Majorityrights Central > Category: Cultural Marxism

Today, a nice piece by the writer Frank Wright appeared on the state of affairs appeared at what we must now call TCW but was, until a few weeks ago, The Conservative Woman, virtually the last surviving British “right-wing” site at which a free man can sound off.  Frank is awake, to put it really rather mildly.  He seems to model that rare conservative estate which is one step away from nationalism, and which is too well rooted to be susceptible to the customary scarecrow tactics.  His piece, titled “The more normal you are, the more the Regime hates you”, and is well worth a read.

Very rarely, the writers of pieces above the line venture below and converse with the hoi polloi.  But Frank was kind enough, or crazy enough, to get himself into a conversation with me, which went something like this:

UKCitizen • 6 hours ago
Unfortunately they found it is difficult to generate widespread resentment among the normies so they needed to create as many divisions as possible to make being normal a minority. Can’t control and gain power from a content and happy populace.

guessedworker  UKCitizen • 6 hours ago
“They” were the gentlemen of the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt University. Their creation was Critical Theory, and they and it have since proved to be a curse on our race.

Frank Wright  guessedworker • 4 hours ago
I’d argue for Bernays and Lippmann as the engineers of consent, perfecting a method of the attachment of emotions to symbols by means of the creation of false events.

guessedworker  Frank Wright • 4 hours ago
Perhaps they are both creatures of subversive persuasion rather than subversion as such. Convincing people to act in some way is fundamentally less dangerous than forming them from childhood for that action.

Frank Wright  guessedworker • 3 hours ago
I’d argue they created the modern personality.

guessedworker  Frank Wright • 3 hours ago
You can argue it, but I would question your theory of Mind.

Frank Wright  guessedworker • 2 hours ago
Go on then.

guessedworker  Frank Wright • 2 hours ago • edited
OK, well, first, I applaud your clear-thinking. You are right that the sum of the acquired is the nidus of our sorrows. I only wish more of our people understood that the way out, so to speak, is through our own immersion in the formative influences of the day. But there are many sources and levels of influence. We can never be pure nature. We always carry the mark of what does not actually belong to us but, subject to its difference from nature and its reliance on a state of psychological lightness and/or suggestibility, structures us. But not all influences in that regard are equal.
The question you are really asking me is: how do we measure the structure for its fundamentality. Half of my answer is that there is the Jesuitical sense, there is the propaganda sense, and there are degrees in between. The degree to which we are made the possession of what we are not varies accordingly. But there is another half, which is the solidity and internal connection of the subject. Human beings can, under negative familial circumstances, suffer from a lightness of being which opens them out to, as they say, “support the latest thing”. They have no personal richness, no source of internal self-validation. Three or four generations of that will produce societal insanity in every way, from elite decadence and corruption to general criminality and psychopathy.
Lippman and Bernays dealt in the shallow end of the pool, softly drowning the weakest of us on a daily basis. But Jesus, Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Voltaire, Marx, Freud, Adorno, Hirschfeld, and a cast of Enlightened and Marxised thousands have worked weakness into our very bone, and it is that weakness which, ultimately, we have to find the philosophical means to address and restore to health.

Frank Wright  guessedworker • 2 hours ago
I think there is no means by which man can transcend himself, which is the very essence of the progressive idea. I do not think man has progressed morally at all, and think efforts made to demonstrate this an illusion.
What I am on about with the Bernays stuff is that we have become more machine like as this machine becomes more integrated into our lives. This is not an accident. In fact, I’d argue the self is to a greater degree dependent on or addicted to the updates in worldview, feeling, orientation and so on provided by mass media. We have fallen in love with our own reflection, but it is not cast in some impassive mirror - it is a vision granted by Satan’s window, that spellbinding instrument through which all our thoughts are delivered.

guessedworker  Frank Wright • an hour ago
Man’s essential self is not his received/constructed self. His fallenness from his essential self into his received self is the general form of “the problem”. The individualised and marxised/universalised received self of today is simply what must be transcended.
How this might come to pass is the substance of my own intellectual enquiry, which I write about, in so much as I am able, at my own website. Is transcendence possible? Yes, if we accept that there is always this struggle between presence-in-being and absence; and we all, individually and as a people, traverse the line between the two. We are not fixed. That is the human condition. What vivifies our kind ... what clarifies our will to increase ... that is what lights our way towards presence. We may, as individuals, traverse the distance in a manner in which we never can as a group (and certainly never can as “Man”, all men), but the general good of facing the right way is really the object of the common struggle. Our systemic philosophy, our politics, should lead us that way.
It is interesting to have a real conversation with someone, even though we are only lightly touching on the potentials and points of interest. Thanks for bearing with it and not reflexively shooting off into the emotional defence of prior certainty.

Frank Wright  • an hour ago
Well I never. I will try to give your arguments the response they deserve- on your own site - at another time. I’m on the phone, have a cold (it’s not AIDS honest) and can’t give you the reply your thinking merits right now.

Frank Wright  • an hour ago
I can’t find your website. Do give me a link. I’m interested to talk to you about these ideas.

guessedworker  Frank Wright • an hour ago
My site is majorityrightsDOT com. You will find the work of many others there, from all walks of the dissident right.

I don’t know if Frank will show up here.  But it would be good to explore his position in greater detail.

Over the last couple of weeks the political right in Britain has been making some noise about the English teacher Will Knowland, who was fired some weeks ago for gross misconduct from his post at Eton.  His crime was to prepare a lecture, titled The Patriarchy Paradox, to be given to older students in the school as part of a Perspectives course, his object being to present a view of masculinity which they may not otherwise encounter in these “woke” times.  Knowland’s mistake was to assume that a balanced perspective is part of the continuing rounded education that the £42,500-a-year boarding school has provided to the sons of the well-to-do for nearly six centuries.  Sadly, we no longer live an age when a full-informed and educationally-rounded type is required among the future leaders of society.  Eton, under its progressive headmaster Simon Henderson, is right behind the “woke” agenda.

James Delingpole at Breitbart takes up the story:

Knowland’s lecture was a much-needed antidote to this relentless political correctness. As he said in a letter to the school, he felt the topical of “masculinity” in the school “lacked balance”. Which is a polite way of saying that the boys were being force-fed feminist propaganda.

Before delivering the lecture (which would have been for senior boys), he circulated it around the school — and one staff member objected.

I understand that this staff member is one of the new intake of wokistas who hate Eton’s traditional values and want to reshape it according to the politically correct values of the liberal left.

Henderson could very easily have ignored this complaint simply by defending the school’s long traditions of freedom of expression. Eton, as anyone familiar with it knows, offers — or used to offer — probably the best, most rounded, most intellectually challenging education of almost any school in the world. Though very traditional in its emphasis on rigour and hard work, it is also remarkably libertarian in the way that boys’ eccentricities and personal interests are encouraged. Boys finish their five years at Eton having been exposed to all manner of intellectual ideas.

This tradition is slowly being strangled by the new regime. Rather than stick up for Knowland, Henderson backed the staff member who wanted his lecture censored.

Knowland had prepared the lecture in video form, and when he was prevented by the lock-down from giving it to his students face-to-face he uploaded it to his YouTube page.  Henderson demanded that it be taken down.  Knowland asked for one good reason, and was summarily dismissed.  He is appealing against his dismissal and raising funds for a full tribunal hearing in the event that that appeal fails.

Meanwhile, the video has been viewed not by a hundred or so senior Eton students but by nearly 28,000 YouTube viewers.  Here it is, in case you are wondering - it’s very good; and it has led to Stephen Pinker, among many others, actually writing to William Waldegrave, the chairman (Provost) of the Board of Governors of the School, asking for him to intervene with Henderson.

My point, however, is that today the Telegraph reports that:

Eton College students are in open revolt against their headmaster as a row over free speech threatened to boil over into a major fall-out.

Pupils at the 580-year-old school have accused it of acting in a “heartless and merciless” way by dismissing one of its masters amid a dispute over a lecture that questioned “current radical feminist orthodoxy”.

Hundreds of students have now signed a petition accusing Eton College of “institutional bullying” claiming that it was a “gross abuse of the duty of the school to protect the freedoms of the individual”.

... The students’ petition, addressed to Eton’s provost, Lord Waldergrave, said they felt the episode has given rise to “some very grave implications about the nature of freedom” at Eton.

They said: “There is a sense that, by dismissing Mr Knowland, the school is seeking to protect its new image as politically progressive at the expense of one of its own. If this is true, it points to a complete lack of moral integrity and backbone.”

The students went on to say that they disagreed with the Head Master’s assertion that ideas which can be deemed “hostile” to minority groups at the school could be censored.

“We think this test is too severe,” they said. “Young men and their views are formed in the meeting and conflict of ideas. A conflict of ideas necessarily entails controversy and spirited discussion. The Head Master’s ‘hostility’ test excludes nearly all of what makes up a liberal education.”

Well, it is difficult to imagine these sturdy and still very young men protesting in the same way if the roles were reversed and they were unable to hear the case for toxic masculinity.  They demonstrate a distinct interest in the sociobiological facts of being human, and a great appetite for some understanding of their own male being amid the plethora of feminist accounts and claims of gender-fluidity.  It is a demonstration of a principle to which I know that, in a wider sense also taking in the race issue and the constraint, indeed forced obsolescence of young white American men, James Bowery subscribes: young men do desire to find value for themselves in this world, and will act against those forces, if they possibly can, which take that value away.  They just need a good and thoughtful guide and perhaps a bit of evolutionary psychology.

Within days I will set up a website to advance the best in White advocacy/nationalism as it is known to be - a place for the resource brought to bear, for its cultivation by those who recognize the crucial value of this resource.

I will endeavor to maintain a presence at Majorityrights in order to correct any misrepresentations of my positions and to challenge any perfidy which might make its way back, hoping for my riddance.

Some may think that I might be disheartened with the marketing campaign and those beholden to it having held sway over me thus far, but it is not the case.

Some will mock me as having spent my time in futility, but I think not; especially as compared to the likes of those who spend $10,000 only to die on the side of Mt. Everest.

I have achieved what I set out to do, which is to summit (what I am satisfied to be) the most vital and necessary in theory for the advocacy of European peoples. Similar as those not understood for having undertaken a quest of Mount Everest, it was my objective. Something that I had to do. But unlike their project, mine was not so personal or futile; rather it was in service to my broad understanding and to our people (and, ok, if I am to be most honest, perhaps as much against antagonists and those who do not care - their practices which are objectionable for the destructive impact they are having upon us), and against those who time and again mislead the theoretical trail; by contrast, I have left clear maps on trail for the sovereignty of European peoples: I know that I have brought the best in truth and in depth; while some may be determined to deny this truth out of custom, habit, tradition, their prejudices or vanity - or in red caped misdirection, as I have particularly shown - all one has to do is take a look honestly at my efforts which I will carry over to the new site to be disabused of pseudo justification for antagonism to the platform which I bring to bear.

Whether the new site achieves popularity or not right away is not an issue; any more than popular approval might not be first in mind for the guy who dies on the side of Mt. Everest, singularly focused in his aim, irrespective of how futile and impractical popular opinion may deem his quest to be; however, by contrast, the objective of the new site is not vain nor impractical, nor destined to be unpopular or out of the mainstream as those who do take a look will see; as the perspicuous overview from this summit has shown what is most relevant; a manifestation of the most necessary resource for our people.

Healing that confusion, the lack of wherewithal that comes from a family with crazy and hostile communicative patterns has a price which one is not particularly aware of when still in the midst or recovering from its throes…

As one heals, regains their natural emergent form, the poise of its perspective, one is suddenly confronted with the myriad of one’s own culpability in not negotiating these family and friend circumstances better; one is somewhat braced for the fact in that one is now essentially healed, but the memories of one’s own interactive failings, i.e., to negotiate relations better for one’s own sake and to make one’s way better with them, are on constant offer to the consciousness, really too many examples and presenting from any given day that one might reflect upon.

One thematizes, taking examples, and tries to empathize with oneself as having done the best they could in the circumstance and remember that the person that you view failure with can bear some joint responsibility.

I’m thinking of my father, specifically.

Confusing, could not effectively and respectfully communicate his thoughts; questions about his confusing statements were treated like an affront, volcanic temper like you can’t believe, otherwise largely catatonic TV-watcher - infuriating the way he’d smile along with it…. but might turn away momentarily to literally paraphrase his WWII generation mantras - “you can’t fight city hall” and the liberal, “anything goes when the whistle blows”... he would say this with a smile on his face, like you were supposed to relate.

His worst characteristic, however, was his penchant to attack vulnerability - made it near impossible to trust him. This did-in my mother’s psyche; and having to deal with her broken psyche is another can of worms that we don’t need to talk about. Psychologically, intellectually, bad situation all around.

Materially, I’d be a jerk to complain. Weren’t rich, but had what we needed and a modest bit more…and that does, indeed, spill over into some opportunity to heal the psychological and intellectual deficit.

But as harrowing as my father could be and the fights that he had with my mother were (you could hear them around the block from our house), I eventually gained enough perspective to see how I might have done better as well.

First of all, a working class family without advanced education and four kids.

I could not have done better than my parents ...oh maybe a little better in some ways, but overall, probably worse…

READ MORE...

Triangulation

One of the advantages that Jews have in altercasting White identity as right wing or somehow in response/reaction to “the left’s social concerns”, is that they can take advantage of the inherent instability of right wing reactionary rigidity, its quest for pure warrant beyond social accountability and correctability, whether in Nazism’s natural fallacy or Christianity’s otherworldly nonsense (kosher diversion). It has been apparent for some time that some Jewish perspectives are using a triangulation strategy against White identity and solidarity, by encouraging singularly focused Germanophilia in WN, even to the point of encouraging ostensible WN advocates to roll around in Nazi redemptionism and Holocaust well, if not denial, then downplaying with “humor”, etc. With White America being largely German, there is going to be enough of a true believers market, people desperate enough given the onslaught of PC liberalism and lacking in time, energy and concern to see beyond an overly German sympathetic perspective (with its background of Jewish interests) - wanting to believe rather that they are in sheer defiance of the anti-White, PC narrative - such that they will go along with this angle, not particularly concerned that they are playing into a divide and conquer triangulation.

Perhaps Thamster’s shirt is funny too

Thamster, Josh Neal and Jefferson Lee. Quite articulate of liberalism’s rupture of the organic whole, but what they haven’t figured out is that Hitler and Jesus are not what is needed to keep it together. The day before Richard Spencer’s NPI channel was taken down from Youtube, he was in conversation with these guys extolling the virtues of Mussolini and Hitler (David Duke was doing the same thing the same day and his channel was also taken down after he went on about all the “peace offerings” that Hitler had made. lol). Jefferson Lee invokes the absurd, “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway” argument (i.e., so you may as well prove them right?). When unavailable for a show, Josh says that Jefferson Lee is busy planning the revival of The Prussian empire (so funny).

The Final Solution to the Denier Question David Cole Stein 30 July 2020. 32:05: “Here we have the most prominent deniers. Here is Robert Faurisson (French). He’s dead now.

See also, Do Joel Davis and Richard Spencer Want to Suck Jewish Cock? ...or would they prefer to take it up the ass?

.......

Note, I will be adding to this article, but for now, let’s get it underway, starting with that, the hypothesis.
.......

The observation of this misdirecting pattern is the important issue at this point. There is no urgent need to trace this pattern to a single or few sources, though there are some of the usual suspects, like Regnery publishing and some of its Alt-Right/Dissident Right/ come Third Positionist/ (((Alt-Lite))) orbiters…

The Final Solution to the Denier Question Here is Jurgen Graf, ok, he’s a Swiss gentleman.

While he is apparently innocuous, David Cole Stein’s Holocaust revisionism has been enough to ingratiate himself in this Jewish sponsored Germanophilism; a proud German-Jew, he is not above coddling Nazism a bit, apparently for the sake of re-routing animus against other Europeans. Cole-Stein uses the revisionist cred and attention that he gets to promote The Institute of Historical Review and “true historians, ‘Mark Weber and David Irving.”

“Hey! quit fuckin around, come on, we’re trying to teach the people something.”

The Final Solution to the Denier Question And Carlo Mentionio (not a wink and a nod but emphatic Italian emotive, including gesticulation to make it clear that he is NOT German). Aaay! ‘Scusi carabinieri, Carlo Mentionio gobadagul gabagul!’

“So this is the denier side. Here we have the three stooges on the denier side (Faurisson, Graf, and Mentionio).”

“This side is the actual historian side. Mark Weber which is represented by the Journal of Historical Review that he edits. David Irving…and then you got me. So, here we have me, Irving, Weber. We represent real history.”

Comments:

rollo clevich
Why did you ignore Arthur Butz?

Daniel Sienkiewicz

It seems to me (Cole-Stein ignores Butz) because Butz is a German name (even if a German American).  The classic, shifty pivot. David’s classic shifty pivot is apparently to coddle Germans as much as possible, including Nazi apologists, “true historians” Mark Weber and David Irving, to play divide and conquer against Slavics, especially Russian Slavics, including Russian Jewish Slavics who David Cole Stein admits to disliking.

While Greg Johnson’s “New Right/Old Right” has denounced Hitler and the Nazi project as counter to current WN interests, of late he has returned to performing rim jobs on overly Nazi sympathetic perspectives. In a recent podcast featured by Counter-Currents, Frodi Midjord goes along with Mark Weber’s (IHR) endorsement of Patrick Buchanan’s dubious, “The Unnecessary War,” to set in motion a perverted line of “reasoning” that blames everybody but Hitler, but especially Churchill for WWII. Of course David Irving’s pro-Hitler slant also works well enough for them. In fact, there are two recent podcasts with Mark Weber featured at Counter-Currents, here is one, “The War That Destroyed The West”. Here is another.

Besides the pandering of Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, Regnery Publishing has long been suspect, showing signs of promoting this Jewish/German, Germanophilic perspective to the point of soft peddling Nazism. Along with Germanophilic Regnery, there are apparently Jews involved in its executive decision making. The Regnery circus, as we might call it, was pivotal in orchestrating the Alt-Right Tentosphere, a paleoconservative 2.0 which featured tents not only for Christians and right wing Jews, but also for atheistic Nazophiles.

Regnery and Spencer

I post this picture a lot, but it remains central, and telling as these paleocon right wingers (and Spencer derivative), double down on their bullshit. Left, Patrick Buchanan, half Irish and half German with a corresponding bias that panders to the bulk of White American demographic reaction. Center, Paul Gottfried, (((paleocon))) maven and leading exponent of “THE Left” as the problem, a Germanophilic German-Jew, he is wont to distinguish Slavic Jews where Jewish culpability is to be acknowledged at all.

Many people orbiting White advocacy, like Jonathan Pohl, Right Ruminations and “Terminal Philosophy” a friend of queer Pilleater, cite Paul Gottfried as a reliable leading light. While Gilad Atzmon is another Jew who tends to pander to the Germanophilic perspective; and will get some endorsement from the likes of David Duke, as such.

The latest means of introducing Nazi triangulation has been through the promotion of “Third Positionism”....

Mark Collett and Keith Woods have been a party to this, sadly along with Morgoth (who should know better, but I already tried and failed to dissuade him). I initially took a disliking to Angelo John Ganucci because he was both popular and taking the line that the most intellectually penetrating of WN were “National Socialists” (Nazis). Typical of right wingers, he demonstrated the inherent instability of the right by becoming a defacto liberal rebounding into “Third Positionist” anti-Zionist (while diaspora Jews can be fellow nationalists with him). Just before he was disgraced, Millennial Warts made a statement that “World War II shouldn’t have happened” and added, to paraphrase, that ‘anybody who can’t accept that Britain made a mistake in entering World War II, that they took the wrong side, is just going to have to step aside, sorry.’ How about Hitler not attacking other European nations if you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight? Warts is soon to be resurrected by Fudge Johnson for an interview over there at Counter-Currents.

Johnson can be a bad judge of character; recall that Warts was indignant with me and Majorityrights when I criticized his (self admitted) confidante (((Vivian Veritas))) for attempting to define terms for White nationalism, and Warts demanded that his link be removed from our site. the_lies_will_try_to_live_but_theyre_not_white_theyre_jewish

Some flaming asshole going by the name of Tom Anderson is a definite gate keeper - he has a wrench on several podcasts and is decidedly against me for my stance against Nazophiles in particular; but strangely, he will join Christians, such as Melchy Zedech when they antagonize me, even when they side with Jews, such as Vivian Veritas.

Church of Entropy joined Wll2PWR and Ovfuckyou to attack me for not adopting a right wing position when I began talking with Ecce Lux; in CoE’s case (and she has no business in WN circles) her motive might have been a bit different, but she was joining Wll2PWR who was attacking me mainly because I’m not Germanophilic to the point of Nazism and Ovfuckyou, decidedly against me because I maintain a platform which rejects Nazism.

I lost confidence in Ecce Lux not as much because of his Christianity, but because he let Ov attack me for rejecting Nazism, trying to say that I was too sensitive because I didn’t want to entertain it; that he’d “been through that” - “brainwashed” into thinking that “the Nazis were bad.”

Ecce Lux and Faustian Spirit (who I talked to and also should know better) apparently go along with this Right Wing/Third Positionist angle encouraged by Tom Anderson; while Dennis Dale tags along, unwilling or unable to get out of the kosher discourse box.

       
        Chinese Philo-Semite, Claire Khaw, in proud photo with David Irving

The idiotic Chinese woman, Claire Khaw, panders to Nazophiles with the absurd line that she just wants to promote “real nationalism” and “Hitler just wanted his day in the sun”....  to demonstrate the innocent integrity of Nazi Germany, she brought an Israeli onto her show to talk with Nazi ovfuckyou, and he agreed that the “Nazis were really Ok.”... apparently the argument being that if that’s what it takes to sort people unto their nations [IF].

In his penchant for the laconic and incisive, GW observed “triangulation” and that inspired this article…

READ MORE...

While I am finishing-up what I think is an important piece on the issue of triangulation against White interests (and I still hope to have it up later today), this material, which was a comment, emerged worthy of shoring-up into a head post.

Although I have been saying this more or less for years, the gas-lighting that I’ve gotten from those reacting to my disabuse of red capes, like children having a tantrum because their kosher coloring book has been taken away, has only forced me to become still more articulate of the matter and to stiffen my resolve. These concepts are simply too important to be swept-aside for whatever motives. There has been no good reason for it; perhaps Nazi idolaters don’t want me to be the purveyor of worthwhile knowledge, Christards don’t want their absurd excuse for a moral order to be shown to be unnecessary or, as I said, the conceptually lame, like children who don’t want to grow up (and out of the provided discourse box), don’t want their characterology of “the left” shown for what it is - a kosher coloring book.

And obviously, Jews don’t want their deceptive games exposed.

While the gas-lighters try to deny accurate inferences that I’ve made independent of academic enforcement, in addition to lived, experiential perspective and various disciplinary perspectives, the disciplinary perspective that I am mainly coming from is a communicologist perspective (interaction unit of analysis); nevertheless, the sociologist unit, the social group concept is more than valid; it does not have to be the only unit of analysis, but when it comes to race and anti-racism, it is central, highly relevant, if not most relevant…and already there in nature, not denying any worthwhile science where it is worthwhile sociology….nobody is saying that we don’t also need biologists looking through microscopes, etc. or “ordinary people” contributing their deep experiential knowledge - in fact, that cannot be replaced. Social constructionism is bolstered by the input of different perspectives and disciplines.

See this response to manciblack:

mancinblack: What is new, is that we are being told sex is more or less a social construct and that for this “the scientific evidence is incontrovertible”.

But mancinblack:

“Social constructionism” is an important concept which has been Red Caped.

It has been red caped as “solipsism” which is the idea that an individual can make of themselves or a group whatever bizarre speculation that they like. And how is that “social”? It isn’t; not for long.

That’s the red cape that the right wing altercast chases, as characteristic of “the left”...57 genders from outer space to choose from, “race is an optical illusion”, etc.

However, to allege that sex differentiation and gender are mere solipsistic choices, a mere social construct, is not socially warranted - it is Cartesian, as it denies the empirical reality of sex differentiation and the practical complementarity of gender roles (a reality which the vast majority of people will subscribe to for the sake of their survival, if nothing else). But as Cartesian it reverses the raison d’etre of social constructionism, which is to deal with the modernist, Cartesian estrangement, detachment that doesn’t deal with our social interactive reality, attentive defense of our groups - e.g., the genders and race - against ravages of modernity, particularly as (((weaponized))), etc. Rather, social constructionism corrects this by engaging the interactive process and lets add, emergence, to include GW’s important non-Cartesian emphasis (though emergentism was never shunned by social constructionism proper).

Social constructionism proper, maintains that there are four aspects of social construction, always entailing at least a modicum of agency:

1. The more literal: as in constructing a building together.

2. The metaphoric: as in parents “constructing” a child, with the help of some sort of input from any number of people around them at present and historically…

3. The hermeneutic: to manage the non-Cartesian process of inquiry between rigor and imagination as need be to facilitate systemic maintenance (individual and group). Hermeneutics is necessary for the liberation from modernity’s mere facticity and the arbitrary episode into coherence and accountability for both individual and to follow the historical expanse and temporal systemic breadth of our people.

4. The post hoc attribution as to how facts count:

That guy may think he’s a woman, but he has a weenie and a Y chromosome, that’s a fact and for us as sane people, that means that he cannot use the ladies room.

Of course the bizarre gender stuff is a red cape to make the concept of social constructionism didactically repulsive to Whites, to dissuade our people from it.

It’s what “the left does” “those social people” “from their sociology classes” ...“those social justice warriors”...

But to overshoot, to overreact to the red cape, to react to the deterministic extreme of scientism reduces our agency, keeps us rigid, rationally blinded, susceptible to infiltration, low on social accountability and correctability and thus manipulable…

..extreme reaction also serves our enemies by frightening away normal people as its anti social lack of balanced, real world judgement (phronesis), humaneness and accountability threatens them (‘that’s just the way it is’) .. scientistic reaction can, in fact, become a living nightmare as it can become an impervious/unaccountable founding principle in the case of dictatorships and misdirected war.

......

This White post modern concept properly understood is meant to provide some agency, but it comes at the price of social accountability (meaning you cannot simply make of yourself or a group of people just anything, not having any empirical lines of distinction - indeed, how is that social?); with that properly managed, it entails coherence through a hermeneutic liberation from the mere arbitrary facticity rife of modernity, providing instead coherence, correctabilty (homeostasis is self corrective systems) agency and warrant ...including to negotiate niche ecology…

It is important for both individuals and groups to have this concept in order to maintain what capacity for systemic homeostasis (self correction/governance) that we do have - even an authentic (as opposed to arbitrary reaction to moment, episode, relationships) holding fast to emergence, being’s authenticity is facilitated.

It is an especially necessary concept for White people to understand given our susceptibility to social group dissolution for our propensities for individualism and to take on natural, scientific challenges rather than social group challenges (e.g., trickery).

It is necessary to fight off deterministic concepts thrown at us by our enemies (the opposite of social constructionism, our adversaries will also use determinism against us), such as “migration flows” which happen like a “force of nature” that must be accepted as a mere fact about which nothing can be done but acceptance. ..or, “(((we)))re vastly over-represented at Harvard because of our I.Q.”, “HBD” (not because of group nepotism).

It is also necessary to fight off the allegation that our freedom is being threatened as such: “they’re trying to take away our individuality”, when our individuality will be destroyed without a group structure to facilitate it somewhere along the line.

Our enemies have red caped social constructionism so that right wing reactionaries chase after the misrepresentation and miss its facilitation of social interactive agency and the vital social organizing function. The YKW are always looking to disrupt functioning organizational homeostasis. They keep right wingers chasing after the misrepresentation and right wingers might even feel clever: “see, scientists can look at a skeleton and determine what race and sex it is immediately” as if they’ve disproved social constructionism… what they’ve done is disproved the red cape and helped the YKW to obfuscate the important concept, which would not deny that factually, there are empirical differences between the races and the sexes.

It’s “THE Left”, they want to take away your Christianity, they’re not dealing with reality!

David Horowitz and Paul Gottfried occupy two axial points of Jewish motivation to promote a marketing campaign against “the left” and characterology thereof, while altercasting manipulable right wing reactionary positions for Whites given intersectionality with the (((progressive stack of PC victim groups))) against their Jewish interests, their need to get ahead of the reaction to NeoConservatism’s Operation Clean Break / Wars for Israel and reaction to the 2008 financial meltdown/ bail-out.

While I have called attention to David Horowitz as a leading Jewish figure in advancing the marketing campaign - in Jewish interests, obviously - against “THE Left” and indeed, he has contributed to exposing the Cultural Marxist/PC Anti-White Left, I have focused more on Paul Gottfried in terms of posing “The Left” in opposition to White identity and nationalism by definition. Nevertheless, both conveniently ignore the possibility (and necessity) of a White Left Ethnonationalism, instead altercasting any White identitarianism which might respond as some kind of Right -

Gottfried continues to orchestrate a program against “THE Left”, as best he can, presenting Christianity as spunky “rebellion” that “the left” wants to do away with, while Spencer was enlisted to advance a youthful, secular element to align with Paleoconservatism.

Alt-Right in Gottfried’s case, with flunkey Richard Spencer figure-heading the addition of new tents, more youthful, flagrantly rebellious and anti-social, secular, along with Paleoconservative and Jewish right wing (Alt Lite) tents - moving to “Dissident Right” after Charlottesville and “Hail Trump”, Spencer then falling to the wayside in favor of a more streamlined but still edgy/ironic Paleoconservatism (Christianity being what it cannot deviate from) and Third Positionism (includes right wing elements, obviously) - But I have not talked as much about David Horowitz’ part in the marketing campaign, positioning White identity against “The Left” and altercasting White Nationalism as some kind of Right (come Third Positionism, or neither left nor right populism, susceptible to infiltration and ineffective if not self destructive right wing reaction).

Related:

Though J.F. Gariepy claims to be thinking independently in his terminological deployment, the discourse parameters he follows are within the altercast box prescribed by Jewish interests and serving them; as ever, a caveat thus in regard to Gariepy’s use of the term “The Left” and its “characterizations;” while this usage and characterology is fairly true when looked upon as a Marxist Internationalist or Cultural Marxist Left, assailing White national, group and personal boundaries, absent the delimiting working hypotheses of the White Ethnonational Left, viz., unionization to structure accountability and gauge correctivity for Whites, Gariepy’s advice is more free floating (and, he admits, nihilistic) than it should be - providing feedback looking toward the more objective facts irrespective of our subjective and relative interests, but lacking the radical orientating context without the centering calibration of White Left Ethnonationalism’s relative, systemic interests.

JF Gariepy discusses recent Youtube bans, including Red Elephants: He adds (6:31)“But then, lets not fool ourselves into thinking that the current order is a liberal one. We don’t live in a liberal society. In a liberal society, you can’t lose your channel like Vincent James just lost it today. That is bullshit. These people are not liberals.”

And in regard to his assessment given the recent Youtube bans, viz., of Vincent James, actually, Gariepy is off the mark. The internationalist Marxist, anti-White Cultural Marxist agenda is about liberalizing White National borders and boundaries to the extreme completion - to where we can conserve nothing (not even a Youtube channel with the aim of conserving any vestige of White human ecology).

The discussion below, from NPR Fresh Air, does well to place David Horowitz in the scheme of things. However, it only provides a semblance of explanation of his motivation for terminological and conceptual misdirection of White interests in order to serve Jewish interests as they’ve been intersected by their former client advocacy positions….

All text except for images and captions are from NPR, Fresh Air:
.....

NPR, Fresh Air, 24 Aug 2020

Guerrero is an investigative reporter who formerly was with KPBS, the radio and TV station in San Diego. She previously covered Mexico and Central America for The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires. She’s the author of a previous book called “Crux: A Cross-Border Memoir” about growing up with a Mexican father and Puerto Rican mother.

It’s impossible to understand the Trump era, with its unparalleled polarization, without tracing Stephen Miller‘s journey to the White House. That’s what my guest, Jean Guerrero, writes in her new book, “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, And The White Nationalist Agenda.

[...]

GROSS: So David Horowitz, who we’ve been talking about, who became a mentor, a far-right mentor to Stephen Miller - you know, Horowitz started off as as a leftist. He was one of the editors of the leftist magazine Ramparts. He, I think, was, you know, an ally of the Black Panthers. Like, what do you know about why and how he changed so radically? He moved from, like, one pole to the other.

GUERRERO: Yeah. I mean, David Horowitz had recommended his friend Betsy (Van Patter) to work on the accounting for the Black Panthers. She’s a white woman. And she ended up being murdered. And the murder was never solved, but David Horowitz blamed the Black Panthers Party and became convinced that they had murdered her. And after that, you saw David Horowitz go through this transformation where he became convinced that the movement that he had been a part of, the left, had waged a unfair war on whiteness - is what he called it. He felt that whiteness was actually something that needed to be preserved.

And, I mean, he tries not to write about it outright as whiteness being preserved. But he talks about how the only important racism in society is racism against white people and that racism against Black and brown people is a figment of your imagination. And it really goes back to the murder of his friend Betty, who he blamed on the Black Panthers.

And it really started to lean into these, you know, misleading statistics that are put out by publications like American Renaissance, this white supremacist publication that paints brown and Black people as innately more violent than white people. And David Horowitz is the one who introduced Stephen Miller to websites like American Renaissance. He describes the founder of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor, to me, as a very smart man, who he claims has a perverse ethnic view because, again, David Horowitz, you know, tries to distance himself from the white nationalist movement because he knows how important it is to launder these ideas through the language of heritage and national security if you want them to appeal to the mainstream.

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let’s get back to my interview with Jean Guerrero, author of the new book “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, And The White Nationalist Agenda.” She is a former investigative reporter for KPBS, the public TV and radio station in San Diego. She’s now freelance and continues to report for public media. She previously covered Mexico and Central America for the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires.

So we’ve been talking about how David Horowitz mentored Stephen Miller. And Horowitz helped Stephen Miller launch his career. He first got him a job with Michele Bachmann when she was elected as a congressperson, and she was very conservative. So what job did he get working with Michele Bachmann?

Christian Zionist Michelle Bachmann

GUERRERO: He was hired as a press secretary for Bachmann, and that was his first job. And that’s kind of where Stephen Miller starts to learn about, you know, how to write these very hyperbolic press releases. And he starts to, you know, bombard reporters late into the night with his press releases and links and FYIs.

GROSS: So David Horowitz first gets Stephen Miller a job with Congressperson Michele Bachmann. And then from there, Horowitz gets Miller a job with Jeff Sessions when Jeff Sessions was a senator from Alabama who, like Stephen Miller, was very anti-immigration. So what was the relationship like between Sessions and Miller when Miller was working for him?

Jeff Sessions by Gage Skidmore

GUERRERO: So Miller - you know, he really helped to turn Jeff Sessions into sort of a very combative personality. He - I mean, Sessions was already a leading nativist on Capitol Hill when Stephen Miller joined. But Stephen Miller started to model Jeff Sessions, his remarks, after the far-right, combative media personalities that Stephen Miller had been familiar with his entire life - so really pulling, you know, talk radio talking points onto Capitol Hill and having Jeff Sessions, you know, talk about how too much immigration is going to, quote, “decimate” this country and how anyone who supports immigration reform is part of a globalist elite who wants to destroy the country through limitless importation of cheap labor in the form of mass migration. So these ideas of demonization Stephen Miller really incorporated into Jeff Sessions’ rhetoric.

GROSS: So he becomes Jeff Sessions’ press secretary, and then Sessions and Miller end up in the Trump administration. And Steve Bannon helped get Stephen Miller into the Trump administration, and Bannon was another one of Stephen Miller’s mentors. What was Bannon’s role in Stephen Miller’s life before Bannon was pushed out of the Trump administration?

Stephen Miller and Steve, “ethnonationalism, it’s losers and we’ve got to crush it more”, Bannon

GUERRERO: So Bannon, you know, gives Stephen Miller a platform on Breitbart while Stephen Miller was working for Jeff Sessions. Basically, Stephen Miller was given free reign over a lot of the writers at Breitbart to just kind of shape their stories and provide them with ideas that they were expected to turn into stories. And during this time is when Stephen Miller was feeding, you know, articles from white nationalist and white supremacist websites to Breitbart and having them do stories about them, you know, painting immigrants as an existential threat.

So Bannon - you know, he gives him a platform on Breitbart and helps connect him with the people on the Trump campaign, where Stephen Miller was initially providing free labor for the Trump campaign, you know, sending over talking points and memos and then eventually gets himself hired in 2016 as the senior policy advisor and top speechwriter for President Trump.

[...]

GROSS: The book “The Camp Of The Saints.”

GUERRERO: “The Camp Of The Saints,” yeah. It demonizes people of color. But it also demonizes their allies. It demonizes anti-racists as agitators and anarchists and as mobs, which you then now see Trump using that exact same language to talk about anti-racist protesters ever since, you know, the police killing of George Floyd. So Stephen Miller is really drawing - whether he’s doing so consciously or not, I mean, Stephen Miller read this book. He promoted this book. And a lot of the language in this book you are now seeing Trump using.

[...]

GROSS: Well, among the many riddles surrounding Stephen Miller is - you know, he’s Jewish. His grandparents were immigrants. And he espouses some views that are espoused by white supremacists. White supremacist hate Jews.

GUERRERO: Mmm hmm.

GROSS: They would like Jews to, like, leave the country or at least live in a separate space on their own. How does he reconcile that? I’m sure you don’t know the answer to that. But don’t you wonder?

GUERRERO: I do. You know, I - one of the stories that I found the most interesting in my research for the book is the story of Stephen Miller’s grandmother Ruth, who on his - his grandmother on his mother’s side who spent her retirement compiling the family history, you know, how they were refugees who fled the nationalist agitators and, you know, these pogroms against the Jews, these massacres against the Jews and came here to the United States. And she recorded the family history. She said she was recording it for her grandchildren, like Stephen Miller, so that they would never forget the value of people who come to this country with nothing but the clothes on their back and speaking no English, just as Stephen Miller’s ancestors came to this country.

GROSS: How have people in Miller’s extended family reacted to his extreme views?

GUERRERO: You know, I interviewed a number of his relatives. And most people in his family, with the exception of his parents and his siblings, who declined to talk to me - they’re very ashamed to be associated with Stephen Miller and the legacy that he’s created around the family name because of the fact that, you know, they know where they - where the family comes from and the fact that they - you know, they initially came here without any knowledge of the English language and without any money in their pockets and started out as, you know, peddling fruit on the streets and eventually made their way up and made something of themselves and contributed in a very strong way to this country in the way that, you know, many immigrants do.

And so a lot of them told me that they see him as someone who needs to be punished for crimes against humanity. You know, one of his aunts was telling me that she truly believes that he’s unleashed what she calls a Pandora’s box of hatred in this country that is going to be very difficult to contain after they leave office, if they do.

..................................

Related at Majorityrights:

If you are able to articulate public relations manipulation so well, how did you wind up altercast?

Paleocon Bannon arrested, indicted in private sector crowd-funding fraud, build-the-wall campaign.

These Are White Nationalists? What Is Behind TRS And The Alt-Right’s Gushing Effusion For Trump?

(((Mike Peinovich, the “Serbian”))) who hates Albanians and thinks they should have been genocided.

Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream

Paleoconservatism as “Cultural Controlled Opposition” to Neo-Conservatism and its Clean Break Memo.

In a recent podcast, Dangerfield ran clips from an English village in the 1970’s celebrating The Queen’s Jubilee.

Dangerfield remarks among his derision of “Post Modernity” read (((post modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity, and “The Leftists”, read international, red leftists as opposed to White ethnonational left, that these “Leftists” will denounce the celebration of “The Queen’s Jubilee as right-wing reactionary nostalgia.”

This is not really quibbling on my part. Rather, it provides a good example of why it is important to understand Post Modernity correctly, viz. White Post Modernity as opposed to its (((red caped))) misrepresentation along with other language currency counterfeiting the depth grammar of left and right.

Dangerfield says, “these leftists want to say that these English villagers celebrating the queen’s jubilee” is an expression of right wing reaction.”

However, Post Modernity proper, viz. White Post Modernity/left ethnonationalism, would say, on the contrary, that it can be fine and good for these English villagers to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Unlike the rule structure of Modernity, a practice (and a people) does not have to be different and new in order to be good; and should not be put at risk to uncontrolled experimentation.

If it is a healthy tradition, one can feel free to participate and reconstruct the practice/people without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity (as opposed to modernity’s paradoxic mandate to the individual: “be different so that you can fit it”); one invokes a willing suspension of disbelief in the hermeneutic (liberated from Modernity’s mere facticity) and one does so understanding when it is healthy for one’s people (while one is free to Not participate and can give way to Modernization when a tradition is not healthy for one’s people).

You begin to see why it is important to have a clear understanding of Post Modernity, viz., White Post Modernity.

For one clear example, for capacity that it provides for Optimal Competence, as per Aristotle’s description of performance requirements: minimal, satisfactory, optimal.

A minimally competent person could not participate in the Queens Jubilee appropriately, because they would not understand it well enough - thus, not understanding how to reconstruct the practice normally, or adjudge where the practice might be right (despite modernist derision) or where it might be going wrong (despite its having been tradition).

A merely satisfactorily competent person can ONLY participate in a rather verbatim reconstruction of the practice. But given the disorder of Modernity, lacking the stability that once underpinned the practice with assurance (e.g., The Queen has our interests at heart and would never decry those against immigration as “racist”, nor lord accountability to the universalizing Jesus over us, as opposed to accountability to our native people, nor have a grandson married to a Mulatto), there is no such thing as the kind of stable criteria for one to reconstruct; one must have more understanding of the context.

Hence, given the disorder of Modernity, especially (((weaponized))), as it were, there is no stable traditional order to practice satisfactory competence, one is either minimally competent or optimally competent.

* Aristotle’s discussion of minimal, satisfactory and optimal competence uses the example of fairness in exchange and knowing the difference.

Satisfactory competence can only make an equal exchange.

Minimal competence doesn’t understand an equal exchange, might make an equal exchange by accident, or give less than the appropriate value or more than the appropriate value, not really understanding it.

Whereas optimal competence knows the equal value of an exchange but can exchange less without being niggardly in truth or can give more without being ingratiating in truth.

It is not only necessary for English and all European peoples to understand Post Modernity properly, but it is also quite possible, not too hard at all for the vast majority of our people to understand its performance requirements; minimal/optimal. Hence, we must not be deterred by Jewish red-caping of terms and concepts.

Related at Majorityrights:

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

White Post Modernity