Majorityrights Central > Category: Boundaries and Borders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heidegger adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Snyder Ibid:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Snyder Ibid:

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Snyder Ibid:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Snyder:

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

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

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

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

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

“The Mystery of Ishtar and Tammuz provides a key for understanding the world-redemptive destiny of the North Atlantic.” — K. H

Nimrod - A Screenplay by Daniel Sienkiewicz and Majorityrights Associates

Atmosphere music: King Crimson, The Sheltering Skye (studio version is appropriate, but only this live version is currently available on Youtube). Here, a recording of the studio version has been put on line.

What is the antithetical taboo to miscegenation? Why of course it is incest.

What is the greatest horror? It is unavoidable negative fate and its eternal recurrence.

These themes are captured in the most classic, and primordial even, of Western narratives - in the story of Oedipus Rex and his mother/wife Jocasta, going back further historically, in the Egyptian story of Osiris and his half sister/wife Isis, back further still, to Ishtar and Tammuz, and finally to Nimrod, the first great man on earth, Genesis 10:10, and his mother/wife, Semiramis.

Infiltration of the Babylonian Mystery Religion, Mother of all Wanton Harlots, 666, etc.

Now the reason is understood as to why Abraham was against this mystery religion - because it sacralized re-breeding to the point of inbreeding even, where necessary, while Abraham in the case of Babylon wanted to promote out breeding among its gentiles and later, wanted to do that to Rome, in order to bring down these adversaries of Israel and the Jews.

Hence the true evil mystery religions, universal Abrahamism, was imposed upon the world. Monotheistic of god’s “chosen people”, it was mongrelizing for all people except the Jews.

And the antidote taboo-breaking of incest, its sacralization (as a ritualistic gesture), was confounded as the greatest evil - and indeed it must be mostly symbolic as such unions are obviously going to result in the likes of King Tut’s massive health problems (himself a product of incest) or even Charles and Harry’s odd taste in women, as sort of a convulsive, balancing reaction (a little levity there, for those who share my distaste for their taste).

Thus, we want to avoid its reality beyond sacred ritual - and not just for physical maladies, but because we want to be careful about psychological effects as well on the formation of minds. At any rate, it is not commendable to take away the relatively agentive, mature and well informed choice of sexual partner. Sex is not only an important matter in determining the population of a human ecology, but a matter of confirmation and disconfirmation of personalities, virtues (or not), politics and more.

“Enjoy the fantasy” may break the over alluringness of the incest taboo for those prone.

So that’s some background to let the audience know that I’m not playing loosely with a justifiable taboo: if it is to be thematized as a counter taboo and aspect of sacralization toward a narrative to run counter to the Abrahamic cult of out-breeding, it must be done with sufficient accountability - even its narrative form must be discussed with caution and look toward matters of scientific verificaton; e.g., regarding what amount of inbreeding is alright, beneficial or detrimental; physically as well as psychologically and sociologically.

Having issued that caveat….

I conceived of writing this screenplay many years ago (in the early 80s), still stuck in the Abrahamic way, I thought to render its story along the conventional Abrahamic lines, of the pervasive infiltration of the evil mystery religion - into Western traditions and “false” practices of Christianity, most symbolically with Christmas - to deceive the peoples of earth against the “true” Christianity.

The horror of eternal recurrence and discovery thereof: from Oedipus to Crohaven Farm, The Sentinel and The Omen. And salvation through the counter taboo from the horror of this unavoidable fate, eternal cycles and eternal recurrence.

Now I see it the other way around - that Abrahamism holds the true horror, is the evil mystery religion which has (more literally) infiltrated pervasive world practice.. e.g., we worship a virgin birth and self sacrifice instead of a product, to some extent, of tribal and royal line in-group breeding… symbolizing the cultivated turn, deliberation rather than sheer liberalism; i.e., not quite severe inbreeding, but recreating the genetic pattern of our human ecologies.

With Abrahamism, rather, our fate is re-designated, or de-designated, as it were, “gentiles” - re-designated beyond our control, the fate of our people, beyond our management. Our hope is not our future with our peoples. Our only hope for salvation is through selflessness and altruism.

The only foreseeable way out once having been intimidated by its book of Revelation, with eternal hell, 666, having to “hate one’s family”, where one is evil for even having a thought, etc., is to identify, to conceive of oneself, one’s people and to make oneself and people as-one-with the Jews as possible; for example:

“The peoples of the United States, the British Commonwealth nations, and the nations of northwestern Europe are, in fact, the peoples of the Ten Tribes of the House of Israel. The Jewish People are the House of Judah.”

That is the true culmination of the true infiltration of the evil mystery religion - i.e., Abrahamism, Abrahamic imperialism upon Western peoples and ultimately the whole world.

It compels full culturalist merging as well, through false opposition, Noahide law and paleoconservatism of the Alt-Right.

To be continued, that is, I will be cultivating this screenplay on line…

The Counter Taboo…

Opening scene: Music, The Sheltering Skye by King Crimson. Characters: mother, father with two children, a boy and a girl. The mother and father are decorating the Christmas tree with their son…he goes up stairs…

READ MORE...

Audio Version

....We have now reached a moment at which we can begin to know something of the process of this phony and crooked disease in the pathway we are following. At present, I don’t think there are very many of us. A few thousand maybe. But this is a very extraordinary epoch in which this knowledge is now becoming a part of the thinking of quite a lot of people. Thank god.

    - Gregory Bateson, “Paradigmatic Conservatism.”

I developed this hypothesis, which I call The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement, as an elaboration of Bateson’s Double-Bind hypothesis. I believe that it is at least a component or aspect of what he was talking about in that statement, specifically where he says, “We are beginning to know something of the process of this phony and crooked disease in the pathway we are following” .. he is alluding to a mechanistic process wherein abuse and exploitation under a phony rubric of “teaching” or “lesson giving” facilitate quantification of interests accruing to perpetrators, overcoming the borders and boundaries of the victims while the qualitative, niche ecological differences of victims are ground down, any recourse they might take apparently justifying the abuse.

Bateson culminates his epoch studies with a question, “As teachers, are we wise?”

Didactic Incitement is a predictable strategy of liberal internationalists, taking for granted the legitimacy of their incitement to a phony universal maturity. So long as the contextual force is strong enough to hold in place their interests over the victims, they can apply this for a steady increase and maximization of their interests at the expense of the victims, like stepping on a lever, a mechanism as it were, that continually overcomes their pattern boundaries, has them continually “pay up”, so to speak, their resources and warrant, as it continually reconstructs resource to their position at the continued exploitation, abuse and diminishment of the unfortunately positioned victims who desperately try to protect and conserve their sovereignty and native resource from this abuse.

Bateson added, “the road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well.”

I propose The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement as a useful elaboration on Bateson’s Double Bind Theory.

The Double Bind proposed by Bateson in “Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia” entails:

1. A preliminary paradoxic injunction such as

“I am a liar”

“Disobey me”

“Be spontaneous!”

2. A prohibition of metacommunication - prohibiting talk about talk that might clarify the confusion, particularly to clarify good will or lack thereof on the relational level of perpetrator and victim.

3. A tertiary re-framing which prevents escape from the circumstance - for example, a child as dependent upon their parents cannot easily escape the field, and is therefore confronted with an intolerable choice between protecting their capacity for sensible judgement or the relationship - as mammals, relationships are profoundly important. And they begin to manifest communological pathologies (in a futile attempt to protect the necessary resource of their faculties, as one cannot not communicate)

There is no apparent way out, as one proves that the cruelty of didactic incitement is justified no matter what recourse is taken…

Didactic Incitement, that is to say abuse under the rubric of teaching, and making one tough, particularly if it is overdone and there is enough contextual force over the victim to keep them from escaping the field, can create a reflexively recursive phenomenon of a pernicious Charmed Loop.

No matter what avenue of escape the victim chooses, they will lose and only add to the warrant of the perpetrator’s recursively accruing interests.

READ MORE...

The DNA Nations - 2020 Update

A reading through of this update of a preliminary document of the DNA Nations concept to provide the basic specificatory structure to follow up for those who care for the curation of our diverse kinds of people. While our focus is on European peoples, curation for the preservation of our kinds - genus, species - and potential coordination on the basis of genetics, the concept does not preclude negotiating with mixed kinds, does not prescribe violence, exploitation in any way shape or form and does not preclude non-Europeans from curating their kinds for preservation and working out the means for their coordination with European kinds as well

The DNA Nations - 2020 Update

An implicit union of unions and coalitions thereof based on DNA criteria.

Euro-DNA Nations

James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes sovereignty through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (for example, regarding laws which prohibit realtors from mentioning race to buyers or sellers). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities should be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association.

This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Rather than trying to overthrow the the liberal zeitgeist of our epoch, Bowery maintains that we ought to hold liberals to their principles. We will respect and grant their valuation of freedom to go/and or be associated with whom they like and we as European peoples expect the same freedom of choice to go/ and or associate with whom we like.

As far as European Americans and other European diaspora go, Bowery has, since his initial proposal for the laboratory of the states platform, concluded that rather than state-sized units, county-sized political units are more optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.

I would argue that the initial state is rather a step toward unionization – a virtual and rules based association, though not made formal as a political action group to begin, just an informal union of unions based on voluntary DNA groupings.
 
Furthermore, Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly Western characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this Western characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well.

This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen state/county-sized ecologies of European diaspora derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses WN on the task of coordination.

We wouldn’t really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.

There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a nation of European descended peoples is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, nations of European peoples are to hold up to the growing power of China, they will need to be large.

Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller States/Counties, both freely chosen human ecologies and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing a mutual larger manifestation as well.
Given the anti-White hegemony that European peoples are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of European peoples sovereignty.

By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing autonomous, sovereign nations of European peoples, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other WN nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front.

There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of sovereignty for European peoples. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship.

Nor does it mean antagonizing non-Europeans. We may extend the DNA Nation concept and its freedom of association to them as well. But just as the conscientious are concerned for the preservation of genus and species, pervasive ecology, so too is it perfectly legitimate to look after our European kind.

For whom it may concern, the indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).

However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, WN would seek to re-establish our traditional territories as European, particularly those in Europe, but would also seek to secure sovereign territory in North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims.

Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate WN of in its largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.

The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for sovereignty from non-native European coercion, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.

Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible.

If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this union of unions that is the Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular category/union as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership.

The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided.

Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.

Daniel Sienkiewicz

READ MORE...