Majorityrights Central > Category: The Proposition Nation

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...

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.

Contextual Force (from top down force of context) provides -

[Constitutive Rule] Normative Rule Structure -

Cultural Pattern [CP] Modernity/Liberalism:

Modernity/Liberalism has precedents in northern Europeans particularly, as they were evolved more against the challenges of nature and not so much against other tribes, the northerners being much the same, a liberal mindedness to mixing with others who were not so other was not a big problem.

But there are precedents in the Classical Greeks as well, viz., non interactive teleology and in (apparently Jewish promoted) Christian notions of individual souls being equal, the undifferentiated gentile other (as GW observes), pacifism, notions of pure morality, conceived apparently, to overthrow Rome. Christianity thus, was an early Jewish weaponization - war by deception - of White liberal mentality and controlled opposition against them.

But modernity’s characteristic prejudice against prejudice (as Gadamer astutely referred to it) reaches its apex with Descartes and markedly with Locke’s prejudice against social classifications, considering them non-empirical fictions of the mind which should give way to individual civil rights. This “Enlightenment” prejudice against prejudice found [Implicative Force] beyond the British Aristocratic Class which Locke resented, as the “empirical” concept of individual rights over discriminatory social classifications made its way into the hegemonic [Contextual Force] of The American Constitution; and then was weaponized by Jewry (Alinsky style “rules for radicals”, i.e., while the union of Jewry and its coalitions are solid enough, make the enemy live up to its rules ad infinitum to prevent it’s solidarity/ unionization) in its [Implicative Force] against Whites with the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act: which, practically speaking, prevented White men only from classifiying in their interests and discriminating accordingly (as other groups were granted permission to classify on the basis of alleged historical grievances - [Cultural Patterns]). This prohibition of social classificatory bounds (for the White majorities) effectively ruptures accountability to group homeostatic maintenance and Reflexively, Recursively Effects the Disorder of Modernity, abetting systemic runaway.

Deontic Operator [Obligatory] promote Modernist/Liberal project ad infinitum: continual testing of gentile (non-Jewish) social group bounds from within or from without; encourage and flatter characteristic European predilection for objectivist quest and concomitant notion that putting resources at continual risk in experimentalism necessarily leads to foundational progress. [Regulative Rule] Change counts as progress, celebrate change [Strange Loop] Reflexive Reversal of Context - “this is no longer new” [Obligatory] work to change.

Contextual Force of modernity/liberalism predominantly upheld and initiated by -

1. Jewry: through bottom up [implicative force] as a small, biological-systemic tribal pattern/ nation - Israel - ensconced among (perceived/conceived) hostile others, thus highly ethnocentric of perceived necessity; and with that, believing in their divinity as ‘the chosen people’; when scattered - in Diaspora - take on a messianism as such and develop an antagonistic disposition to insubordinate gentile nations by way of top down [contextual force] rule structuring of ethnocentric middle-man / elite niche occupation among largely (perceived/conceived) alien and hostile others.

Deontic Operator [Obligatory] Disrupt and re-direct (the greatest potential threat to Jewish power and influence) potential of European/ White ethnonationalism to marshal social systemic homeostasis, non-Jewish coalitions and hegemony thereupon - make tacit deals/enticements with -

2. White right-wing elites/ and rank and file White liberals; both going by pseudo warrant of objectivism

- both rule structures, right wing and liberal are liberal with regard to their group interests; liberalism defined as the opening of social group boundaries to other influences or subject to influences beyond social account (thus maneuverable against group interests by those not quite so naive).

Objectivism (really pseudo objectivism, the prejudice against prejudice) renders people susceptible to this (liberalism) as it facilitates the pragmatic convenience of paying short shrift to social accountability and relative interests with facile (often fairly credible, hard to efficiently counter without appearing like a weakling, would-be despot), “that’s just the way it is” accounts; while those of its less theoretically ambitious, more pragmatically liberal offshoot are disposed to its facilitation of over rationalized liberal deviations (thus prematurely dismissive as trivial) and are more programmatically bound according to objectivist rule structure to experiment for themselves; the more theoretically ambitious, the right wing practitioners, are prone to rational blindness to broad perspective and social accountability to relative and interrelated interests as they similarly conceive of themselves as based in the fate of detached experiment, thus not especially quick to respond to differences among their group, prejudiced against prejudice as their perspective is as well.

* Note, of course you want/need to be objective, provisionally, to understand what’s going on irrespective of your personal and relative interests, but you also need to be accountable to your group as to the purpose of these inquiries, their applicability to personal and relative interests thereof - forgetting and paying short shrift to this has caused a kind of estrangement, as Heidegger calls it, which leaves us vulnerable as an organic system. Objective truth inquiries should provide feedback to serve the default calibration of relative, group interests (which entail sufficient coordination with other groups).

Group Autobiographies:

Jewry: Initially, traditionally and generally claiming warrant and authority over others as ‘the chosen people’, chosen through their Abrahamic god [de-ontic operator], which they propose as THE god, above (other people’s) nature;

Abrahamic god consecrates them as beacon unto the world, the chosen people to bring light and their perfection to the world and its people - as “undifferentiated other” ( G.W.) and thereby easily pacified gentile others; and as compassionate Davids, the chosen fancy themselves representing those oppressed and misunderstood by the rigid, hegemonic Goliath of straight, White right-wing male reactionaries; nevertheless, as Jewry themselves are a minority [ontic constraint] among this coalition up against such ungodly, uncivilized Philistine masses, they see it as Legitimate [de-ontic operator] to wage war by deception.

Which also suits the ontology [ontic operator] of their evolution as manichean - waging war by deception, trickery and rule changing - since they were evolved in the middle east, where the most important challenge was not so much shelter from the elements and attainment of resource to sustain them through seasonal and other natural challenges, but rather competition with other tribes, therefore requiring them to look after themselves more ethnocentrically, to be in high vigilance to defend against outside attack, to develop and cultivate adeptness with trickery/deception.

[Deontic Operator] Prohibit Whites (i.e., Europeans), as majority, from discriminating in advocacy of their group interests; compel them to live up to their penchant for objectivity ad absurdem; while rendering [Legitimate] non-European group advocacy, positive discrimination for these “oppressed” minorities with the “proviso” (a proviso that is rather ongoing) claim of Obligatory compensation for their having been subject to historical discrimination and exploitation.

Promote new religion installing the Abrahamic god and worship of the Jew incarnate thereof - sacrificed at hands of new Babylonian oppressor of Jews and other minorities, i.e., Rome, to be overthrown in favor of undifferentiated submission to the Abrahamic god, its universal and obsequious golden rule, purified Noahide Law; embrace and renounce original sin of (not being Jewish but having the nerve to have) subjective and relative interest at once, on pain of eternal hell for non-compliance; and proposed reward of eternal heaven in a life hereafter for sacrifice of concern for political ambition, group autonomy and material well being for one’s people and legacy.

[Reflexive Need] [Deontic Operator] Impose the Contextual Force of “The Moral Order”

“Christianity” - pure law and warrant in they eyes of god; born with “original sin” (of not being Jewish) even if you think of transgressing Noahide law, you are so culpable that you are better off plucking-out your eye.

The manichean penchant of Jewry was exacerbated by horizontal transmission as they were moved from their primeval habitat.

Beginning with Babylonian captivity when, as a small group captive and scattered among conquering/host nations, they were [blocked] from vertical transmission of skills and cultivated resource from their native grounding upward to national sovereignty and began evolving into and for elite niche control [from top down contextual force] over other nations instead.

The shifting over national boundaries created a horizontal transmission as they had minimal vested interest in the host nations; they developed a hostile, parasitic and exploitative relation to alien host nations, playing native nations against one another to their advantage; usurping native resources, shifting them over borders if threatened, a horizontal transmission that was exacerbated by Rome’s scattering them into Europe, where they made their way into control point niches; followed by continued horizontal transmission with the pogroms, the inquisition and then the holocaust, which continued selection against the more integrated, those Jews in position to interbreed with natives (a form of miscegenation which their more orthodox would detest), those situated for accountability, in favor of selection for their more virulently parasitic types, shifting many of their more virulent into pursuit of elite American niches.

8 Power Niches, Contextual Force from which Jewry establishes and maintains Constitutive and Regulative Rules:

1. Religion (viz. the Abrahamic Religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam), a massive coup for Jewish control to impose the moral order (if you can call Christianity moral or ordering as opposed to yoking and confusing) of Europeans 2. Media (Bowery Notes, Abrahamic Bible was the media in large part esp. prior to printing press) 3. Money/Finance (markedly with the exponential effects of usury) 4. Academia 5. Organized Crime 6. Law and Courts (e.g., the egregious “Disparate Impact”) 7. Politics 8. International Business. The niches branching into NGO’s, foundations, government programs, industrial, military, genetic technology ...the professions (and professional societies).

As ‘light unto the world” [Autob.]

As light unto the world [Prefiguative Force] and beleaguered group [Autob.] among hostile others, Jewry become [Practical Force] experts at organizing and maintaining their group interests; also adept at marshaling others, where opportune, in coalition with their interests. This marshaling [of Implicative and Contextual force] is done by control of the idea of unionization (“leftism”), (unionization facile/ or literal) and prohibition/disruption [Deontic Operator] of social systemic organization, homeostasis by unionization (“leftism”) for other ethnonations/ethnonationals, especially European peoples.

What unionization Jewry allows and coalitions it forms, in advocating their designated oppressed are largely constituted and regulated by themselves to Not allow the concept of unionization to be organized on powerful ethnonational lines, especially not for Whites, but on the contrary to get them to react negatively to the concept of ethnonational unionization in the abstract altogether, with facile, provocatively distorted, didactic misrepresentation of unionization and coalitions of perceived groups and grievances against White male authority.

[Reflexive Need] Deontic Operator [Obligatory] Disrupt White social systemic homeostasis

Altercast European/White identity, at once allowing them to flatter themselves [Autobiography] of their objective merit; further induced through complicit deals with right-wing elites, payoffs, and with enticements and license for rank and file liberals to stray from tradition and inherited moral standards. Thus, Altercast:

European/White Identity = “The Right” and Far Right (later Alt-Right and Dissident Right)

To be right wing means to be as acutely (narrowly) and purely warranted in one’s autobiographical/group [CP] claims to authority, truth, analysis free of the messy, agentive, socially trammeling rhetoric (“sophistry”) and its Reflexive Effects as possible, whether connecting the smaller group or individual above nature, perhaps above themselves even, in pure principles or god; or in immutable laws of nature, below the agentive flux, semi-disorder and negotiation (at its most severe, below the correctability) of human praxis.

White right wingers and liberals, both: maintain [Constitutive Rule] of liberalism with the assertion that they have what they have and are able to do what they do by dint of their objective, individual (or narrowing group) ability and virtue which owes little to their broader genetic/racial group in the way of fact or account.

[Implicative Rule] Modernity, objective experimentation and liberalization/change leads to progress

Modernist/Objectivist tradition began in the European South with the Greeks and in the North, with early Europeans pitted more-so against the elements of harsh nature (Augustinian devils) than other tribes; it reached its sine qua non with Descartes. Locke took the empirical end of Cartesianism to assert (for his prejudice against the English Aristocratic class prejudice) that social classifications were a fiction of the mind that should give way to individual rights - since all individuals have the same perceptions they should have the same civic rights. This Cartesian notion (technologically separating individual from their varying ecological positions in systemic process of relation and essential indebtedness to others of their group and beyond) was taken and became essential to America’s Constitutive Rules (the [Implicative Force] of which would become world hegemonic with the unleashing of rampant, unbridled competition to runaway as interests are unconstrained by group account) as it was written-in by Thomas Jefferson.

* Of Historico/Autobiographical note, given the Norman take-over in 1066 and lording of themselves over the Anglo-Saxons and Celts ever since, there would be a great deal of logical force [Implicative] to Locke’s “prejudice against this prejudice” .... and provided that it would remain a prejudice against inter-English class separation in favor of integration with ethnonational constraint, it is a well founded prejudice. The problem comes in where it was weaponized in the American context (by YKW) to extend as a prejudice against prejudice beyond ethnonational and racial bounds.

[Reflexive Need] [Obligatory] Prevent this rule of hegemonic majority from rupturing Jewish group (classificatory) organization; [Legitimate] Wage war by deception: turn, weaponize liberalization of Aristocratic social classificatory bounds against them.

Implication for Jewry: [Regulative Rule] Make their rules work against Whites; flatter their objectivity and at once, make them live up to their penchant for objectivity and pure warrant ad absurdem.

[Reflexive Need] [Deontic Operator: Prohibition] Prohibit Whites, as “hegemonic majority”, from discriminating in advocacy of their ethnonational group interests; render Legitimate group advocacy, discrimination for “oppressed” minorities.

[Reflexive Need] [Constitute Rule] secular opposition formed by Jewry:

A similar notion of minority and “internationalist-worker unionization/coalition” advocacy had been advanced by Jewry in the Russian/Marxist revolution of international communism. In America…

[Reflexive Need] [Legitimate] Weaponize Lockeatine, individual “Civil Rights” - prohibit Europeans/White Americans to begin with, from classifying social groups and discriminating thus for themselves.

[Prohibited] “Racism” - the prohibition of White people to classify social groups and discriminate thereupon.

[Reflexive Effects] Rupturing of social classificatory bounds and discrimination thereupon effects the Disorder of Modernity, Over-Valuation of [Momentary and Episodic] skills as waiting for protracted yield is too unreliable, increases atavistic values and pandering to females exponentially (especially White females), over-representation of their puerile predilections, intoxication of increased empowerment (increased one-up position in partner selection) causing a [Charmed Loop] of puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition - incitement itself causing a pernicious charmed loop if the hegemony indeed has sufficient contextual force) as White men are Prohibited from discriminating.

[Obligatory] Wage war by deception

[Legitimate] “Liberating tolerance” (Marcuse): Obligatory to tolerate anything from the Internationalist Left/ Prohibit Corrective feedback from Right Wing reaction.

[Obligatory] Distort beyond reason, even reverse all socially organizing and coordinating theories as presented to Whites, any proposal meant to mollify rigid, inhumane rendering of natural law, represent social advocacy theories as unnatural, anti White, international Leftism. ... get Whites to react against social organization, including in their own best interests.

European/White Autob. [Obligatory] - Identify with the Right, with “The Truth.” White identity is right wing (never mind Heideggerian liberation from mere facticity and all that - that “nonsense is for “The Left”, for colored people (never mind why they in their YKW led coalition has routed us; we could never be so impure as to be “racists” ...as to be so non empirical as to classify social groups and discriminate thereupon!

[Constitute Rule] secular opposition advanced by Jewry:

1. Marx, Freud, Frankfurt School - i.e., cultural Marxism, P.C. victim group advocacy, starting with blacks, women and gays; later extending to Muslims, etc.

Capture and re-direct human potential movements from White ethnocentrism along with feminism and black civil rights, maintaining culture of critique against traditional White/European societies.

Human potential movements are a particularly compelling narrative in coincidence with the American dream, land of individual opportunity, compounding civil rights propensity to obliviously rupture social systemic homesostasis; particularly hard for a male to renounce but also females who are under the influence of second wave feminism, Friedan having been a student of Maslow and prescribing individual self actualization as necessary for women’s liberation from oppressive, inhumane societal gender role constraints.

Reflexive Effect: As social group classificatory bounds are ruptured through weaponized “civil rights” and “human potential”, the natural one up position of White females in partner selection and address is pandered to from all angles, causing it to re emerge with increased significance; they become more articulate, confident and powerful gate keepers, knowing that they can maintain their very powerful position by letting through only liberal males, call in the thugs with any contention of their liberal prerogative - a constraint of their rule structure largely pandered-to by Jewry. They pander to their base and puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition (which would be mitigated in a bounded, controlled society in the empathy of motherhood of their kind). The puerile female tends to pose a litmus test in initial interaction episodes: what do you think of blacks (the oldest and maxed-out masculine form/test), are you a racist?” Hence the runaway disorder of modernity is exacerbated by this increased female one up position as she is encouraged [in a Charmed Loop] to maintain the opening of social borders and bounds.

And because the category of female gender is harder to ignore, along with blacks, because they are so markedly different, the human necessity to categorize classify with these groups is singularly amplified for the erstwhile prohibition of classifications; an over attendance to group interests exacerbated by the high contrast tropism of black and white. This strengthens their coherence to the expense of others who would be more cared for in bounded system.

2. Randian “Objectivism” (really subjectivism) as an extension of Austrian School economics, Hayek, von Mises and so on; the “invisible hand” guides the economy (Alan Greenspan).

[Obligatory[ Capture, control and re-direct “Conservatism”, conservative reaction

[Regulative Rule] Controlled opposition:

1. “Paleoconservatism” - Frank Meyers (Jewish)’ proposed “fusionism"of Judeo-Christianity and Enlightenment values - i.e., conserving the American values, conserving liberalism (liberal democratic rights/neo liberal capitalism).

[Legitimate] Take the already Jewish usurping “moral order”, enmeshment with Christianity - it’s obligation for gentiles of pure law and warrant in the eyes of god; e.g., even if you think of transgressing Noahide law, you are profoundly guilty - and entangle it still further with whatever angle of it is best for Jewry to ensure that their enemy will not fight back.

[Obligatory]Reinforce its ties to Jewry with Scofield Bible and Evangelical Christianity, tying salvation to Israel.

2. “Neo-Conservatism” - Irving Kristol (Jewish, obviously). Similar as paleoconservatism, with even less emphasis on traditional Christianity and more the evangelical version, in pursuit of aggressive foreign policy for Operation Clean Break (to secure the realm around Israel). While conserving liberalism (liberal democratic rights/neo liberal capitalism).

.........

[Legitimate] Use Media to promulgate the notion of what the “progressive fifties” and the “swinging sixties” were about.

The “Progressive fifties” were about “Civil Rights” which began with [Obligatory] school integration 1954, 58.

Frankfurter was instigating Earl Warren’s ‘Activist’ court on behalf of “Civil Rights” to liberalization of White boundaries, e.g. opposing school integration.

[Legitimate] Use the language of the enemy and make them live up to its own rule, weaponize it against them - “Civil Rights” becomes a weapon, basically a “right” to violate White freedom from association.

[Prohibition] of Whites from organizing as a group and discriminating in their interests; while it is [Legitimate] for others to organize in their group interests and broach traditional, even if only implicit, White boundaries given [Autobiography] ‘the history of prejudice against them and their having been discriminated against accordingly.’

“Civil Rights Activism” continues into the sixties, with “Sit-Ins” at Woolworths in 1962, leading to legislation [Prohibiting] private businesses from discriminating (America, land of freedom and all), culminating in “The Civil Rights Act” of 1964, The Immigration and Naturalization Act 1965, and Rumford Fair Housing Act 1968.

(((The Media and Academia is going along with Law & Courts and Politicians, Religion, big Money ..and international business, too))) in saying this is all good, all progress against backward White male bigots (who are ‘whining’ when they should be picking themselves up by their bootstraps as rugged individualists in pursuit of all America has to offer).

[Obligatory] Capture American Dream and Human Potential Movement

Abraham Maslow captures Aritotle’s concept of Self Actualization, which was based in a teleology of human nature (as biological creatures, in need of optimal, not maximal need satisfaction and as mammals ensconced in praxis (human relations) needing and caring about our relationships most fundamentally.

de Beauvoir, Sarte and Che Guevara

[Obligatory] Capture the feminist movement from its world wide apex in the Marxist Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, who had the nerve to attack European males as if they were singularly privileged in the wake of two World Wars in which millions of them were brutally expended. With her point of departure as de Beauvoir’s statement, “this utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is why she prefers the Aristotlean morality of the the golden mean, i.e., of mediocrity.”....

Abraham Maslow’s student, Betty Friedan, depicts the maximizing pursuit of self actualization as necessary to women’s liberation; and in accordance to Maslow’s lineal hierarchy, that any achievements by men would follow from their satisfaction on basic levels, no sacrifice or overcompensating for deprivation. At the same time it takes for granted what advantages that females have on the basic and mid-range of “the hierarchy of needs” ... it does great damage to Aristotle’s profoundly important observation that humans are evolved for Optimal, not Maximal need satisfaction; and the implication for a circulating concern in systemic homeostasis of optimal levels of need satisfaction; furthermore, in flouting Aristotle, it shuns the concern for relational complementarity, e.g., in niche complementarity, if a woman is not strictly bound there, she might choose and enjoy being “a house keeper”, in complement to her husband, with time to look after some of the fundamentals of a smooth running society, at the PTA and so on…

[Prohibited] Still, with the Vietnam war raging and draft still in effect, it was a bit too obvious that being a White male was not a strict privilege across the board. “High grumbles” coming from women, expressing the “need” for the top of the heirarchy of needs would be particularly offensive to men who could scarcely articulate [Prohibited] their “Low grumbles” for the basics on the hierarchy of needs.

[Legitimate] But while black men were also drafted and serving in Vietnam, amplification of the black power movement and civil rights for blacks (Katzenbach) went full speed ahead.

It is interesting to note that just as the controlled feminist movement was incommensurate with White men, as feminists sought the top of the hierarhcy while White men sought the bottom, so too was black civil rights and power incommensurate - as their civil rights sought ordinary level participation and “dignity” (compare that in awkward contrast to the weird organicism of the white hippy motive for fundamental organic being); and black power, which sought the top of the hierarchy in extreme, militant form.

[Legitimate] It was also legitimate to go full speed ahead with the Frankfurt’s school’s subversion of The (White male) Authoritarian Personality with the concept of “free love” and polymorphous perversion (Marcuse extrapolating Freud) - free love is anathema to the organic motive of Being (Dasein) and Being among our people (Midtdasein) for White males. As you’ve got men from all parts vying for your would be natural partners and no protection to them being there for you unexploited or jaded, when the meandering of your being comes ripe to maturity for marriage.

It is particularly irritating thus, when the hippies motive as being about “free love”, when, in fact, that was Marcuse’s motive in high antagonism to White male Being amidst their people.

[Obligatory] Obfuscate and re-direct these incipient movements which are corrective for White/European social systemic homeostasis following World War II. 

As America was particularly war weary and the Vietnam War was particularly unpopular, ripe to stimulate a re-thinking and corrective to concerns for midtdasein (White social systemic homeostasis).

[Obligatory] Control opposition to unpopular war with SDS (Jewish led “Students for a Democratic Society”).

[Obligatory] Obfuscate the organic motive of White men for Dasein and Midtdasein (expressed in the hippie movement, i.e., for the Being (Daesin) and Being amidst our people (MidtDasein) of White men as opposed to the Tradition of being considered so intrinsically valueless as a male as to be subject to draft into a speculative war far removed from clear and immanent danger to our people.

[Legitimate] Allow for some outlet for expression of this protest (for organic Being for White men) and relief thereof while the Vietnam War is going on.

[Prohibited] Do not allow it articulation as an incipient White male movement; not even so much expression as a men’s rights on pain of stigmatic violation, invoking not only the Traditional trajectory of Masculinity, i.e., toward the top of the “heirarchy of motives”, but also stigma to masculinity for turning away from the American dream of “being-all-you can be” as an individual in your human potential; no thought is to be given as to how that quest might impact White social systemic homeostasis, perhaps become toxic, causing [Reflexive Effect] of social aberration, even rupture it to runaway.

Do not allow it to go too far in violation of Traditional stigma where it would, in defiance of that stigma by contrast, pursue and satisfy its “low grumbles” on the Maslowian hierarchy and Turn into a White social systemic corrective to achieve authentic existential balance of White manhood and peoplehood (White social systemic homeostasis); by contrast to the estrangement of the right wing’s Universal Maturity”, which is more easily directed away from White interests and for the group interests of others.

[Legitimate] As the Vietnam war and the draft ends, obvious doubts about alleged White male privilege are more easily set aside, feminism in PC coalition with blacks and other groups arrayed in critique against White men are stepped-up through the 1970’s, 1980’s into the 1990’s.

Meanwhile, the controlled opposition of Paleoconservatism is ushered in with Frank Meyer’s protege, Ronald Reagan. Along with Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Sam Francis and the Jewish Paul Gottfried, they offer only weak opposition to liberalism, conserving liberalism as the fusionism of paleoconservatism does.

Reagonomics moved (((the invisible hand))) of Austrian school economics through boom/bust cycles to the increasing power of Jewry…

With Jewry having effectively placated White conservative corrective by the 90’s (effectively conserving liberalism instead), there was a Reflexive Effect of preparedness to exercise greater influence over American foreign policy in Jewish interests, specifically to deploy American military to more offensive strategy for its Zionist aims ...

Neo-Conservatism was drawn into the forefront to hoodwink Americans, especially Christian Zionists, into wars to secure the realm around Israel - regime change to Israel compliant regimes in the nations around Israel - Operation Clean Break/Project for a New American Century).

[Legitimate] Hypnotize a David McGowan with the idea for a best seller, that (to paraphrase) ‘the hippie movement was all a contrivance of the military industrial complex to turn off the mainstream anti-war movement through representation of it by dirty hippies, that there was no organic motive to it (as if it was not an organic motive to not want to be drafted to die in a foolish war on behalf of greedy corporations). Anything, even a stupid idea like that, is considered legitimate compared to allowing White men corrective being (Dasein/ MidtDasein), organization and discrimination on racial grounds - anything but a White Post Modern Turn in contrast to the Tradition of Cartesian, Objectivist estrangement (conserving liberalism) for White men.

Episode [Ep] 2008 Financial Bust

Inevitable reactions [Reflexive Effect] to the PC and Randian onslaught on White men, growing awareness that this is Jewish steered activism - the Jewish controlled opposition of the Neo “Conservatives” being blatant - and further awareness that it was beginning to intersect against their own conservative Jewish interests grew as the boom/ bust cycle culminated in the 2008 financial crisis - when Jewish niche power and influence achieved its greatest hegemony, bringing with it a major intersectional problem from their culture of critique and the Reflexive Need for damage control and a re-tooled controlled opposition.

Enter The Alternative Right.

[Reflexive Reversal]

With the 2008 financial bust Jewry cleaned up and ascended to greater hegemony than ever in its niche power positions; to present themselves as the underdogs was more difficult [Reflexive Reversal] and they become frantic to do damage control and stave off revenge; they need to foster the right wing narrative that their achievements were objectively merited (as opposed to nepotistic) and identify “The Left”, particularly its organizational capacity against those in power, as “The enemy.” They need Whites in power and aspirants as such, to identify with them in a new kind of Right, and Alternative Right (a big tent including and going beyond Paleoconservatism as it were) objectively merited beyond social accountability against “The Left” - marketing an anthropomorphized characterology of it as “unnatural, against science, objective truth and morality” etc (as if something “leftist” like a hypothesis doesn’t have a certain momentary detachment from empirical testing, which can then be subject to testing against the veracity of science, nature, truth and the corrections of morality in the social realm).

They had to capture and control a new generation of reactionaries, those reacting to Political Correcteness (anti-White unions and coalitions) and NeoConservatism’s marshaling of U.S. military for Israeli interests.

As a result of the Implicative Force of Jewish steered Modernity/Liberalism and the Left unionizations and coalitions it had previously extolled and marshaled for this end of overthrowing White power, these left organized social unionization and their critiques are no longer “needed”/wanted by Jewry to be quite so thorough, especially not as they intersect with Jewish interests and may be used conceptually (including by Whites) against their hegemony and traitors in tow, whether right wing or liberal.

While Jewry always had Altercast White identity and interest advocacy as “Right” and “Far Right” in order to get them to react into rigid, socially disorganizing and stigmatizing objectivist rule structures above or beyond the social correctability of praxis, it became imperative for the new hegemony for Jewry to [Altercast Right of Display] of animus toward “The Left.” With that concern, Paul Gottfried saw the need to call for a revised paleoconservatism, 2.0, an “alternative right.”

The great concern being that if Whites gained a sense that beneath the concept of the left is unionization, not “equality”, that Whites would unionize (ultimately ethnonationally), organize their power and see who is on top and oppressing them - the YKW from their biopatterns and power niches in tandem with right wing sell outs and liberals taking the license offered of objectivism (“that’s just the way it is” ...little or no social account to broader implications and impact).

[Regulative Rule]

Maintain paradox to mystify potential White organization - construe the left as liberalism (unionization conserves, it is not liberal).

Wave the red cape (straw man) for White reactionaries to chase after, of the left being about an unrealistic quest for “equality”, misdirecting them and making them look bad at once, as they are pitted “against equality.” ...(as opposed to negotiating niche complementary of commensurability and incommensurate qualities within and between groups, which could provide means for amicable coordination as opposed to false, symmetrical comparisons which abet disrespect, conflict and reciprocally escalating diatribe).

Maintain this ambiguity further with other misrepresentations of group and marginal advocacy as liberalization of White bounds, by proffering utterly bizarre candidates to scab would be unionization - wave the rainbow flag for these bulls to chase after, trans-sexuals, 57 genders to distort would-be correctives to overly and unnaturally rigid gender assignments, univeralisms ill-fitting for particular races, including White - to underscore the promotion of the stereotype that “The Left” is not dealing with reality and “not dealing with nature.” ...when, n fact, working hypotheses are a normal part of empirical inquiry, subject to verification. A social group, a race, [Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy] among gender assignments are minimally speculative working hypothesis as such.

Autobiography Number 2 Promoted by Jewry: While they have always wielded this autobiography as well, as of 2008 it became amplified. Deny intersectionality of “leftist” critique of supremacism, imperialism, nepotism (e.g., at Harvard) and toxic ethnocentrism, promote the story that Jews and others are on top because of Objective merit and that “THE” Left is the problem; point to the way in which Jewish academia misrepresented advocacy, group and individual, and say this represents “The Left”, so that Whites who fancy themselves objective, who are comfortable with the Altercast anti-social identity as Right Wing, will be primed to join them through pay off, enticed by license (licentiousness, if you will), and finally intermarriage against any would-be ethnonational unionization and coalition to threaten their power, all the more hegemonic since 2008.

Reflexive Effect: The Alternative Right is sufficiently disorganized for its right wing, anti social litmus test - [Regulative Rule for Inclusion - some stigmatic, anti-social position] - that it makes it hard to counter and control its sniping, now that it has served its function to help get Trump elected so that he could un-do the Iran Deal.

Enlist TRS to Market (((Madison Ave. memes))) to gain adherents against “the left” and to the right, displaying anti-Semitism with vulgar impunity in order to gain control of the reaction, encourage Richard Spencer (a protege inheritor of Gottfried and Francis’s Paleoconservatim with the Alt-Right) to dog whistle Nazism: Enoch starts straight-arm salutes, Richard, “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory…over the lugenpresser…we’re going to party like it’s 1933”...etc.

Reflexive Need: “Unite The Right” ...

Reflexive Effect: effectively ends the credibility and effectiveness of the brand name.

Reflexive Need: Maintain White disorganization and reactionary rigidity by proposing a re-branding - e.g., “Dissident Right.”

Wage War by Deception:

A C.M.M. rules based analysis of White identity Altercast as right wing against THE left in order to rupture White social social systemic homeostasis.

Rupturing White Social Systemic Homeostasis through Altercasting as Right, doubled down as such in reaction against THE Left, Didactic Misrepresentation thereof - Social group advocacy as strictly anti White.

A rules based* analysis of anti-social altercasting, incitement through didactic misrepresentation and distortion of social group advocacy.

Anti-social rigidity, inherently unstable bereft the correctability of praxis as they cling white knuckle after perceived pure warrant beyond Jewish rhetoric and casuistry, only more ready for rash, headlong misdirection into destruction.

Misrepresent the anti Cartesian means of social systemic homeostasis.

Moral Order: Christianity, inspired by Abrahamic god beyond nature, misdirect Whites with golden rule of obsequious self sacrifice; disruption of cause and effect. Altercast non-Jews as “Gentiles”, the ever more undifferentiated (de-unionized as a racial group) other.

Hermeneutics - misrepresent as anti science and trivial flight of fancy rather than a necessary means for coherence and authenticity despite Cartesian estrangement and arbitrariness.

Social Constructionism: misrepresent it as solipsism, that one can make of themselves and events what they want; when in reality, that kind of “pure agency” would be Cartesian in the way that social constructionism was meant to cure; social constructionism is meant to centralize our attention through the praxis of our social group, our interrelatedness, indebtedness and accountability to our people - where you CANNOT just make of yourself and events whatever you merely wish/want.

The left: Misrepresent as liberalism and a quest for universal equality, anti nature and anti reality…when, in fact, it is about unionization of the broad people against would be elite abuse and rank and file betrayal as well. National and ethnonational boundaries are perfectly analogous to “union.”

Hence, Whites would be well served by ethnonational unionization of our relative interests (viz. as white left ethnonationalists: the white class) not a defense of mere, objective truths.

Human Bio-Diversity: misrepresent what should be a concern for the horizontal, qualitative diversity of niche evolution, its potential for coordinating coalition building on the basis of respect for divergent necessary functions of in favor of a lateral concern for I.Q. - to serve elitist Ashkenazi interests - precipitating false comparisons, disrespect and conflict.

Post Modernity: a means to negotiate and maintain groups of peoples through modernity’s narcissistic oblivion to differences (and penchant to run rough-shod over them in “service of progress to universal foundations”) and also the means to coordinate/negotiate inherited forms and traditions, maintaining them where helpful, leaving them behind where not, coordinating with the differing, sometimes antagonistic traditions of other groups. This necessary Post Modern Coordination is instead misrepresented as ironic, hyper relative da-da nonsense - really a hyper modernity to divert Whites from necessary understanding of post modernity for their social systemic homeostasis.

Multiculturalism =  monoculuralism.

Diversity = integration and blending of peoples.

Marginals to be included: means Not our own marginals, those just within our (would-be) union boundaries, who are of good will to our people, who can provide valuable perspective and feedback on the system, what is necessary for its maintenance, knowing acutely where the shoe pinches - or more nobly, acting as centurions as it were, on the frontier of where the systemic boundaries are encroached - but rather “marginals” become a weaponized notion of sympathy for those outside or of bad will to our systemic union, potential scabs to be included ....you can see how a mere, brutal, right wing laws-of-nature-position toward these people (i.e., our own marginals), rather than reaching out to them, would fail to rally popular support and thus be encouraged in the war of deception.

*  It is important to understand that when we talk about rules that we are more interpretive/descriptive in attempting to ascertain and analyze the logics of meaning and action at work in interaction, particularly group pattern interaction, though of course we might hope to draw some prescriptive implications as well.

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.

From Age of Treason Blogspot:

“The Tautology of Jewing”

Captainchaos
23 APRIL 2019 AT 11:46 PM
Why is commenting disabled on the new post?

Tanstaafl
24 APRIL 2019 AT 1:56 AM
Unintentional. Fixed now.

....

And from Majorityrights:

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 01 May 2019 23:06 | # 3

Daniel Sperglord and Mangina-in-black enjoy pounding each other’s gay asses!

DanielS:

Captainchaos, while you are trying to deride mancinblack as effeminate for supporting me and MR, why don’t you instead question the wisdom of those who expect Whites to drop all concerns for every other antagonism to our system and attack the ‘pathogen’  ....markedly, it is not going to help us to separate and achieve autonomy from the pathogen if we do not also address our naive susceptibility to the pathogen or deliberate, traitorous introduction of it to our system that happens typically through vulnerabilities and entry by liberal/right wing thin or even pseudo warranted objectivism; also typically a reaction to the contradictory language games that YKW are playing in order to keep our people associated with the right, its rational blindness, mystification, confusion, short shrift of social accountability (viz. even to our people) and with it, disruption of our social systemic homeostasis? - obviously one of the chief aims of the pathogen is to break through systemic defense. Thus, it is obviously valid and important to look at our system and its vulnerabilities.

In short, it is going to be hard to take-on an enemy full throttle while you’ve got people confused, thinking you’re doing wrong, or naively “clearly” thinking that you are wrong because they are abiding by right wing/liberal (their lefts are our liberalism, rupturing our unionization when pitted against our bounds) language games, or outright stabbing us in the back because right wing pseudo objectivity serves to “excuse” why it is that they take the liberties or pay-offs afforded, and “why” we are getting destroyed in their abiding language games as “just a fact of nature” that they have no part in aiding and abetting.

I’ve been looking at this problem since the early 90s, and started to bring it to a double entry with the YKW as the chief problems to our social systemic homeostasis in 2009 ..and have been cultivating it since.

Now, regarding “pathological altruism” (the Taylor, MacDonald thing, circa, what? 2011? I never paid much attention to it) I only suggested that it may have been their naive attempt, even a misdirected attempt to look at our part, as it would likely be (misdirected), still caught up in right wing objectivism by its very means of “description and diagnosis”, but to suggest that I was part of misdirection and not taking the YKW seriously enough because I also believe it is necessary to address vulnerabilities and other antagonism (which will usually lead to their being organized to imposition upon us by YKW, true), and the fact that I recognize serious errors in Hitler’s philosophy and regime (misdirected and misdirecting headlong into disaster for Europeans, as his right wing premises would), are things that I, and Majorityrights, deserve credit for in service of European peoples, not harassment and denunciation.

And isn’t it a perfect example, wouldn’t Trump’s vanity just have him lap-up objectivist flattery and have the YKW walk right into his system, knocking his daughter up, directing his campaign to undo the Iran Deal, get him elected, and move right into Oval Office meetings to set his administration’s agenda?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heidegger adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...