Majorityrights Central > Category: Philosophy

Although it’s not really my area of interest, I’m going to venture a few remarks on Oswald Spengler’s famously pessimistic and a-biological model of civilisational decline.  Al Ross raised the question of historicity and political agency.  It’s a good question.  Is there a metaphysical force acting on human sociocultural processes in Time, the effect of which, very basically, is to mirror in them the form of the individual human organism from birth to death?

The ineffable and energetic male spirit of the early 18th century high-point of Western culture, as imagined by Ridley Scott in his wonderful directorial debut from 1977, “The Duellists”.

Oswald Spengler’s grand historical conception is attractive to many students of western decline, especially from the critical right.  It supplies a seemingly conclusive, “dust to dust” certainty that may satisfy the pessimistic tendency.  But is it really the case that all grand historical forms of the lived life of men must inescapably trace one absolute arc?

Methodologically, Spengler appears never to have remorselessly interrogated history for the raw causalities.  He was a creative interpreter of the historical.  His base assumption for the aforementioned mirror automatically resulted in civilisational facts fitting around his morphological thesis.  These days one could easily imagine that he would be dismissed with the technical truth that even if all the facts did accord with the thesis, correlation does not prove causation.  Indeed, the Hungarian-Jewish Marxist György Lukács is reported to have done exactly that in 1954, charging Spengler with “substituting causality for analogy”, that latter being Spengler’s own standard for inclusion in the model.  Of course correlation does not rule out causality either.  But then the fact that civilisations can follow a certain path does not mean that they must do so.  There are variables vis-a-viz the internal and external moral, political, economic, and military dynamics of said civilisations; and then there is the non-variable of the blood and Mind, (to which we will come).

Ontologically, Spengler’s morphology relies on a somewhat assumed universal law of the disorganisation of systems, the assumption being that it can be freely shifted from the organic temporal form to history.  There are questions:

READ MORE...

This essay, which is long, is the second part of what will, in any case, be a fairly lengthy series wrapping up the Ontology Project and facing towards the problem off structure.  This essay is, then, a technical and preparatory exercise for what is to come, clearing the ground on which pure ontology and the basics, at least, of human difference may cohere in, and contribute to, a single, life-affording causal structure for Dasein.

FIVE CASES CONTRA HEIDEGGER

Why has Martin Heidegger’s 1927 opus Being and Time, arguably the most important book of philosophy of the 20th century, never fed into even an embryonic nationalist project to sideline the Nietzschean fiction and challenge the systemic dominance of liberalism?  Setting aside the endless, besmirching academic arguments about his years as a NSDAP member, and his brief and fraught rectorship at Freiburg, the answer most immediately to hand is that its quest is for the meaning of human being, not its nature.  Both are ontological quests, for sure.  But the former, addressed phenomenologically and without strongly-drawn lines, has proved a gift for thinkers concerned primarily with Being’s relation to World as the social environment, which all-too-easily shifts into the politicised study of the structure of society, language and semiotics, power and inequality.  These academics of inauthenticity would be horrified to find emerging from Heidegger’s thought a model of Man as a relational and agentive being, expressing what is most essential to him, commanding a politics of his shared natural interests.  But, of course, we would be highly delighted.

But to arrive even theoretically at such a definitively real Man on the basis of an account of Being is a really demanding intellectual undertaking.  Many would say impossible just on the basis that Being and the lived-life are categorically exclusive.  Heidegger’s forest of subtle and recondite formulations, which are oft-times run into one another with a cavalier freedom, do not advance the likelihood of success one whit, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Swabian identitarian and German nationalist himself.

In this long-delayed second part to this series (for any undue abstraction in which I hereby apologise) our search for agency will address Heidegger’s model critically and from the conviction that our reality is human being as bearer of Nature’s difference and specificity, and it isn’t intellectually undeliverable.  But there is no immediate way to it in Heidegger’s Dasein.  More clearly drawn parameters, strictly ontologically-derived, internally consistent, are necessary.

In this hunt for definition and consistency, then, I will confine myself to five examples of problem areas, and where possible suggest some re-working.  The objective is to demonstrate both the nature of the problem and that of the solution, and not to be exhaustive in any way; and out of that, as ever, to encourage the development of a complete and advantageous philosophy.

CASE 1: THE QUESTION OF CRISIS-DASEIN

As beings are biological and sociobiological and as their particular array of traits are inherited, so they are ethnically differentiated and specific.  The being of beings must, in its turn, and in its arrayal and deportment, carry some imprint of that specificity; not directly as a first-order effect of evolution, of course, but at the very least consequentially and receptively, like an ancient landscape, perhaps, weathered into uniqueness over the aeons.

Were this not the case then we would have to conclude that the being of a being is a neutral and unfeatured thereness, a profound and singular abstraction from the ontic, sans any hint of a constitution.  But we know perfectly well that the being of a tiger, say, is not that of a mollusc, and once one acknowledges the differential effect on being of different beings, then difference is unstoppable.  One’s enquiry must arrive at the principal specifics of difference, and with human being so we must come to ethnicity as a weathering effect on that ancient landscape.

Heidegger’s phenomenological interrogation of the meaning of being proceeds via the novel medium of a common base-entity or being-ness, Dasein.  Except through the presumption that authenticity will find its mark, he does not approach it from the proving direction of a constitution by imprimatur.  He is a putative light-shiner - he sets about determining “the basic content of Dasein’s existential constitution” with:

... those structures in which disclosedness constitutes itself: understanding, state-of-mind, falling, and discourse.

He analyses the temporality of each, pulling in anxiety and fear as “states of mind” which have the potential to disclose Dasein.  The direction of flow here is towards the shock and disaccommodation of some dread event, a personal disaster or, perhaps, natural disaster, which functions as “the exception”, knocking out the standard behavioural range of personhood, stripping everything back to the truth of a man.  On the surface it is not an unreasonable thesis.  Life conceivably can work like that although it is likely to be a very rare event indeed (which I will expand upon from Case 3 down); and given the power of absence and mechanicity in Man it is certainly not inevitable.  Everyone (excepting psychopaths, I suppose) has the full range of emotions.  Everyone reacts psychologically to disaster.  Some fight for every inch, some freeze, some submit and pray or don’t pray.  Who but the individual his or herself is to know what is from the very ground of that individual’s being and what from his or her personhood?  If it is only for the individual to know this, what is to save us from solipsism?  Then, even if it isn’t solipsistic, a reduction to the individual’s experience ineffably delivers us to a politics of prescribed universalism.  Nationalist philosophy could not issue from that.  Neither could it be systemic to the rest of human life, when there is no crisis in train.

In philosophy, as in politics, the universal tends to homogeny, and homogeny to distance from the lived reality, just as difference and specificity will tend to nearness to it.  An account of Man which does not adequately account for human difference and specificity will never produce a fit outcome.  The unfortunate people under its organising hand will be fated to live the lie of oneness.

Certainly, Heidegger did determine that Dasein has a constitution.  But the arraying of that, along with the conceptualisation of other significant elements in his schema, only encouraged co-option by the postmodern equalitarians.  Obviously, we, too, are looking to incorporate into our thinking that which is immediately useful and, where possible, to qualify whatever else has potential.  This essay is about the latter.

READ MORE...

I am undertaking to write another paper, this time attempting an answer to the question: what is the political function and potential of ethnic nationalism?  The paper is a gesture in the direction of something I view as not currently existing, and something which must exist very soon as a systemic and, therefore, revolutionary nationalism of our people’s life-cause and identity.  So that means, or should mean, a radically ordering philosophy, existential and naturalistic in mein, cohering, authentising and affirming in effect, and capable of free emergence in the daily life of our racial and ethnic kind.  Let’s see how we go!

Section one: The scale of the challenge

Nationalists of European descent fighting “on the ground” for the cause of our racial and ethnic kind are philosophical orphans today.  They may not understand this uncompromising fact now.  They may have a great emotional investment in ideologies of the nationalist past.  Regardless, it is so - and at a time of unprecedented critical need.  Wherever in this world Europe’s children have their home they are presented with two historically novel and criminal trespasses upon their life, the first of these very specifically against their collective existence, the second against the natural integrity of the human organism as such.

It does not serve the purpose of this essay to devote space and time to a full explanation of either trespass.  They are well enough explained somewhere everyday.  Suffice to say that the first, which has been gathering mass and momentum since the HMT Empire Windrush sailed into British territorial waters on 22nd June 1948, is that process of physical replacement and genetic dissolution which nationalists know so well and have questioned and protested from the beginning.  Influenced by ideological internationalists, vocal Jewish cosmopolitans, Marxist academics, and in service to an insider-elitist mentality, all Western governments and the wider corporate, financial, and liberal Establishment behind them have, for purposes that have never been officially explained, decided to end the essential power of every European people to live freely and securely and alone on its own land, and to generate in its place a new man, a Homo deracinatus sans natural relation, sans belonging, sans history and, signally from our rulers’ perspective, sans common cause.  This substitution has precursors at least as ancient as Second Temple Judaism.  At its core is the supremacist scramble to degrade and, by degrading, defeat for all time a force which is perceived to be - and may indeed be - an historical obstruction, destroying thereby what there is of it which can be destroyed and forcing the rest into servitude.

Only recent in its arrival but with precursors dating back to the industrial revolution, the second trespass arises from the development of information technology, artificial intelligence, neural control interface technology, and genetic engineering.  The socio-political exploitation of these technologies, along with that of the climate agenda and of Covid 19, are already encouraging the current generation of Western political leaders to witter away about re-setting capitalism and “building back better”.  The Western technocrat class, meanwhile, is emboldened by its own self-confidence to instruct us that by 2030 we will own nothing and we will be happy.

But, as those same elites are only too well aware, the combining of these technologies also brings the possibility, perhaps still a generation hence, of a so-called Singularity of networked Homo artifis - cybernetic organisms whose experience of the beauty and nobility and emotional power of human being and human relation will be reduced by the degree to which these creatures experience them as the informational values of 0 and 1.  Truly the postmodern absolute, it would be Michel Foucault’s personal nightmare: the corporate state’s godlike power over the physical body of the individual.  By its sheer radicality and finality it would make the trespass against the European racial and ethnic existence redundant.  With the technological curtailment of the familial, evolved, natural Man, all thinking at the level of particular populations and human difference would lose relevance.  Race and ethnicity would have to find their place in the new order of things, for they could no longer be lead factors.  For us, everything would have to step back to the already compromised redoubt of Nature.

Until the end of the 20th century, nationalism was a movement not always formulated intellectually with regard for what it is of us that is of Nature.  It was drawn from at least five disparate and sometime unruly strains of thought, only the most recent and minor of which ... American race-realism ... addressed the natural in us, after its evidential fashion.  Of the rest, the most long-lasting dates directly to Hegel but received its fullest and most vigorous account from Nietzsche.  Even today, thinking British nationalists are much cast in the Nietzschean mould.  They critique the nihilism of modernity.  They limn the deathly-shallow individualism and economism of liberal thinking and the massifying ideologies of socialism, universalism, and equalitarianism.  They find therein every reductive effect upon the human estate.  Such analyses demonstrate a necessary understanding of the world, of course.  But even as the thinking fraction gives itself over to them, the politicals are gravitating elsewhere.  They, of course, instinctually and properly react to the Establishment’s demographic agenda as the immediate cause of the existential threat to our people and all peoples of European descent.  So they gesture towards immigration, Islam, and multiculturalism, and the tawdry impact of Jewish influence; and they protest every consequence of these profoundly unwanted and undeserved “goods”.

There is, then, if not a conflict exactly, certainly a misalignment of the head and the body of the movement.  Its thinking fraction’s grand critique of the paucity of human meaning in the modern life does not “go” cleanly to the sturdy nationalist’s defence of his people’s life and land.  One might attempt to bridge the gap by portraying it as the epistemological difference between meaning-in-life and meaning-of-life, but that still stops short.  The eternal philosophical divide between meaning and existence, mind and body, is vested here.  Meanings can be contested.  Meanings can be made relative.  Except, perhaps, for the suicidal, the sheerness of existence eludes qualification.  The moral “should” withdraws before the certitude and uncontestibility of “must”.  In this time of existential imperatives, therefore, one would not be too dogmatic to conclude that it is nationalist intellectualism which must reform and make the world-changing, world-creating case for uncontestability and certitude and the European racial and ethnic life.  But on what basis is that to be done?  The only answer which does not depend on the failed and ill-targeted ideologies of the nationalist past is: on the basis of an holistic philosophy of our lived particular truth.

It is always profitable, when contemplating how far from that truth Europeans have wandered, to remember why.  The guiding light of liberalism is the self-authoring individual, also known as the unfettering will.  This is Man the Self-Creator, at the end of the history of God the Creator, when the freeing spirit of the age decapitated the divine authority of the Crown (little more than a century after the Crown had decapitated the authority of the Roman Church).  It is why liberal radicalisms invariably strive after a New Fangled Man dedicated to engineering his own post-Christian (but by no means post-religious) salvation.  Transhumanism is only the logical and final signifier of his progress.  But, in truth, almost nothing in liberalism’s model of the self-authoring Man and not much more in Christianity’s model of the supplicant soul before it are other than conceits and confections.  What truly belongs to us gains not a gram of substance from either of them.

All that said, liberal thinking did not set out, in the wake of the English Civil Wars, to deracinate away Europe’s peoples or to put Man outside Nature.  But men knew not what journey they were embarking their kind and their distant progeny upon.  By 1789 at latest the artificialising, transformative social dynamic had become the new absolute in Europe and America, and it very much remains such in our time.  Human artifice easily accretes upon human artifice, and in the wake of burgeoning artifice comes an ineffable lightness of being, self-estrangement, and suggestibility.  The journey back to the human norm does not follow automatically, as in some isostatic reaction to retreating ice.  Instinct revolts at the worst of it.  But that is not enough to initiate real change, as we should all now understand.  It is a hard outlook for any people to be thrown by the Fates into such a world of confusion, weakness and corruption, against which the only certain counter is a political philosophy (which has never previously been written down) of who and what we truly are (which from Christianisation onward has never previously been allowed to speak for itself).

If our purpose is not, at a minimum, to write down that philosophy and, by it, to re-found our people’s life on a new and holistic basis, then we are not revolutionaries.  We are recidivists.  No matter how much we react and rail against global capital or radical equalitaranism or, indeed, the subjection and loss of our ethnic person to the foreignising of our home ... no matter how justly and determinedly and eloquently we oppose these things ... no matter, if that reaction is the full extent of our effort it will, over time, subside into the established historical and philosophical totality which underscores and orders everything.  That totality’s fundamental creative assumptions ... the core principles of liberalism, the inevitable progress of techne and modernity ... their sheer ideological mass and tenacity ... will ineluctably re-assert their power over men’s minds, and all will go on just as it was before.  For, liberalism and modernity embed in us and transmit themselves in Time through us; and they do this as a primary landscaper of the mind and enculturator of the personality.  In our philosophical age no racial or ethnic European ever truly and permanently escaped their dominion.  But escape we must.

Our struggle, then, is for liberation into the truly human, which is particular and ethnic.  It is a struggle for everything, a total war of ideas and a war of total ideas.  Difficult for a philosophical orphan, it has to be said.  Now let us advance towards it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over valuation of objectivity and its attendant rational blindness.

Stefan Molyneux@StefanMolyneux: If you promote multiculturalism

Without promoting objective rationality

You set the stage

For civil war

@MatthewParrott: “Objectivity” is just a euphemism for what smart white males generally agree on. It doesn’t exist where we don’t exist, and is not somehow integral to the universe or something. You’re arguing for white supremacy.

@StefanMolyneux Replying to @MatthewParrott @contrastatist: Hahaha

@daniel.sienkiewicz (Majorityrights): I don’t quite agree with Matt either. While the quest for objectivity, valuation of impartiality for the solid warrant of findings based on tests irrespective of prejudice and aversion does not really exist apart from people (and their interests, thus it does not exist purely) and Whites are evolved to value it more than others (evolved more to take on Augustinian, i.e., natural, non-human challenges), and it does yield science and tech marvels, the power that goes along with it, it is a predilection that leaves us somewhat naive for the rational blindness it requires, thus susceptible to systemic dissolution (not necessarily superior then), as the quest of objectivity is virtually the opposite of prejudice against peoples and aversion (to creatures, things, physical, systemic consequences) - to people who perhaps warrant prejudicial treatment; creatures, things, physical and systemic consequences that may warrant aversion.

If objectivity is part and parcel of White supremacy as it is according to Matt, he might observe that it is also part and parcel of White degeneracy and systemic dissolution.

White supremacy is certainly not an objective claim. But to be at our best and reconstruct our social systemic homeostasis against those groups more unabashedly self interested (evolved more in conflict with other peoples rather than nature), thus willing to take advantage of us, as e.g., Africans might, to the point of manichean trickery even, as e.g., Muslims and YKW might, Whites must sufficiently overcome this prejudice against prejudice. That, in order to be accountable to our own group, human ecology, which will allow us in turn to coordinate accountability with other groups, e.g. African and Middle Eastern, and pervasive ecology.     

Rather, quest for objectivity is virtually the opposite of prejudice - it is prejudice against prejudice. Quest for objectivity - pure warrants above or within nature, below human nature - is virtually the opposite of social accountability, a “that’s-just-the-way-it-isness” as such, which paves the way for war.

Objectivity is a tool the findings of which are to provide feedback to be gauged against the calibration of our relative interests as a group system and that of other group systems and systems broadly.

Part 1) Note: though it was written earlier, of course,  I’m moving this text here, to a later position so that the text can be read (and heard) in order

Welcome to my cozy apartment, where we’ll be setting out theory and philosophy of European /White ethnonationalism.

My use of the term White should not be controversial - it simply refers to the genus of European peoples as they may occur outside of Europe as well, since the use of the term European to refer to Europeans in diaspora outside of Europe would otherwise be confusing.

This is DanielS, the man who proponents of Jesus ergo Christianity, Hitler ergo Nazism, those meeting the kosher seal of approval, as well as other right wing reactionaries, the scientistically hide-bound, those given to nutty conspiracy theories say has ruined Majorityrights.

This is DanielS the man who Brundelfly said has a unique perspective, but will not be given a chance to discuss it because he has the charisma of a paper bag - and if Brundlefly says it, if his wife says it, must be true, even though he said that after having heard me for the first time in a hostile envirnoment; motivated to run interference so as to include his wife’s kosher interests.

Welcome to my cozy apartment, where we’ll be setting out theory and philosophy of European /White ethnonationalism.

Praxis, Theoria

Audio Part 2a, as I did not have room for all of part 2 at once. There is a significant edit from what has been the long standing text in that I should have, but do now, mention social constructionism straight off the bat as part and parcel of the post modern turn into praxis.

This first talk elaborating theory and philosophy of European/White ethnnonationalism will be entitled Praxis and Theoria, subtitle,  and not much about Poesis, to set out the framework of Western Philosophy.

Both for the sake of making a better presentation, but more importantly than acquitting myself in the matter of style, because rather the theoretical / philosophical backing of European/ slash White ethnonationalism that I’ve ascertained is highly significant in that it works to make consistent sense in diagnosis of problems and prescription of solutions for the homeostasis that is the ongoing reconstruction of European peoples systems, I need to lay out my findings at a comfortable pace, unperturbed by interlocutors who are either hostile or who find it difficult to allow for understanding given their habits, commitments, conditioned as they are, disinclined to suspend disbelief in what I present.

It hurts me to listen to my talk with Greg Johnson and GW as I came close to articulating this important matter but misspoke a word that could cause important misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, it was on the mark but for one misspoken word: I said “veer into” when I meant to say that we veer out from the pivotal and should be centrality of praxis when we get caught up in Cartesian detachment, taken up in estrangement as Heidegger would put it.

There are reasons why I was tongue-tied, but again, its not merely for the matter of saving my personal face that I want to address these matters with proper clarity. The matter that I was attempting to address here was of primary and most profound importance to European peoples.

I don’t know exactly why I said Cartesianism causes us to “veer into” as opposed to “veer out of praxis” but at any rate, this three way distinction of Theoria, Praxis, and Poesis was not being granted the gravity of its import as the basic framework of western philosophy from Greek antiquity to Modernity to Post Modernity; for its capacity to make sense of the ancient to post modern project - from Vico to Heidegger, that they were seeking to recentralize Praxis and take Theoria back into subsumption of Praxis as the context of pre- eminent relevance.

READ MORE...

Part 2a of the audio version as I didn’t have room for all of part 2 at once. There’s a significant edit from what has been the long standing text in that I should have, but do now, mention social constructionism straight-away as part and parcel of the post modern turn into praxis.

While White advocates do sparkle with intelligence and insight at times, seeing how badly they are screwing things up in some basic respects and believing that I’ve got a good handle on these philosophical/theoretical matters by contrast, I’m venturing a fairly comprehensive post; extending an overview of my conclusions from over the years to where we need to go now as a people in order secure our social systemic homeostasis; as it is threatened as a result of our own errant theory and by effective attack by adversaries seizing upon those vulnerabilities.

It is a long text - this is only the first installment of the follow up - and it will be reworked some as these are notes for audio - yes, I have mercy. I would not torture your eyes and mind with that much reading. I hope to start-in with the first installment of the audio form tomorrow.

........

A good place to begin this second installment on the philosophy of European/ White ethnonationalism is by addressing the most controversial claim of the first part - that there is no unassailable warrant. First, you have to look at the words in that statement - unassailable means ‘cannot be challenged’ and ‘warrant’ means ‘grounds of justification.’

Now, there are two aspects to this claim, one is pejorative and one is ameliorative.

On the pejorative side, these claims to doubt provide wiggle room for weasels.

It is true that this kind of objection can really get more than a little bit “cute”, but rather completely absurd, for example, when one ventures to dispute a DNA match that has a one in 65 septillion chance of being mistaken.

Or when liberals try to take a scientistic idea of race, “one race, the human race”, ignoring the phenomenon of speciation of racial differences, treating this as necessarily unimportant because all people can interbreed.

Or, when they ask a kind of indelicate question which should be almost non-existent, but is shockingly common - such as, ‘so what if Europeans go extinct, lots of them are jerks?’ Or, ‘what is the extinction of European peoples anyway? Aren’t they a mix anyway, and aren’t they still alive, even if mixed into other races?’

Part 2b audio, a significant chunk of information.

Liberals have the nerve to ask these disingenuous questions, while we know damn well that they’d be up in arms about the Amazon rain forest, endangered species or indigenous tribes being destroyed. We are eager to see them go and live with their beloved people.

Yes, we’re getting there, coming back to how the YKW and anti-White liberal cohorts tediously exploit even negligible capacity for skepticism, exploiting and misrepresenting the utility and capacity for willing suspension of disbelief for a facile deployment of concepts of species preservation only where it suits their hubris.

Even though our enemies have been assiduous in trying to get our kind to react away from the systemic homeostatic capacity that is to be found here, in that thin queer margin indeed, there is that positive side to be discovered in interactive pragmatism: where impure warrant and the truth of human fallibility invoke social accountability and the agency of our systemic correction from its current state of dissolution and runaway.

It has been said that the great contribution of pragmatist philosophers is that they upheld falliblism without skepticism - that is, they saw it as occasion to welcome correction.

It is a corrective measure for Europeans to place our relative group interests at the center of our perspective, whereas Not having placed our people at the center of concern but rather placing our penchant for universalism and objectivity at center has left us susceptible.

This centering in praxis brings us to the age old philosophical question: ‘if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise?’ and provides the best answer - it assuredly make sound waves but for us, it may as well not if there is nobody left to talk about it and determine how it, among other facts, counts in our relative interests.

Audio Part 2c. Image from a conference that I organized. The late Barnett Pearce, right, his students and colleagues sorted-out the forms and ways of communication (Barnett liked what I was doing with Maslow; I’d been talking to him about it since 89) and Mary Catherine Bateson in blue, daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, who is central to all this theorizing.

This effort to center praxis accounts for the controversial social constructionist perspective - which has been badly distorted and misreprestned to Whites, whereas it would be and will be quite helpful and necessary when it is understood properly. We’ll talk about that later; this side focusing a bit more on the social interaction of praxis; but I want to talk first about its sister anti-Cartesian, post modern notion of hermeneutics which facilitates the emergent side of praxis a bit more.

This corrective process relies a great deal now on what is called hermeneutics: this is the non-Cartesian, interactively engaged circulating process of inquiry that allows the inquirer to correct hypotheses by transcending mere facticity, re framing arbitrary, ostensibly confusing or even contradictory facticious logics of meaning and action; taking avail of broad narrative perspective to provide context and orientation - e.g., on temporal systems and their history. On the other hand, hermeneutics allows for a graceful zooming in for close, rigorous readings of facts and data in operational veifiability of hypotheses.

Fallibility and correction doesn’t merely impose the positive, rigorous side in correction of impure warrant and fallibility by asking important practical questions of an event’s frame - right DNA wrong person doing the criminal act? Wrong DNA kit?...

It also allows for imaginative breadth of narrative form in the hermeneutic step back, the willing suspension of disbelief in our broad and historical social systemics, to ask the legitimate question, in working hypothesis, where does the responsibility for what that DNA did/does begin and end? Again, this re-framing can be pejorative weasel stuff - the kind which we’ve been subject to under PC for these past few decades, or it can relieve us from truncations of accountability, the kind of weasel games that we’ve been subject to from the right, its pseudo objectivist position, weather of its liberal variant or under the pseudo conservative guise of the right wing that left us susceptible in rational blindness in the first place - a game of pure pseudo objectivity which the YKW have been reinvoking with increasing vigor and scope since 2008, while encouraging elite, deracinated White right reactionaries to sell out and join them against the concept of unionization and coalitions of Left ethnonationalism in order to make quick work of social accountability.

In either event, in service of requisite rigor or requisite imagination, by maintaining fallibility and requiring accountability, we bring humans, our relation to one another in praxis, into the centrality of concern - and no, that is not a call to universal brotherhood.

With hermeneutics we have the capacity to suspend disbelief and liberate ourselves from the arbitrary flux of mere facticity and engage the interactive process of negotiating our personal and group coherence. And ultimately, it rescues us from the dangerous runaways that result of Cartesianism, of seeking pure laws above, beyond, within or below praxis - in pure nature, such Hitler’s epistemic blunder in exaggerating struggle, competition and will to power, applied imperviously to praxis.

.......

Coming back to ground our hypothesis at this point we’re going to borrow some radical hypotheses about the nature of Europeans as opposed to people evolved in the Middle East and Africa (Africans discussed later on).

Clerk Maxwell’s Demons and Jewish Crypsis

Clerk Maxwell described two metaphoric “demons” to symbolize classic challenges that people are up against:

1) “Augustinian Devils” are natural challenges, which do not change when you’ve solved them.

2) “Manichean Devils” are man made challenges, which can change the rules of challenges if you’ve solved them.

In the Middle East, where differing tribes found themselves pitted against each other, the challenge was more about one tribe against another; the challenges were not so much about securing natural resources and withstanding the forces of nature as in the northern climates, but the challenge was rather other tribes and their cunning self interest, and so they evolved more in capacity to deal with manichean devils, as Clerk Maxwell called the man made devils which hinged about trickery that could change the rules if you solve them: the Jews Masada literally goes under the motto, “wage war by deception” and the Muslim religion has its practice of takia, which is another form of Manichean trickery, lurking deception, like a snake in the grass ready to be called to jihad.

Perhaps the most naturally ingenious part of this group evolutionary strategy of manichean deception on the part of Jewry is “crypsis” - Crypsis is a phenomenon in nature where a creature can blend-in and become indiscernible from its environment; or in the case of the term applied to Jews, their crypsis is that they can look White and pass for White (European) as they moved into Europe and intermarried with Whites.

On a genetic level they remain distinct as a group and apart from Whites, largely by their own insistence. On a behavior level, their group strategy is typically at odds where not catastrophically antagonistic - notably, while they have maintained their own group homeostasis, their group strategy has a pattern of ‘activist’ disruption of White group bounds and homeostasis.

This evolution follows the Faucett theory of Jewry’s evolution of ‘horizontal transmission.’

Those Jews who returned to Judea after the Babylonian captivity epoch moved into power niches and commenced to develop a parasitic relation to the population and its resource. This parasitic relation was compounded after the Romans conquered Judea and Jewry scattered into Europe. There was some intermarriage with Europeans, but in overall pattern they maintained their distinction and closer relation to even the most distant other Jews as opposed to Europeans. At the same time, as diaspora people in the host nations, their parasitic relation increased as they moved into middle man and professional niches through which they’d eventually consolidate wealth of a host nation. The people of the host nation would eventually realize that they were being exploited and rise up - in the form of the pogroms, inquisition, the holocaust; but some part of the Jewish population would manage to escape to a new host nation. In these murderous events, the European peoples would tend to be killing off the more innocuous, grounded, accountable, if not intermarried (with Euiropeans) Jews. This cycle of horizontal transmission was compounded as the more “virulent” Jews, who had the greatest cunning and wealth, the least social conscientiousness, were “selected for”, as they were able to buy their way out and escape, moving on to a new host to start the cycle of parasitic relation again.

Now, this type of evolution is in contrast to European evolution, especially Northern Europeans. Whereas Jewry was evolved in circumstance where the greatest competition was other tribes and thus manichean deception and parasitic relation was a more pronounced strategy compared to Europeans, for Europeans the challenge to survival was more a matter of ability to deal with the “Augustinian” challenges of Nature, markedly the seasonal changes, and markedly the winter. The Northern European evolutionary attention was not thus putting a premium on the relative interests of the group and its cohesion to deal with challenges from other tribes, as there was not as much flocking to these environs less hospitable in terms of food and or shelter, but the selection was more for those who could objectively deal with the brute facts of nature and survive these “Augustinian Devils” ..this enhanced our penchant for objectivism, science and their attendant susceptibilities - scientism and rational blindness.

As it was understood that people who could get things done in objective terms were valued, and the threat from other peoples was not normally the day to day concern, they also created “higher trust” societies that facilitated marvelous scientific, technological advances and great social resource. Pit these European qualities against the Jewish strategy of Manichean deception, crypisis and parasitism, and you have the makings of a problematic relation indeed.

Now then, after the holocaust, the cycle of horizontal transmission led the select, more virulent Jews to flee to the United States where their parasitism permutated to its greatest hegemonies.

But before I elaborate, I want to emphasize that parasitism is a metaphor that does Not describe all of Jewish behavior, not even all of their bad behavior, which can be more straight forwardly antagonistic - antagonism being something different than parasitism.

The saving grace of this metaphor of horizontal transmission is that the prescription is not knee-jerk reaction and murder, as that has tended to perpetuate the cycle by only killing-off the more accountable, grounded, vulnerable, sympathetic, less cunning and less virulent Jews. Rather than murder, the prescribed answer is maintained separatism in ethno-nationalisms and forcing Jewry to develop “lateral transmission”, a non parasitic relation from the ground up.

However, we need to render a great deal more description of the circumstance. [No, this theory will not hold Jews solely accountable as all powerful; the niches are hypotheses of where they exercise disproportionate influence if not hegemony; we will address their relation to other elites, including deracinating White right wing sell-outs (and the liberals that come form the same root) but later].

As the Jews ascended into European and American niches of power and influence after the holocaust….

The Niches:

It is the hypothesis here that their group evolutionary strategy, crypsis and horizontal transmission has led Jewry into significantly disproportionate representation if not hegemony in more than seven niches of power and influence over society:

1) Media:
Now, as Bowery observes, the bible was the controlled media particularly in times prior to print media, radio, television, movies and internet - combined with other power niches, this niche control would probably spawn other means of communications control. [note the Manichean trick of Christianity]

2) Academia:
Having been selected to pursue earthly success, power, intelligence and in particular, for verbal I.Q. combined with nepotism, they have gained vast over-representation in academia - particularly in the humanities (determination over how society is described, the concepts and stories that are ascribed to ourselves and prescriptions thereupon). [note the Frankfurt School and PC; the lawsuit of Harvard, which reveals that in Ivy League admissions, Jews are vastly over represented if the criteria is merit, while Asians and Whites are vastly discriminated against.]

3) Money/Finance:
As it has been famously said, “give me the purse strings and I care not who is elected”... this is probably the most important category, because even if you have things figured out, there are always people dishonest or desperate enough to be bought off. [Note the 2008 subprime crisis, the culmination of a boom bust cycle which put Jewry into its greatest hegemony in the horizontal transmission cycle - whereupon “the left” became the great enemy [story from Frank Meyers to Alt and “Dissident Right”].

4) Politics: AIPAC is the most powerful lobby in Washington; just about all politicians are controlled by Jewish interests, particularly by campaign funding through lobbied interests. They can get the United States to do the bidding of Jewry, weather diaspora or Israel, whether through the Democrats or Republicans - Donald Trump gained the presidency by promising to undo the Iran Deal for Israel.

5) Law and Courts: Jews have disproportionate representation in the profession of law; judges; in law school professorships; and in devising and passing legislation - which can overturn popular, democratic vote, as they have overturned popular opinion against immigration and spearheaded other significant liberal changes in law - Brown vs Board, Civil Rights Act, Immigration and Naturalization Act, Rumford Fair Housing, and generally in anti-discriminatory, anti-racism, anti-“hate” legislation.

6) International Business: to which we can extend NGO’s, Foundations, Unions (especially as they can control them, liberalize them and internationalize them) and such - this is an effective means to traverse national boundaries, profit from the exchange, devastate adversaries while increasing their niche hegemony.

7) Technology, e.g., genetic, military and such - such as Stuxnet - can come of their other hegemonies.

8) Religion: Judaism, Islam and the Jewish trick of Christianity - devised to overthrow Roman hegemony, it was ultimately effective in overthrowing Europe.

Now, to be clear, there is no escaping the issue of moral order - not completely, anyway: you cannot simply be beyond moral concern. There will always be actions that are obligatory, actions that are prohibited and actions that are legitimate.

In terms of maintaining social systemic homeostasis, moral order ranks high among concerns. Perhaps survival comes first, but it’s near a chicken / egg question, moral concern is typically related closely to survival; and to matters of practicality - that’s probably why Kant placed morals under the rubric of pragmatics.

Our concern, of course, is with European moral orders, what is happening with them and what has happened with them.

I take a classic White Nationalist hypothesis, which is highly critical of Christianity, not only rejecting the popular idea among western civilization for a thousand years or more, that it is synonymous with moral order, but believing it rather to be worse than a Jewish affection, rather more like a trick played by them upon European peoples.

It tangles-up Europeans most important concerns with Jewish interests - look, after all, at who the Christian god is - and look who the most evil civilization is supposed to be, the enemies of Israel - Babylon and Rome. But its worse than that, in that this manichean trick, played on Europeans originally to overthrow Roman occupation, operated on the European penchant for Augustinian detachment and purity spiraling with the obsequious golden rule [instead of the silver rule, which would simply ask that you do not harm others as you would not want to be and that it is good to expect a reasonable exchange for your deeds], moreover, they added to the purity spiral by universalizing of the moral concern to un-differentiate the gentiles (as GW observes), destroying their capacity for organized resistance and compounding it further with disingenuous directing of away from temporal self interest and to speculative concern for after life instead. They scared people and kept them in line with notions of hell (even if you think of sinning!) and these narratives were their version of media control (as Bowery observed) for nearly a thousand years.

Now, it is true, that one can pluck out verses and apply them selectively even to an ethnonationalist end, that has been done to some extent historically and people might do it again; it is also true that in Christianity, Jewry have created something of a Frankenstein that comes back to kill its creator, but perhaps only culling, like the Nazis did, their less “controlled members;” perhaps non-Christian ethnonationalists would not object too stridently. But I am skeptical of their prospects for long term success, sympathetic to those who don’t like and don’t believe in Christianity - and it is these people we seek to talk to and serve here. We don’t go out of our way to dissuade Christians nor do we revel in mocking them - they are trying to do the right thing, to invoke a moral order, but going about it the wrong way with reams of useless and misdirecting text. Once the broad population could begin reading the text for themselves, let alone comparing it to the gains they made in scientific and other knowledge, the religion would have trouble functioning as an ethnonational moral order.

We do need the semi transcendent, narrative means of hermeneutics to foster a religion that serves our people, to transcend the fact that most of ours are not very good and those who are good, significantly flawed nevertheless; we need the guidance of our patterns which inspire, loyalty and faith in ours past and future; and while there are ways to instantiate this that we’ll discuss, they have not germinated to any kind of significant consensus yet - 14 Words, great start, but our enemies keep tacking on the 88 to derail consensus.

Nevertheless, for those who want to continue to worship the Jew on the stick, who never existed in the flesh, by the way, so long as they don’t get any of that crap on us, we’ll let them go. For Europeans, however, the usual starting points of moral order come with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle - with Aristotle’s framework of Theoria, Praxis and Poesis being given the general nod as the epistemological framework, while there is an increasing Nordicist argument for our natural penchant for attendance to Augustinian detachment, sublimation and planning resultant from nature being the greatest obstacle and translating to a severe predilection for science and technology. The Nordicist view is not necessarily at odds with the Aristotlean view but you see that it has us veering away from attention to social sources and responsibility and can rationally blind us to our social participation for its valuation of warrant as objectively pure and scientific as possible. It has rendered the Northerners in particular, like a naive species when confronted by the Manichean trickery and group interestedness of Jewry.

Northerners continue to be most prone to Jewish trickery as they purity spiral in reaction to Jewish tricks by pursuit of pure and universal foundational warrant against them. This makes them like a bull chasing after red capes - the red capes being distortions and misrepresentations set up largely by Jewish academia, to make them didactic, to have the goyim reject and fight against the very ideas that they need to reconstruct their social systemic homeostasis.

Our Southern European penchant for objectivity may stem from the Greek teleology while our Northern penchant for objectivism from Augustinian confrontation with nature proper; and Christianity magnified this purity spiral greatly with scriptures such as “even if you think of committing a sin, etc”, culminating in “The Prejudice against Prejudice” of Cartesianism that seeks pure warrant divided from natural, relative and engaged concerns on the transcendent, mathematical end; and in Lockeatine foundationalism on the empirical end.

Part 2d audio: Hippies and Feminists in incommensurate agendas of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Now, Locke becomes much more relevant even than the French revolution in telling the story of where Western Civilization went wrong vis a vis America, thus basically, where we have gone wrong, period, largely of our own accord, at least in terms of leaving us vulnerable in our capacity ot protect our group patterned interests.

Locke resented the English Aristocratic class having exclusive educational privileges and believed the English middle class should have access; with that, as an empirical philosopher, he argued that there were no classifications evident in perception, they were a fiction of the mind and all individuals had the same perceptions - therefore, all Englishmen should have equal civil individual rights in pursuit of resource. Now, this was a liberalization of bounds within England, specifically a call to liberalization of the Aristicratic class’s exclusionism, but it does not necessarily follow that it would or should break up the union of English national bounds, that they should be opened as well - that weaponization would have to wait for Jewry, their instigation of radical liberal and right wing objectivist purity spiralers who felt they were individuals beyond classificatory/racial loyalty.

This Lockeatine notion of individual civil rights over and above the discriminations of “pseudo” classifications was written into the American way of life, becoming the most distinctive American idea - individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is true that Kant recognized the danger to our moral orders by Lockeatine empiricism - the arbitrary flux that he saw we’d be taken into by this vast over emphasis on the empirical end. Kant tried but failed to rescue our moral order through a foundation of universal principles. Indeed, for those unfamiliar with Kant, he does provide steps in moral rationale superior to Christianity, that can help people get over it - beginning with unanimity, the fist principle, to think in agreement with yourself, to the principle of “good will”, treating people as ends in themselves, without which beauty, fortune and intelligence only make a person worse; to his three part sequence of morality, from common principles, to deviations in popular philosophy, to foundational philosophy to secure principles against the vicissitudes of which common and popular philosophy are subject. He failed, he was still Cartesian as Heidegger said, he was still pursuing a universal foundation, in many respects the last thing we need to emphasize for our social systemic homeostasis, for our relative interests; and while Kant was taking a step in correction, alas, Locke’s idea of Civil individual Rights was already institutionalized in America.

Particularly after the horizontal transmission of a more virulent YKW to America following the holocaust, the notion of Civil Individual Rights would become one of their key instruments of weaponization against potential threats of White grouping.

READ MORE...