding of these events is why a left ethnonationalist perspective is superior. Because a social constructionist understanding would maintain that the fact of rape is not something that has to be accepted and normalized. Not even post hoc - after the fact - as we have the agency to (socially) construct how facts come to count. In the case of rape, it can be looked upon as neither a necessary consequence of circumstance nor a mere natural fact in the course of life, but a very serious crime…let alone something fairly normal and a sign of manliness. In fact, it has been standard operating procedure for the U.S. Military to severely punish enlisted men who rape.

The story of Emmett Till, a young black boy who was lynched for sexually harassing a White woman in 1955 Mississippi, has been endlessly retold to the exclusion of the exponentially more common black on White rape and murder events.

It is interesting to note that Till’s father, a black serviceman in the U.S. Army stationed in Italy during WWII, was court martialed and hanged for having raped an Italian woman. Emmett was pre-empted in his trajectory as a chip off the old black.

So, no, rape is not necessarily accepted as a normal feature of war, and a liberty for victorious troops to take over the vanquished.

* Rape may have been condoned if not encouraged by certain primitive elements in armies like the Soviets, it may be considered normal for non-White armies, but it is strictly prohibited by White armies.

The whole rape issue and the fact that European men tend to be exponentially better behaved in that regard than blacks, more sublimated than the R selecting blacks and Middle Easterners, can be yet another selling point to our co-evolutionary women, and strong warrant for our sovereign ethnonationalism. If White women want to mix with them, that’s too bad, but White men are not obligated [that would be a form of White slavery] to support them or their offspring - the exploitation and punishment rather will be of her ... just as the reward of a better way of life will be for loyal women.

Related at Majorityrights:

Claire Khaw hosts “Focken” and “Ovfuckyou”Ovfuckyou says “Hitler did nothing wrong” and tries to equate Nazism with White 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...

To be as uninhibited as this woman is, giving completely graphic instructions and attitudinal coaching on how it can be perfectly ok, even in one night stands, to give blow jobs (the term ‘fellatio’ falls by the wayside as a fig-leaf of inhibition) provokes a questioning of her position and its power: Coming from a pretty White woman, this lack of inhibition, not especially qualified beyond whether the individuals involved are comfortable and have a sense of reciprocal fairness, provokes the question of whether this is irresponsible bullying of the social realm.

Commenting on Jen Scharf, ‘Church of Entropy’s most recent stream, I heard the interlocutors discussing morality in terms of objectivity, physics, products of ‘the mind’, a nihilism to be grappled with in sheer terms of power…

This is all very great nonsense. I noted that social interaction is the ground of morality - negotiated there as matter of practicality, as much to achieve cooperation for leveraged ease beyond brute struggle and conflict as anything.

Yes, we have to respect the somewhat arbitrary biological imperative behind sexual drives, individual boundaries and prerogatives.

However, taking the example of this woman, we must also observe that her beauty and resource did not come of a vacuum, but were born through the struggles of her parents, forebears, social systems and rule structures which facilitated their survival; evincing the resource and beauty which suggests her health.

That is to say, far more consideration and account should be requested, as she speaks and recommends her lack of inhibitions to the public, as to how she effects our social capital.

Sex is not merely a normal biological function, not merely a means to give pleasure and have fun with people that you think are cute.

While this kind of disinhibition can reveal a liberation of vital forces of certain parts of the system which may have been unduly constrained, it also conceals other ramifications of the sexual act - as it may play into narrow and short sighted confirmation of persons and politics that really don’t deserve it; while disconfirming others, whose virtues, perspective and the products of ther sublimation may deserve more respect.

Elsewhere, I have noted that a large part of what makes sex sexy is the tension between human dignity and the yielding to animal drive; and with that, a tension between human dignity and yielding to the brute interpay of dominance and submission ....a yielding or not, which evokes an integation and empathy of submission and dominance on the part of both genders.

And this tension which makes one ‘sexy’ will depend, at least for better Europeans, on maintaining the dignity of human concerns far sublimated from the sexual act.

Of course the sexual act is closely tied, especially for we Europeans, more evolved for ‘K’ strategy, with a concern that it is the long evolved means by which people, hopefully responsible people, come into the world by responsible consideration.

That is one reason why the more sensitive among us can be disturbed by what is to us the alien lack of inhibition that bespeaks the irresponsible momentary and episodic emphasis of ‘R’ strategy (as opposed to concern for levels of relationship and biological pattern), a conditioning, perhaps, of the pop psychology of Freud and Marcuse, that was born in indifference, if not downright antagonism to our social-biological systems. This lack of social inhibition is putting our systems and social capital at risk.

Make no mistake, so long as our people exist, we are, in an important sense, a part of a social and biological system. And if we are not a part of a system, then we do not exist as a people. Which isn’t true. We do exist. It is Noel Ignatiev who is dead - literally and figuratively.

This woman says that she considers it ok to give blow jobs in one night stands. She does seem to indicate that you should take precautions, but says that she does not use condoms, claims to just kind of know who she is giving blow jobs to. Inasmuch as that is true, her guess would have to be taking a lot of clues from the (social) context.

But does it ever occur to pomiscuous people that they might be taking something that rightfully belongs to a spouse?

J.F. Gariepy goes so far as to say that he has ‘made love’ (disgusting euphemism, if there ever was one) to thousands of women, and that he is doing a favor to their future husbands by getting these women excited about sex. Who is this fucking pig, this joker, kidding?

In the case of misegenators, does it occur to them that they might be taking or giving away something that rightfully belongs to a people - at least in predominant account to our/their pattern? Those who would choose to go with other people are ultimately free to leave (hopefully not having acted before sufficient accounts requested); they are not free to impose this prerogative and its consequences on the broad pattern of a people who are responsible to our/their kind.

I stand by an article that I wrote a few years ago, that one way to know if it is a good and appropriate person that you’re having sex with is whether or not you have to use a condom. You should know them well enough not to need one.

It is eminently reasonable to oppose the social resource of vast funds that have gone to pay for A.I..D.S. - a disease which can inhibit and ‘cure’ socially irresponsible behavior.

Here is your A.I.D.S. education: don’t conduct yourself like a pig and your chances of contracting A.I.D.S. are next to zero.

The basketball player, ‘Magic’ Johnson, contracted A.I.D.S. through unprotected sex in which he ‘tried to accommodate as many women as possible…some of them were unbelievable.’..

Then our social resource (of money) kept this scumbag alive. He should have died and it would be quite fine with me if the woman that he accommodated had died as well.

Going back to the young lady giving blow job advice, including for one night stands, if her episodic practices would have her giving this treasure and reward to the likes of Magic Johnson, it would be quite fine with me if she were to die as well.

Hateful? You bet its valid hate people bestowed with our social treasure, only to use it for our destruction. And if the sexual drive is a strong natural impulse aimed at the survival of our species, so is hatred of those who abuse it.

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 ((())).