Majorityrights Central > Category: Nazism

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.

Specificatory Structures (are topoi to be shaped and crafted as collaborative, working hypotheses in praxis, finally leading to operational verifiabilty) as opposed to a universal model of “the mind” proposed to function like a car engine (talk about a “clunky idea” or not).

I was about to put up a video by The Golden One in which he expresses gratitude to the Dalai Lama for voicing his authoritative support of European ethnonationalims - “Europe belongs to the European peoples and immigrants should return and rebuild their countries.”

But then I hear him saying that “the Dalai Lama is a spiritual man and is not beholden to ‘social rules” which our elite try to brow beat us with….I realize they’re at it again, that I cannot just suck it up in sympathy for the bad Swedish election; as I did in posting his last video, in which The Golden One calls the enemies “leftists.” There are still retarded people playing opposite day with me behind the scenes -  encouraging misconceptions like “social rules” are Not somehow also a neutral analytic device (which of course they are) but singularly a tool of coercion for our enemies; whereas a rigorous adherence to “nature” without all that “sociology, communicolgical, White post modern stuff” will inevitably ensure our “rights” and “ethnonationalism.”

This is completely retarded and backwards. Nature doesn’t give us our rights, nature doesn’t give a shit about our rights and our ehtnonationalisms. We have rights because we are part of a community of people with relative group interests - in best unit, a union of discrete European ethnonations, in which we create and negotiate rights by consensus, not foolishly believing that we discover them in objective detachment.

As I have said before, The White Post Modern Project is a necessity in response to the ravages of Modernity and the inflexibility of Reactionary Traditionalism. ...and it (White Post Modernity) is particularly a necessity to hold up to the destruction of ethnonationalism that post modern conception is supposed to defend against, but rather destroys in YKW misrepresentation of the notions they’ve promoted as “post modernity.”

The project, including Heidegger’s, is not to make humans and society function like automatons, like a car engine, on an engineering and physics model - not in that model of “theoria” as Aristotle calls it, but to take our concerns even for the hard sciences, but especially for the social sciences into the realm of praxis - again, as Aristotle calls it - the social realm of people, where they have some agency, and are therefore not totally predictable; where we are biological creatures and mammals, evolved to care about important relationships to our survival and in optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction; where we are biological creatures and our actions have reflexive effects that cause changes in course in ourselves and others; where, as second order cybernetic creatures we can learn to learn. The project, including Heidegger’s (where on target and not too individualistic in his focus), The White Post Modern Project, is to take our thinking into praxis to correct the Cartesian detached and lineal, non-interactive notion of necessity - imperviously abetting, as it does, the phony and crooked disease of quantification to the point of false comparison, toxicity and runaway; typically by means of the Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement.

To correct the Cartesian error of modernity, we need Not a “model of the mind” as tightly connected as a Porsche car engine to the exclusion of all else (to defend ourselves against all that Jewish social stuff) ...no, what we need is a better understanding of the utility and integrity of Specificatory Structures to negotiate the participatory reality of Praxis. Specificatory Structures are basically partly or nearly finished working hypotheses as it were, that allow interlocutors to engage, shape, craft, correct and refine these hypotheses.

Remember, the ultimate aim of pragmatic philosophy is the rigor of operational verifiability. So, those with a penchant for engineering and scientific rigor should be satisfied; while being helped to Not promote the scientism and epistemic blunder of applying physics models (theoria) to creatura and social group concerns (praxis).

Nor does social constructionism (proper) and hermeneutics deny science, biological realty or race; it enhances and complements scientific inquiry, it does not discourage science: it may criticize bad science (“we are all Africans under the skin”) and bad applications of science - physics and brute animal models to humans and our world of praxis (“its all about competition, survival of the fittest, might makes right and nothing more”) - but it is not anti-science.

If GW or somebody comes up with specs, which generally track “the transit” of English and European (natural) social systems, well and good. What hermeneutics proper would do is not deny it, but refer back to it as need be in the course of operational verification.

What I am saying is true, of radical and deep priority for our European interests; but “opposite day” is still being played with me.

I will speculate as to why:

First is obvious - YKW know what I am saying is true, want to discourage it and direct Whites to join them as right wing reactionaries.

The second is right wingers - people who are lucky enough to be in position to take care of themselves, don’t feel need to care about the group as a whole - they sell our groups out.

There is a third and fourth category at work, also right wing reactionary. The Jesus freak contingent I’ve said enough about - if people can’t see the plain fact that Christianity is a Jewish trick, then how much time are you supposed to waste on them? Rather you have to defend against the worm they’d insist upon introducing. But among right wing reactionaries that are a problem for me are STEM people who are not penetrating enough philosophically to get beyond their STEM predilections - which, again, would have them perpetrate the epistemic blunder of applying theoria to praxis - which, rather, requires phronesis (practical judgement of the kind that the topoi of specificatory structures would guide). By contrast, the whole “Dark Enlightenment” crap is a psy-op set up by our (((enemies))) and advanced by operatives like Brett Stevens in order to misdirect and (((boondoggle))) STEM types.

These types are not only prone to this type of epistemic blunder, but have some enhanced confirmation bias as the harder matters that they’ve tended to look into are more stable and veifiable than the social world where Jewish rhetoric has wreaked havoc. Thus, their Cartesian anxiety is calmed somewhat by their concrete successes in engineering and business in boom times; say, during the Reagan/Thatcher objectivist sell-out years, in their reactionary quest for “foundations” in nature beyond human tampering.

Moreover, these sorts have had a big leg up in advancing the epistemic blunder in their predilection when coming into the Internet age - for obvious reasons - computer technology is a STEM field mostly about the tight, non-human, electric/mechanical connections of theoria. While those more sympathetic to a White take on social, communicological, post modern, hermeneutic resource have been late bringing it to the table.

All the while the YKW have been doing their number, taking the best ideas for social advocacy for themselves then distorting them, abusing them and weaponizing them against Whites - to where Whites react and play opposite day with me, as if I am the bad guy simply for using our words, terms and concepts properly in our interests; Whites have such heavy reactions to the negative, red cape associations they feel from these words that they react against the abused words and concepts; and in so doing rebel against their own interests, in what one cannot help but believe is a (((deliberate strategy.)))

“We can’t defend ‘racism’, people wouldn’t understand (that the term is fundamentally about social classification and ethnocentrism), so we have to argue against it (and weaken the call of social classification and ethnocentrism).” “We must be against Multiculturalism (and for global monoculturalism)”  ....“we must be against the Diversity industry (and for racial integration through Abrahamic/Noahide law, or ‘universal natural law’).”

“I only trust my own mind” ...“we need a science of the mind” ...well go ahead… maybe that is a good perspective for holding fast to inquiries into emergentism. I’m not stopping you, but we also need, need even more inquiries from the communications perspective - taking interaction as the unit of analysis, claiming the same turf as other disciplines when taking-on investigations: whether the group (sociology - most relevant, because races are groups); philosophy (inquiries into how to live and think about life); or biology and interacting ecosystems ...and alas, even psychology.

And so we’ve had a problem, as manifest acutely on Majorityrights, where the STEM people clamored here early. The site’s discourse model has been strictly Modernist - a free speech free-for-all with the errant notion that if you just keep allowing issues to be buffeted from all angles, eventually the foundational truth would be born again hard from this torturous alchemy.

Of course, that’s not what happens. Modernity is an insatiable charmed loop that has run rough shod over even our most precious resources, putting them at needless risk in the sheer objectivism of scentistic experimentalism; if something is not “new” it no longer merits reverence for the modernist thinker.

...and in come the trolls, the Jews, and Jew tools, like Haller and Thorn, whose backers know this and took advantage to sew misdirection in MR’s threads under the guise of “free speech” and inquiry into discovery of “the truth.”

The obnoxous “Uh”, who also displayed affinity, argued for the inclusion of the YKW and clearly does not take these matters of White advocacy most seriously, but wants a place to vent his spleen against those who had the nerve to go to college, so he can show how ‘smart’ he is… the fetish of MR in the modernist times has been ‘the one line zinger”, as Uh was so fond of…  Soren et. al are other STEM people into that as well…

Sublime engineering is the model…there is just that one little precise thing, said in perfect rigor which will either bring the whole edifice down or make it hum like the best car engine ever ...the streak of incisive brilliance like a sheen, gleaming like a “classic sparkle.”

... claims I ruined all this fun for him ....

But it stems rather from a misunderstanding of the Specificatory Structure and its aim - its aim is to provide social topoi for people to participate, shape, craft and refine ...indeed, in rigor, as required in the post modern circumstance, to reach Operational Verifiability - that is the end point of the process of pragmatic inquiry - so the STEM-heads should not object and are only displaying just how reactionary (or dishonest) they are when they object to the terms and concepts that I set out.

Brilliant though he is, indispensable ideas though he’s contributed, even Bowery was bewilderingly reactionary in this regard, acting like I was attacking science when I criticized the bad science and misapplication of science that is scientism. ...or that I was besmirching science when I set out the place and general errors of the empirical philosophers, Locke, Berkeley and Hume (I presumed that everyone knows that you are talking about them when criticizing “empirical philosophy”) in historical context of epochal bias. I knew we were in trouble when Bowery simply ignored what I said, angrily tried to prohibit me from criticizing Modernity, Cartesianism (the quest to separate mind from interaction, viz. interactive stasis, outer systemic homeostasis) and proposed to “reboot the enlightenment.”

But the fact is that we have to move beyond modernity to White Post Modernity if we are to save ourselves and not be a part of human ecological destruction.

It is for this reason that I will introduce an update - not removing the present “About” information for Majorityrights - but add the Post Modern fact that “Hello’, we have the Internet now,” you can interact and help to shape and craft our necessary knowledge. We are no longer beholden to the transmissions model of communication, in which we sat in front of televisions, or teachers, or preachers and were to receive the information as pure, sacrosanct, passive, no need for our input and correction….

What you are presented with at Majorityrights are specificatory structures - hypotheses well enough considered, with a likely trajectory to protect our interests as discreet European peoples; but we can always use help from honest people of good will, to shape, craft and verify our inquiries where not proposing inquiries anew.

Articles are not put up as if by Moses presenting the ten commandments; nor presented as if the author thinks, in hubris, that these are immutable, always perfect ideas and objects; as if we think this is something like a sublime car engine, when it really isn’t, and what is necessary is for you to humble us, mock, in ad hominum attack. No. These are specificatory structures presented with a good deal more humility and social respect - your interaction, your help in participating in the generation of knowledge production is most appreciated.

There is also a fifth unfortunate fact that we are up against a huge Irish/German demographic in America which, for reasons I’ve described, are prone to take the disposition that Hitler was simply right and needs to be redeemed - and there are White advocates of bad character, like David Duke, who will pander to that.

Because we are White Post Modern now, certain inquires are recognized as a distraction at best and all too often pernicious misdirection: Jewish participation; Christianity; Nazi redemption; obviously nutty conspiracy theories; and when we have time to explain with subtlety, scientism and other errors held over from the modernist apex.

And if someone, doesn’t like it - “wha! wha! I want ‘my’ Majoritrights back! - I want Jesus! I want Hitler! I want to kiss the ass of rigid Nordicism as opposed to ethnonationalism (which, among other European kinds, defends Nordics as such)! I want to trade ‘clever’ one line zingers with Uh!” - he can go grease up and get another tattoo on his neck.

White Ethnonational Left defined by our interests in distinction from liberal internationalism, Parts 1-14

READ MORE...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heidegger adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...