Majorityrights Central > Category: Polish Nationalism

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...

Part 1

Part2

Part 3

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...

Related at Majority rights: Hitler/Nazim were Not White Nationalist. Part 1 now on line

A Public Service Announcement:

Instrumental Nazi propaganda has been disproved in several places, but I make an emergency post because the terribly misleading film, “The Greatest Story Never Told”, is* headlining on the White Right Hub. (Update: It’s been taken down by its proprietors - thank you).

In addition to the bald faced lie, straight out Nazi propaganda of 58,000 German civilians being killed by Poles to instigate WWII…

The film, “The Greatest Story Never Told”, also misrepresents the Bromberg incident, which happened three days after the Nazi invasion, as if it was a precipitating event - “bloody Sunday” Goebbes called it for propaganda value. It happened when the retreating Polish army had intel that civilian fifth column activity was occurring in Bromberg, and in the panic and rage of the retreat they were sniped as they passed through Bromberg. At that point - with the intel that there was fifth column activity of Nazi partisans there - the Polish army rounded up suspects and executed them on emergency grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1939)

Whether the Polish army executed innocent people or not, it was under extreme circumstance and there was serious Nazi partisan activity being undertaken by the “civilian” population in the area. And very importantly, the Nazis more than made up for it - exponentially - in the number of Poles executed and the destruction of Polish civilian population and property.

WN (including White Right Hub) need to reconsider promoting this film, “The Greatest Story Never Told” - it is highly inaccurate and not conducive to the White Nationalist cooperation that is so important to our survival.

In service of that, it is useful to observe the even less ambiguous matter, the whole cloth lie that it promotes of “58,000 German civilians” having supposedly been murdered by Poles interwar. This propaganda was not remotely true, a lie promoted by Goebbels propaganda machine to “justify” the war.

Press image for Audio/Video, Part 8

This part, 8, will conclude the introduction to a series which will be open ended and ongoing as necessary to address issues as they emerge relevant to the purpose of separating ethnonationalism from Nazism and Hitler redemption.

We’ve begun with Poland for obvious reasons, since that’s where World War II started.

But we will defend all ethnonationalism against imperialism, with particular focus on the necessity to defend against Nazi association.

We will address various aspects and any perspective that emerges relevant to removing this albatross from our necks.

Those who defend Hitler frequently think, very mistakenly, of Belarus as if it were a part of Russia and tending to be on its side.

Of acute relevance is the fact that all nations between Germany and Russia were against The Soviets. The Poles defeated the Soviets at Warsaw in 1920 when the Soviets were otherwise on their way to Berlin. Stab in the back? how about having your capital, Warsaw, leveled, hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered in thanks by the Nazis.

But all of these nations between Russia, including Ukraine, like Poland, had awareness of the J.Q. while being nationalistic and anti-Soviet; there’s been almost no awareness of Belarus, its entirely distinct ethno-nationalism and consciousness - wise to the J.Q., with a long, bitter history of fighting the Russians for independence, a fight on religious levels too, translating to an extreme ethnonationalist willingness to fight the Soviets.

These facts were ignored by Hitler because he wanted lebensraum and the fertile lands of Ukraine. Thus, he set out propaganda, no matter how absurd, to depict his imperialist eastward aggression as necessary despite the fact that these nations hated the Soviets.

Hitler didn’t have to engage this war. As Professor MacMillan observed, he wanted it. It cost over 50 million European lives, for his quest of imperialist expansion on top of what were already imperialistically expanded lands of Frederick the Great.

Schneidemhul (now Pila, Poland).

His supremacist, imperial war, left Europe prostrate, vulnerable to all that beleaguers us now, jeopardizing the very survival of European people, even in our homelands.

In the context of the lives lost, exploited, land appropriated by the Nazis and forebears, for the fact that it was Stalin who reset the borders and moved the populations back west…the sympathy sought for Germans moved to re-establshed borders after the war by the millions is eclipsed. I feel sorry for those killed in transit.

But of expulsion, my Polish cousins were moved west too (from what is now Belarus to what was then Schneidemuhl) and I do not play the violin. In fact, the borders of Poland now very much assimilate the lands occupied by Polish tribes prior to some losses in its west, including Breslau/Wroclaw, due to the Mongol invasions in the 1200s.

While Germans lost land and property being forcibly moved west by Stalin’s borders, so were the Poles moved west

I like L’viv, a city that the Poles built, better than Wroclaw. But as it keeps the peace for it to be a part of Ukraine now, so be it.

I’m very glad that the ancient Polish city of Zamosc, next big city to its west, didn’t become Himmlerstadt as proposed, eastern capital of the Third Reich. If Nazi Germany didn’t plan on expanding eastward, why whisk out plans like that? As if this wasn’t a necessary war of defense for ethnonational patriots of these nations adjacent to Nazi Germany.

Bromberg formed a German salient and fifth column activities.

Consider 110,000 Poles expelled from this region and moved into forced labor camps, over 5,000 Polish children kidnapped for Germanification. While 60,000 Germans were moved into the region for their lebensraum generalplan Ost…

Then take into account the start of the war, surprise attack on Danzig,

the panic of the retreating Polish army, as it was sniped passing through Bromberg three days later. Acting on long standing intelligence, much gathered through its decription of the enimga cypehr (in fact, the chief cracker, Rejewski, was from Bromberg),

Rejewski, enigma code-breaker

seeing that there was fifth column of Nazi activity going on there; they took out and shot any Germans who had guns in their houses (my depiction in the audio/video of the Polish response in the so-called “Bloody Sunday” doesn’t capture some of the imminence of the situation begun in fire fight against Nazi partisans; and the image I show of people being executed was not of exemplary Poles: the Polish mayor and teachers were among those executed in retaliation);

but, as we said, the Nazis more than made up for it, killing exponentially the number of Poles (a policy of retaliation that they’d repeat in other nations); then we can talk about Wielun, where the Nazi aerial bombing started off (Bombing of Wielun on September 1, 1939, three days before the Bromberg incident)...  the utter destruction of Warsaw, all the civilians killed there ..

The Jablunkov Pass, site of the Jabłonków incident

But Pat Buchanan wants you to believe that the Poles were imperialists, full of hubris, exemplified by their taking a small strategic train pass. David Duke wants you to believe Hitler was a man of peace with bonafide offers as such.

We’ve yet to discuss the millions of Russian, Belarusians, Ukrainians, French, Czechs, English and on who were killed (supposedly because of Versailles). Where does the absurdity end? Well, it’s beginning is with imperial supremacism, and its end is with a coordinated ecology of ethnonationalism.

Now we’re dealing with generations of suppressed American reactionaries for whom William Pierce is often the common denominator for his misleading depiction of Hitler, misleading otherwise intelligent, would-be nationalists.

End of text to audio

.......

World War II was an unnecessary war? True, and Hitler shouldn’t have started it.

While the British position was awkward, with their article of faith, seeking a balance of power on the continent, it coincided with a moral position regarding smaller ethnostates.

It didn’t work out strategically for them, but morally, their position in opposition to Hitler was correct; while Hitler turned out wrong on both counts, strategically and morally.

From here on, Per and I will address particular aspects of the war as they emerge relevant, and we’ll address individuals who insist on defending Hitler and Nazism across the board, or at least more than we think they should..  ...we’ll also talk to people who are more in agreement with us, or who are coming around.

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 7

In five minutes (36:53 - 41:53), Professor Margaret MacMillan destroys Pat Buchanan and David Duke’s claim that Hitler was bargaining in good faith, and that he only wanted what was “unjustifiably” taken from Germany by Versailles, that he didn’t have imperial supremacist war in mind all along, irrespective of its potential and real destruction to European peoples, including his own, German.

Trinity College Dublin
Published on Nov 1, 2017
Delivered on Thursday, 26 October 2017, Professor Margaret MacMillan

READ MORE...

Part 6 Hitler was Not WN: Corrections Occasion Discussion of Hermeneutics’ Corrective Process

We left off at Poznan’s fort7, the Nazis first concentration camp in Poland, largely organized to imprison and kill Poles of the Greater Poland Uprising (1918, 1919) who’d re-taken rightful Polish cities (a short documentary here).

Yet we shouldn’t give the impression regarding even cities less disputably Polish, that the matter is quite so straightforward. A few generations would have passed who would not remember Poznan as anything but German; and they put a lot into cities like that.

Valid though the thesis remains to propose that Hitler’s most legitimate bones of contention were few - cities such as Bromberg and Thorn (by contrast to Poznan and surrounds), as these few cites formed a German speaking salient, stress and ultimately flash point amidst the corridor, I must be careful with wording.

If German speaking and considerable demographic percentage, even if not majority, is the bone of contention, you’d have to add Konitz to the cities worthy of contention in the corridor.

Along with Graudzen and Kulm, there were dozens of cities in and about the corridor contestable for their Germanic population and influence since the days of Teutonic Knights and Prussian incursions.

Still they would not alter the general thesis if added to the discussion.

Their histories all pretty much tell the same story, a similar historical narrative:

Whether Konitz, Kulm, Graudzen, Zempelburg, Dirschau, Bromberg or Thorn...

A look into the history reveals why you didn’t bother trying to sympathize with the idea that they should have been German by Versailles, even less so now, and why Nazi sympathizers do not tend to delve into the histories either.

Virtually the same histories.

A mixed Polish German history, usually Polish to begin and yes, there was war, brutality and exploitation in Polish times as well, then followed by brutal and exploitative German take overs (Teutonic/Prussian), followed by Versailles granting them to Poland for historical and strategic access reasons, then brutal Nazi retaliation, usually killing hundreds if not thousands of Poles.

It becomes apparent why those well disposed to ethnonationalism haven’t been inclined to delve into this, as even a cursory glance at the history and the Nazi reaction, leads one to the conclusion that maybe there shouldn’t be too much complaint among our contemporaries and not anything like the kind of reaction drawn by Hitler.

Still, what overly Nazi sympathetic WN has done is create a burden of addressing their punctuation and misrepresentation of the history (usually beginning at Versailles), a punctuation and denial of other framworks that require me and others to attend to history pragmatically, where we’d rather be attending to contemporary theoretical matters of White advocacy, such as hermeneutics.

Ah, but hermeneutics does tie-in, as opposed to the a-historical Cartesian perspective of modernity, hermeneutics prompts an interactively engaged, circulating, investigative, corrective process, which will encompass relevant historical perspectives as well as facts; but as a narrative approach it facilitates transcendence of the arbitrary flux that mere data presents, a liberation from that mere facticity - achtung! you overlooked Konitz!, yes, we’ll correct that - it allows for coherence instead of an arbitrary and constant searching fret.

White Post Modernity, its deployment of Social Constructionism and Hermeneutics were devised exactly for protecting group interests against Cartesian runaway and antagonistic ethnocentrisms - we cannot allow the proper deployment of these philosophical instruments to be buried by the YKW obfuscation that right wing reactionaries buy-into. The corrective program of left ethnonationalism works remarkably well to make consistent sense of what our enemies are doing, where they lead us astray, and how we should proceed by contrast. Indeed these methods, including hermeneutics and its liberation from mere facticity into narrative coherence, are a means to the salvation of our people

- allowing ethnonationalism to correct the horrific epistemological blunder committed by Hitler as he took off into the systemic runaway of theoria, with a Cartesian notion of placing people in the fallacy of sheer natural causality, rather than in optimal and flexibly corrective judgement of praxis - a people centric position based in human nature - as an ethnonationalist perspective affords in coordination with others, and not just a German-centric position with them proposed as the paragons of pure nature.

Objectivity and facts are tools to be acknowledged and deployed in our relative group interests for ourselves and for coordination with other groups, whose relative interests are going to be slightly different than ours.

Reactionary, typically STEM types of WN, will tend to misread, where not be deliberately misled by YKW misrepresentations and crass distortions of hermeneutics; in their phobic right wing reactions to YKW academic abuses of social conceptualization and means of group systemic maintenance, they’ll refuse to realize that narrative does not necessarily equate to fiction - on the contrary, it is necessary to non-fictional coherence as well - and a conjoint participation in refinement of knowledge (which is largely descriptive in the end anyway).

Aren’t Nazi sympathizers doing this when they talk about the corridor cities as rightfully German? Not really. And they don’t appreciate that for those looking to WN for news and information, their view is not the alternative, their view has largely been the only view purporting to represent WN.

Part 1 vid is now on line,  Part 2 vid is now online,  Part 3 vid now on line,  Part 4 vid is now on line, Part 5 vid now on line, Part 6 vid now on line, Part 7 vid now on line, Part 8 vid now on line

Debunking and rejecting association with Hitler/Nazi redemptionism in service of coordinating White and other ethno-nationalisms.

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 2. Audio now online.