Majorityrights Central > Category: Business & Industry

Richard looking down unironically on the post modernists. In truth, where pomo is not otherwise misrepresented by (((red caping))), Richard is assisting the disinformation through his customary misdirection, now misleading White interests by characterizing the erstwhile eminently necessary concepts of post modernity with one of the few concepts associated with it that should be left behind - Rorty’s shallow concept of “irony” and the ironic stance.

The astute in concern of White interests will observe and understand that Jewish interests are generating and marketing misdirection of concepts that would be essential to White group defense, and Whites continue to fall for it.

The basic strategy of Jewish group antagonism is to take a good idea, necessary to group defense, advocacy, homeostasis, and deploy it in the interest of non-Whites or anti-Whites; then exaggerate or reverse these advocacy concepts to the point of utter misrepresentation, absurdity, to where they are perceived as alien and repulsive to the common sensibilities of Whites, causing them to react even against the concept underlying this red caping and against thus, the very concepts that Whites need to understand and organize their group defense.

Since their assent to greater hegemony than ever with the 2008 financial bail-out, Jewish interests have been confronted with an intersectionality where their prior advocacy of social justice positions now threaten them in their elite power, and hence they have sought to align and co-opt White right wing reaction, elitists in particular, though any sort of no account liberal (notably, “conservatives” conserving liberalism unbeknownst: US Constitution’s “civil rights” weaponized against conservation of White group interests; Christianity’s individual souls irrespective of group interests; scientism’s liberal conserving of animal drives as opposed to the “artifice” of human group organization) to their cause against “the left” which might otherwise provoke awareness suggesting the unionization of White ethnonationalism to hold to account those who are fucking our race over - Jewish interests along with the naive or disingenuous complicity of White right wing elitists, who are fine with selling-out our people, and other no account liberals, happy to take the license offered in the disordered, no account fallout of modernity - the wake of “objective superiority” taken for granted.

While Pat Buchanan was disgusted by “the sewer of multiculturalism” (all Americans should be Judeo/ Christian, speak English), (((Gottfried))) and he took up the response of integration by carrying forward the mantle of (((Frank Meyer’s))) paleoconservative “fusionism” of Abrahamism and enlightenment values; handing it off to Richard Spencer for a paleocon 2.0 big tent called the “alt right”, until Richard’s “Faustian imperialism” blew that up. The paleoconcon false opposition has now been handed from Gottfried to Nick Fuentes’ court.

And since WN continue to fuck things up, reacting against (((red caped/ i.e. misrepresented))) “post modernity” as so much “left wing, da-da nonsense”; acting into the reactionary right wing positions altercast them by Jewry, supposedly on behalf of pure truth and morality, somehow transcending human interests, while chasing misrepresentations (((red capes))) of the erstwhile necessary concept of Post Modernity on the whole, along with (((red capes))) of its ancillary concepts, I must repeat, hopefully in a more clear and compelling way, things that I’ve said before but for some flourishes. However, it is a great advance of Post Modernity properly understood, to emphasize the fact that an idea does not have to be “new” in order to be understood as good, useful, important.

The essential move of the Post Modern turn is to call attention back from Cartesian estrangement, to re-centralize and provide means to sustain our world view in praxis - our social group – through an engaged process to protect inherited forms and helpful traditions of our people from the ravages of modernity’s linear “progress”; while allowing modernist change where salutary, and leaving behind tradition where unhelpful in sustaining praxis; but the post modern turn from modernity’s linear notion of progress would not take praxis so far in ethnocentrism as to be supremacist and imperialist, unable to respect and coordinate with other groups of people, let alone go so far as to revert to a more primitive form yet, Monoculturalism, to where the humanity of non-members is not recognized:
         
Rockefeller, oblivious to the fact that he will shortly become dinner for the natives.

Just as the Monocultural worldview of cannibals might view a White interloper as non-human, rather as something good for the communal stew pot, so tribal monoculturalism would perhaps view we “racists” as less than human, not worthy of life.

As Modernity has been on a trajectory for the reflexive effect of Monoculturalism in its globalizing pursuit of universal progress, particularly as its rule structure, performance requirements, narcissism and rational blindness are (((weaponized))), many of our right wing dupes have dutifully reacted against Post Modern responses to Modernity, which are also (((weaponized))) - (((red capes))) of concepts such as “multiculturalism” and “diversity” - and they double down against them in Cartesian reaction, in Modernity’s quest for pure universal warrant with objective detachment and its abiding rational blindness that opens the way for subversive infiltration and monocultural integration.

Liberals, operating on the same “objective” Cartesian premises taken for granted as currency by right wingers, have long found a way to prove their objectivity - by means of “color blindness” - “not seeing” the most obvious differences, such as black and White. That’s been an easy way to establish one’s legitimacy in the world’s liberal hegemony, the fallout and disorder of the enlightenment. But a reflexive effect of objectivity over-stressed is hyper-relativism, as corrections of Praxis and its means (means of social systemic homeostasis by way of human agency/correction in interaction) are thwarted.

Perhaps European Nations and all White Nations, markedly led by The U.S., its Constitution being the beacon of Enlightenment philosophy, had to reach the present level of destruction to White genetics for our advocates to look more critically at our own philosophy - observing vulnerabilities to our genetic patterns; notably on the empirical side of Cartesianism, in Locke’s conception of individual civil rights (so integral to the American way) as a technology to supersede the “empirical fiction” of social classifications.

The US Constitution and Civil Rights, held to be sacrosanct - the “ultimate warrant in defense” for a modernist, liberating them, so they believed, from the influence of suprafactual narratives and superstitious traditions  - came into doubt.

Indeed, the vulnerability of that Cartesian purity spiral was exploited against Whites, Alinsky style, making us “live up to our rules” in “Civil Rights”, 1964, which prohibited White people, anyway, from making group classifications and discrimination thereupon. In subsequent decades, the prohibition was stepped-up with Anti-Racism - basically anti-group classification and discrimination thereupon, for Whites, anyway.

Were it not for the (((red caping))) of the post modern turn and its attendant concepts, as our philosophers properly conceived them, our people could have recognized the countervailing significance to us.

Following a clear trajectory from the apex of Modernity in Descartes, to its empirical side in Locke, to Vico, the first major critic of Cartesianism, to Kant’s failed (still Cartesian) attempt to rescue our moral order from Lockeatine arbitrariness, then on to Nietzsche’s criticism of Modernity and through to Heidegger and his student, Gadamer, we can make the inference that:

Anti-Racism is Cartesian, anti-group classification and discrimination thereupon; it is not innocent, it is prejudiced. It is prejudice against prejudice (Gadamer), and as such, it is hurting and it is killing people.

As opposed to the Cartesian estrangement from praxis - which is a typical reaction to disingenuousness and the arbitrariness within our primordial human condition - Heidegger recognized that a second liberation was necessary, from mere facticity and into the hermeneutic turn.

Heidegger also called attention to the need to hold fast to emergent qualities, individual and group, within this otherwise arbitrary condition that he called the thrownness.

GW deserves much credit for holding fast to Heidegger’s concern for the emergent (basically, our inborn qualities, following a kind of teleology but in the end of which, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts). While holding fast to Being in one’s land, place and amidst one’s people is characterized by dwelling.

Hermeneutics is not anti-science. It is even necessary for non-fiction accounts.

Despite the fact that there is inborn capacity for agency, it is much more like animal reaction until it participates in narrative capacity to sustain a plan, make choices, and verify success.

While the emergent provides an important, deep guide to an authentic path of our telos - and though indeed, hermeneutic capacity is part of the multifarious emergent qualities - our biological foundation is not foolproof for its occurrence in our arbitrary circumstance (wherein it is still possible, for example, to breed with other peoples), particularly absent the corrective capacity of narrative facility shared of the social realm beyond our personal biology. Following a natural concern to maintain our species, it is necessary to have that second liberation from mere facticity, as narrative is necessary to maintain even non-fiction accounts - such as holding fast in coherence to one’s individual and group kind in overall homeostasis.

Post Modern coherence is not to be misunderstood as linear and impervious, as with the modernist tendency; it is rather knowingly interactive and coherent in overall trajectory.

This coherence is the first requirement of authentic human existence. With necessary concession made to a modicum of arbitrariness in our primordial condition, we may partake of that second liberation into narrative coherence, and with it, achieve accountability, agency, correctability and warrant to hold up deliberately - necessary for our homeostasis given that individuals of our group can rather decide that they find it healthy to betray us. And there are antagonists willing to tell stories about how our emergent qualities are evil, misdirecting people against our social systemic maintenance. More, narrative form is necessary to transcend paradoxes, contradictions, confusions, tangles, strange loops, etc. (which can be weaponized against us). We require thus, sufficient hermeneutic, rhetorical capacity to maintain our individual and group coherence.

The post modern concept of hermeneutics has been (((red caped))) as “anti-science”, as if it is conceived to facilitate narrative flights of fancy in which one can make just whatever they like of themselves - 57th gender etc.. But this is a red cape misrepresentation of hermeneutics anti-Cartesian mandate. Yes, hermeneutics is critical of and liberating from scientism - bad science or bad application of science - but as hermeneutics is engaged in circulating process of inquiry which facilitates movement from broad perspective, the imagination of hypotheses largely detached from myopia of the episode, and back to rigorous verification that may yield warranted assertability as need be, it is absolutely necessary to the scientific endeavor - facilitating it, not opposed to it.

Disordering Effects of Modernity Complicate Gender Relations

The rupturing of group classificatory bounds as a result of their “fictional status” yielding to individual civil rights, particularly as (((weaponized))) in “Civil Rights” and “anti-racism” instigates the disordering effect of modernity, particularly for Whites as they are prohibited from classification and discrimination thereupon.

As people have an inborn need to classify in order to make sense, despite the prohibition, the general classification of gender will remain as too fundamental to disregard, and classifications too highly contrasting such as black and White will remain as default classification by tropism. That is to say, these classifications will become heightened while others are diffused.

The naturally one-up position of females for their precious child bearing capacity will be increased within the disorder of modernity as they are solicited and pandered to from all sides given the rupture of group discriminatory bounds.

Even while puerile and unsocialized into maternal concern for her people, she may become a more powerful selective gate-keeper than ever and incentivized to as such to maintain the liberal status quo - pandered-to incessantly, markedly by (((YKW))), her selective predilections - what is merely confident, strong, impervious, undaunted no matter what will become dubiously maximized, as will her base, atavistic female inclination to incite genetic competition be without sufficient correction in socialization. Her gains may be short term and the grounds of comfort diminishing, but she can usually call in thugs to white knight for her, while the reason to hold out for broader pattern reward becomes more and more unclear. Indeed, it is harder to be a female from the standpoint of traditional morals as more and happier opportunities exist for her to make mistakes within the disorder of modernity.

Moreover, in the disordered circumstance, it isn’t only Feminists who are problematic to White men, but also Traditional women as they may not appreciate that the different circumstances of post modernity entail some different performance requirements in gender relations as compared to tradition - the disorder of modernity may not provide sufficient structure and support necessary for males to act into the traditional role, at least not quite as directly as convention might have her expect; and they get shunned aside unjustly for the circumspection.

Marginals

Even if social/political group classifications are prohibited, marginals would function something like systemic empirical border markers of sorts, irrespective.

However, Gadamer’s hermeneutic concept of marginals has been (((red caped))). Respect for marginals as sentinels of the systems’ bounds, having perspective on the system and knowing where the shoe pinches, to provide corrective feedback on systemic calibration, is an excellent idea.  And clearly, a marginal for us, is someone just inside, near the edges of the system, maybe down on their luck, they can even be marginalized because they are better in important respects, but they are marginal members within and well disposed to our group maintenance - their participation probably should be shown compassion if not respect and integrated a little better. We’re all marginals from time to time.

Nick Fuentes and E. Michael Jones’ best friend, a drag queen giving children’s story hour.

Now, what YKW have done is (((red cape))) the concept of marginals by representing them as aliens, those originating outside and antagonistic to Whites or those Whites who are anti-White and destructive to the system, advocating that they should be included and integrated into our system. Thus, repulsing Whites to this concept which would be invaluable to our social systemic homeostasis.

The drag queen story hour (((red caping))) of marginals prompts occasion to discuss difficulties in post modern gender relations. There are interesting points to be made on behalf of Whites (not exactly for liberal purposes).

While there are excellent criticisms of homosexuality that should be ready at hand (won’t go into it here) and it should be discouraged, especially for males, we should not lose site that below its (((red caped))) politicization, queers should not occupy a priority concern generally speaking (you may have particular circumstances, that’s different).

Over reaction to this (((red caping))) can have negative effects for Whites; the vast exaggeration and distortion of advocacy of this relatively minor issue - e.g., homosexual defense transitioning into drag queen story hour - can place enormous pressure on young White boys to do stupid things in order to prove that they are not gay. With ‘the universal maturity©’ of Modernity upheld, people might not discern the different performance requirements of post modernity and White boys may be compelled to emulate non-White patterns of masculinity, which fail to manifest our best, most authentic nature.

There’s too much of this “White boys need to man-up” shit, not enough ‘White girls need to woman down’ happening in reaction to the red capes. “Manning up” under the circumstance is even more a matter of border and bounds creating than it is a matter of allowing one’s self to be incited into direct competition with arbitrary males.

As Bowery and Renner note: if you try to impose involuntarily contract with others upon us then you are a would-be slave master and supremacist; be loyal or be gone; don’t impose the consequences for your liberalism upon us.

There is an apparent inverse relation between confidence and intellectualism. Especially under the disordered circumstance, a modicum of intellectual wherewithal is necessary.

But as the predilections of puerile White girls are overly favored within the disorder of Modernity, increasingly one up as they are - pandered-to from all sides given the rupture of discriminatory out-group classifications - puerile females are empowered (don’t like it? she’ll call in the universal thugs/white knights) and incentivized to maintain this powerful one up position as gate keepers of liberalism for its short term gains, their base (sub praxis) female inclination to incite genetic competition exacerbated, their penchant to over value confidence exacerbated to the detriment of Whites.

Black boys, e.g., over-weening with confidence may win the day with momentary and episodic displays for their shorter evolutionary time horizons; their long pre-evolution which has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive sort; their R selection vs K selection strategy suited to the atavistic episodic evaluative fall out within the disorder of modernity. While the value to be ascertained of the more sublimated, protracted cultural and relational patterns of White boys is obfuscated.

Besides the ill-fit of “universal maturity”, there’s another problem with the “traditional solution” to the universal disorder of modernity.

In addition to distracting urgent attention from the much more important issue of race replacement - given relative non-correctability - chasing a (((red cape))) of post modernity such as drag queen story hour suggests a (((red caped))) “Traditional solution” (((Judeo-Christianity))) to a “Traditional problem”, (((“Sodom and Gomorrah”))).

Social Constructionism

Similarly as with hermeneutics, Social Constructionism is another key post modern concept - conceived as an anti-Cartesian perspective to facilitate the Post Modern Turn into Praxis, but (((red caped))) as anti-scientific, unnatural and Cartesian by solipsistic (subjective) flights of imagination very much to our detriment. Understood properly, however, this perspective sensitizes to our relative indebtedness and social accountability to our people along with agency and responsibility to the correctability, i.e., social systemic homeostasis of our human ecology - to reconstruct the coherent species that is our group. And if we are under attack as a group, social classification, as we are with anti-racism, and particularly given our weak ethnocentrism, would it not make sense to sensitize our people to our social connectedness, responsibility, our indebtedness to our species, and agency IN FACT?

That’s what social constuctionism proper, does. It is another post modern project to bring our people back from Cartesian estrangement into Praxis.

And yet social constructionism has been (((red caped))) as if race is a mere social construct - as if you can make anything that you want of it, if it exists at all. But that rendition of “social constructionism” would be solipsism - not many people of the social world are going to agree with you that racial species have no biological, empirical bearing. Rather, to say that race - or, you know what we mean, profoundly different markers, well on the way to speciation among humans - doesn’t exist. That would be a transgression of its anti-Cartesian purpose as well.

Social Constructionism is conceived to call attention where European peoples need it: attention to the FACT of our social indebtedness and of praxis being the preliminary world view of any human merit; delimited as calibration, it provides for accountability and coherence; next, and as important, it works hand in hand with hermeneutics to call attention to the fact that there is always at least a modicum of agency while we’re alive.

Social Constructionism and its underscoring of agency takes three forms: 1) a more literal kind of social construction, as in constructing a building with others, in all facets of the process. 2) a more metaphoric kind, as in a couple getting together and “constructing” a child together, with all the social involvements necessary to bring about the conception and the raising of the child; and 3) Post hoc attribution as to how more brute facts come to count. In these cases, that much closer to sheer physics, one still has some agency and can come up with even far fetched interpretations of the event, though upwards of 95% of the human population will be forced (by dint of the will to survive, and thus beware laws of physics and biology) to look upon you as crazy. But narrative difference from empirical fact will not necessarily be ridiculous and may in fact be helpful to individual and group, distinguishing for example, hero from fool or villain in the brute case of death: “Good riddance to bad garbage” or “his virtuous sacrifice facilitated the living on of his children and people.” The brute fact can be “instructive” - what can we learn from this accident/ tragedy to avoid its happening again? The point and the reward remain in recognizing some capacity for agency - even if only as to how facts come to count, post hoc.

Even as we look back to discuss days of our pre verbal, pre mammalian evolution, if we are not here to discuss it, it is a moot point. Hence, the eminent validity of centralizing Praxis in our worldview.

If a tree falls in the woods… you want truth and morals, for what?

How can we let White children come into this without trying to deal with this mess?

With one example from disingenuous antagonists using modernist language - “there will be immigration flows” - as if these “flows” are “caused” like a brute force of nature, you can begin to glean the superiority of the post modernist, hermeneuticist turn and its attendant social constructionist concept as it invokes the means of agency to reverse these “flows”.

You can see how it would benefit our enemies to invoke such a strictly deterministic, Cartesian notion of necessity - “that’s just the way it is, no account, no arguments need apply” - in circumstances such as migration ‘flows’ auguring our race replacement.

You begin to sense how retarded it’s been for huWhites to argue against the red caping of post modernity, social constructionism and hermeneutics.

You begin to sense why our enemies have misrepresented post modernism, because they don’t want us to have proper understanding of post modernity and its attendant concepts of hermeneutics and social constructionism - precisely as it would give us that coherence, accountability, agency, correctability and warrant of our social systemic homeostasis.

Hopefully that’s enough of an interest arouser. I’ll provide more background then work through some other examples distinguishing White Post Modernity Proper from its (((Red Caping))).

Background:

Modernity’s roots

The deepest, most direct root of Modernism in European philosophy goes back to the ancients, to the Epicureans specifically. The Epicureans were committed to overcoming mere superstition, custom, habit and traditions which did not facilitate the good life; they sought instead to trace all experience to positive source and sensible apprehension to establish solid grounds to the good life. They were the ones to coin the term ‘the atom’ to designate the smallest physical unit of which the universe is composed. From there, they would propose a hierarchical ordering for the use of pleasure, with contemplation occupying top place. The Epicureans being direct forebears of Modernist philosophy are thus seen in clear line to the Enlightenment, especially the empiricists, Locke, Thomas Jefferson, later philosophers of science and the Logical Positivists.

Traditional European Society

Traditional European societies were ethnocentric, particularly in the south, as exemplified by Plato and Aristotle, Aristotle in particular with his Praxis (one’s ethnocentric bio-social-political group) providing a sound Traditional starting point for this analysis; i.e., aligning tradition and natural concern for species homeostasis.

Aristotle did place praxis at the center of his world view as evidenced by his position that politics is the first philosophical priority - if politics are out of whack, all else is for naught. And he did believe there were outsiders who were to be treated in a different manner.

A democracy limited to the philosophically capable, and those committed to group protection, is probably consonant with authentic European tradition as it provides means for correctability (systemic homeostasis). The way of government that a particular ethnostate chooses is beyond the scope of this essay and needless to say, the democratic franchise can and has been (((red caped))) as well.

Nevertheless, Aristotle is the most esteemed figure of Europeans (even more than Jesus) and understandably so, as his philosophy was profound enough to keep social systemics aligned with natural laws that would preserve our species. Thus, a tradition authentic to our nature, not an affectation. If northerners complain, it should be said that inasmuch as they survived as distinct species, they would either be deliberately, accidentally or naturally in accord with Aristotle’s philosophy.

Aristotle observed that people are biological creatures requiring optimal, not maximal need satisfaction (his golden mean applied across the board politically), as advanced mammals, they are engaged in the social world with relative concern for relationships, they have agency, reflexive effects, can learn, etc; thus Praxis does not have quite the linear predictability of the hard sciences and therefore requires a different epistemology, i.e., practical judgement, in order to maintain coherence and homeostasis.

The North of Europe probably forged a less ethnocentric evolution due to the fact that nature was often the greater challenge than other tribes; protracted spans of time passing when the differences of neighbors were not quite so threatening; but clearly they were ethnocentric nevertheless, having different rules for “outsiders” - e.g., Viking invasions did plunder others nations; and they worked out their politics in accordance with the predilections of their nature and circumstance as sustained their species.

Whether tribe, city state or nation, there was enough ethnocentrism for distinct European groups to maintain themselves.

Red caping praxis as political through and through.

One may argue that Aristotle is stretching the political metaphor, but his observations of human nature would argue otherwise. It is more likely that one would be reacting to (((red caping))) of the idea, to where everything is political and a challenge to White hegemony; and true to the (((red caping))) strategy, Whites wind up fighting against the correct underlying idea - centralization of praxis.

Maxwell’s demons

Clerk Maxwell draws a useful heuristic distinction here between “Augustinian Devils” and “Manichean Devils.”

Augustinian Devils are challenges of nature, which characteristically do not tend to have the concsciousness to change in order to foil solutions. An evolution in penchant and predilection to take on Augustinian devils can be anticipated in northern circumstances - and this would correspond with lower ethnocentism, objectivity and scientific solutions being more favored in natural selection.

Manichean Devils are trickster challenges. Given our agency, humans have capacity to change in order to foil solutions to their challenge. This capacity would be more favored in the natural selection of the South and the Middle East to sustain their ethnocentrism where the challenge was, on balance, more a matter of other people and tribes than brute nature and resource.

With this traditional background, the stage was set for Europeans to be taken as naive, to be duped by the Middle Easterners - most poignantly by YKW.

Red Caping European Moral Order

The first and probably most important (((red cape))) imposed was an affectation to become our “Traditional European moral order” - Christianity.

Its tangled, dread inspiring and self destructive rule structures which, among other terrible misdirection, compel a sacrifice of concern for the lived life in favor of some ‘hereafter’ beyond our biological legacy even.

Suffice it to say, they’ve got Christians worshiping the same Abrahamic god as Jews, except that the Jews are “chosen” as a special group by that god, whereas others are not special as groups, they are, as GW observes, cast as an ever undifferentiating other from “the chosen.”

Moreover, as Bowery observes, the Bible functioned as the Jewish media control even before the advent of Modern technology.

With threat of losing what semblance of belonging, if not penalty of death and hell, a fundamental strategy of Jewish (((red caping))) - to disrupt the ethnocentrism of Europeans and other non-Jews - was cast a central component of ‘our’ most fundamental ‘Tradition.’ Its almost like a tradition of non-tradition, as honoring “your parents” hardly constitutes a commandment to obey a long historical tradition of forebears held in high regard. Indeed, we have barely begun to be roused in indignation over the Christian church having buried our most sacred day of ancestor remembrance and replacing it with “All Saints Day.”

Another key function of (((red caping))) is established, in that it allows for Jewish infiltration, misdirection and subversion of the group - by means of conversion in the case of the Christianity. Anyone can become a member, including YKW, who are particularly disposed to our dissolution according to the red cape strategy.

Finally, as the Jewish (((red cape))) functions, overcompensating reaction can be even worse than compliance, as even the important underlying idea for group homeostasis - in this case, a moral order - is rejected in favor of a-moral concerns of Modernity - e.g “nature”, adherence to “survival of the fittest” to the point of natural fallacy, “might makes right” to the point of utterly immoral destruction.

Indeed, there is reason to believe that the compulsion to overcome these (((red cape))) guilt trips, divorced from nature, was an instigating factor in the purity spiral of Cartesianism, hence Modernity.

Modernity

Philosophers take Descartes to represent the sine qua non of Modernity, setting forth an ‘Enlightenment’ that unfolded into the epoch of Modernity.

Cartesianism is looked upon as a quest for unassailably warranted knowledge, whether above and beyond nature and human interaction or on the other side of the Cartesian divide, within nature and below human interaction.

This would come to be seen as problematic as the pursuit of these ” that’s just the way it is” warrants, whether above or within nature, where not utterly impervious to social concern and negotiation, tended to pay short shrift to social accountability.

The trajectory of Modernity did, indeed, make important contributions to overcoming backward traditions, customs and superstitions. Moreover, given the remarkable advances in science and technology that it provided for, it is understandable how a valuation of experimentalism and what is new could be derived as chractaristic of necessary progress.

The first major critic of Descartes was Vico, who anticipated the propensity of this impervious technology to run destructive rough-shod over what should be philosophy’s central concern and world view - praxis - and thus he seeded the post modern turn with its neo-Aristotlian project of retreiving philosophical inquiry from Cartesian estrangement and back into praxis.

Even so, John Locke, who represents the empirical side of the Cartesian divide, cannot be faulted for wanting to remedy an exploitative and intransigent class system divide WITHIN England. In opportunistic conception of his empirical philosophy, he proposed that social classifications were a fiction of the mind, as each individual has the same perceptions and discrimination on the basis of these fictional classifications - such as British aristocracy obstructing equal access to advanced education for ‘lower classes’ - should give way to his concept of individual civil rights. But the weakening if not disruption of social classificatory organization and discrimination thereupon as an abstraction that can be applied, on principle, to any classification in favor of civil individual rights, is risky business.

Kant anticipated the danger in Locke’s world view of myopic empiricism running arbitrary rough-shod over praxis, viz,, its moral order. Therefore, he tried to rescue the integrity of the moral order by establishing its principles on “categorical” (unassailably warranted) universal principles. Kant’s rescuing project failed, as the Post Modern philosopher, Martin Heidegger, would observe, because it was “still Cartesian.”

Digression

I’m typically greeted with strong negative reactions on this topic, especially from STEM types. Their misunderstanding me as ‘doing something bad by using the term Cartesianism’ stems from a few places.

Being outside the fray of academic humanities, they see negative use of the term Cartesianism as a sign of pseudo intellectualism, if not the down-right (((red caping))) which is all they tend to see of “post modern philosophy” in relation to science (including some useful bits of Cartesianism) and THE ‘truth’ they see as the means for combating whatever problems that we are confronted with.

Of an Augustinian nature, they may not apprehend the Manichean (((red caping))) of what is otherwise a legitimate and important underlying Post Modern critique of Cartesianism and Modernity. STEM. people, focused on Augustinian devils, are notorious dupes.

White Post Modernity would not tell you to abandon Cartesianism entirely, especially not in its utility, say, to algebra or microwave engineering. The WPM project would try to call you back from runaway of Cartesian anxiety, and encourage you instead to look upon these quests for truth and precision as characteristic of a right wing component, indispensable, but nevertheless provisional and functioning as feedback to be subsumed within its utility to yourself in tandem with the group calibration - praxis - social systemic homeostasis.

However, resistance to proper understanding - both from our people and because (((they))) don’t want us to understand - has been an intense challenge:

Firstly, you’re confronted by our high I.Q. STEM boomer pioneers of the internet, who had hegemonic presence, and who have known enough success by their way of doing things to want to see it as tried and true, and not, say, somewhat contingent upon the luck of their generation or the value of their skills in the Modern milieu. They hadn’t yet had enough holes poked in their world view to feel the need to examine its vulnerabilities with up-to-date philosophical vigor.

Their misapprehension is not entirely of their own making.

There has been the (((red caping))) of Post Modern ideas that they are reacting-to.

When I tried to discuss hermeneutics with Prof. MacDonald, because of its (((red caping))) he INSISTED that hermeneutics is anti-science.

But I need to mention that seeing through the torrents of (((red capes))) is not easy.

I understand his thinking ’ hermeneutics is anti science’ for all its Jewish red caping waved through college Sophomores. Academia is, after all, in the big business of selling talk - and the paying customers, 18 -24 year old undergraduates with Guaranteed Student Loans, are perfect consumers for self serving, anti-scientific, Jewish advanced, anti-White, liberal hermeneutic distortion peddled by tenured professors in perpetuity.

I even mistakenly presumed Gadamer to be Jewish for his association with the term. Greg Johnson embarrassed me by pointing out that Gadamer was German.

Our own Guessedworker has fought me tooth and nail on every important post modern term and concept that I’ve used, so offensive has been their hyperbolic (((red caping))) to his S.T.E.M. predilection and ethnonationalist concern.

When I began explaining WPM Proper at The VOR back in 2011, I invited Bowery, thinking that he’d be on board. Instead he proceeded obliviously to say that we needed to “reboot the enlightenment.”

Afterward, when I came to Majority Rights, James tried to forbid me from using the critical philosophical term/concept “Cartesianism” - “stay far away from it!” ... “You are demoralizing our people!”  ...and when I criticized The Empirical Philosophers (meaning Locke, Berkeley and Hume), he reacted as if I was denouncing science and its method. Finally, in indignation, he tried to tell me to not characterize Modernity as a big problem.

This wasn’t an easy challenge. They’re all very smart and have made important contributions.

However, their misapprehension may also be attributed to (((red capes))) targeted directly at their S.T.E.M. type, such as “The Dark Enlightenment” and “Neo-Reaction.” These (((red capes))) in the hands of a (((mencius moldbug))) would portray Modernity and things like Cartesianism/or its misunderstanding as THE problem, rather than vulnerabilities in our system that (((they))), along with our traitors/dupes, can exploit/can be exploited by.

There is also an apparent problem in the habit of STEM analysis that looks for the ONE problem that interrupts a circuit; a habit that can have them not see the holistic overview of what is being said here.

For a combination of reasons, our ensconced STEM boomers and right wingers aligned in a reactionary purity spiral, haven’t quickly recognized that I wasn’t myself fooled by the (((red capes))) if not spitefully wielding them myself, against our people’s interests.

Pardon the digression, but I won’t be dissuaded from using these post modern terms and concepts - not even by geniuses who’ve done as much great work for our people as those three. These terms and concepts are simply too important for our people to allow them to be confused and misdirected.

...

The better starting point for analyzing the unraveling of our social systemic homeostasis -

The French Revolution or The American Revolution and Locke?

Most people start with the French Revolution, and it is highly relevant to Modernity. There are useful inferences to be made. Among those I’ve heard, Keith Preston observing that the European Aristocracies were often not as much loyal to their own nation as to the Aristocracies of other nations. That lines-up generally with the concept of the right that I am finding to hold up cross contextually. I wouldn’t put too much concrete emphasis on this, however.

Literal mindedness in this argument takes you into the Marxian-Hegelian (((red cape))) where the Aristocratic classes all stand together and therefore the “workers of the world should unite” across national bounds; while the Hegelian dialectic works its way out historically, in accordance to its own inherent logic to bring about the withering away of the state, which is presumed an ideal result.

Marx’s internationalizing of class and revolution, as well as the slogan of equality, became huge (((red capes))) for reactionaries to chase after. Marxism and Cultural Marxism became more and more a (((red cape))) for “the left.”

There may be merit to the critique that recognized a disordering of society by the revolution that was new, yes, but bad in a different way, as it was financed largely by the Jewish (or White for that matter) merchant class to overthrow a better ordering of societal rule [e.g., priest, philosopher, warrior, artisan], other than by mercantile. However, rather than so much the who question that occupies top place in our society, I would tend to favor the ‘what’ - i.e., protection of our borders and the protection of our population - whereas ‘who’ occupies governing position would then be contingent upon their adherence to the ‘what.’

Left and Right

The French Revolution is where the traditional Right vs Left dichotomy began, with those representing the King and his leadership being on the right side of the court, while those representing the populace - who would rise up in revolution - sitting to the left of the King.

It’s of worms that I’ll open in more detail later. I will argue that the dichotomy remains useful, that “the left” has been (((red caped))) in representation as Marxist, internationalist, liberalist, equalitarian and anti-White, when it is better represented as a union of the ethnonational populace - Paris for Parisians.

The slogan, “Liberty, Fraternity and Equality”, especially Equality, has been a terrible (((red cape))) that right wing reactionaries chase after. I will argue that red cape and other semiotics that can guide a White ethnonational revolution are sorted out in the depth grammar of ordinary language patterns - necessary as currency in connection with logics of meaning and action which, in turn, direct behavior.

Language as currency and depth grammar being those connotations which hold up cross contextually over time.

For the moment, I’ll sketch a few things, and suggest that Whites should ask:

Why does Jewry want White identity associated with “the right” or “neither left nor right” and against “the left”?

And what are they doing with the connotations of the terms by compelling these identifications?

Has not the left been associated with social justice, social accountability, compassion for the ordinary, marginals and group unionization in defense against elite abuse of power? While the right associated with purported objectivity, truth, brute nature below human accountability, or principles, elite individual or narrow group interests if not a god beyond human nature and also beyond accountability?

When the audience looks with me at the reasons why Jewry has always wanted White identity to be attributed to “the right” and “far right” if not “alt right” or “dissident right” “against equality” and why they do NOT want Whites to identify as an ethnonational left, but as of late, especially, against “the left”, the audience will begin to understand my argument… it begins with the recognition of the original premise of the (((red cape))), i.e., to take a concept that is good for organizing the group and then to deploy it against Whites and make it obnoxiously didactic to Whites in order to weaken if not break up their social systemic homeostasis. Indeed, compelling Whites to identify with repugnant anti-social reactions that effectively preclude popular groundswell to our ethnonational cause.

Those of us a bit older, remembering the 80s and 90s, will recall that conservative arguments were not anywhere nearly so typically pitted against “the left.” Conservatism was pitted more against Liberalism and Political Correctness in the 90s.

It was only following the 2008 financial (((bail out))) that suddenly for fear of intersectionality of Cultural Marxism with Jewish interests, that the underlying connotations of “the left” would be discovered as useful for Whites against Jewish oppression that a (((mass marketing campaign))) was initiated with a whole pathological characterology of “the left” and what it does: it is anti-nature, does not deal with reality, wants equality, internationalism, wants unrealistic, international social justice, liberalism, sexual deviance, etc.

Whites have been shockingly on board with this characterology so convenient to the current interests of elite Jewry and so clearly indicating that this is not necessarily what “the left” has to mean as this characterology called “the left” was not the in-vogue bogey man 30 years ago.

In fact, if the left is characterized by a broad based “fraternity” of the people in unionized interests against elite betrayal, then it conforms perfectly to a left nationalism and ethnonationalism as well.

As a union, it would conserve the interests within, focus our accountability, compassion and concerns of social justice for our people, not liberalizing concerns internationally.

You can see how the red cape of “the left” as “international” and oxymoronically as liberal was used to have Whites arguing against their own organizing function through these misleading connotations.

With the heavy marketing of “the left” as Marxist international, oxymoronically liberal for Whites, as it became cultural Marxist, to where White unionization was prohibited while non and anti White scabbing/border and bounds transgressing was sponsored as a part of “the international fraternity” (marketing the idea that that’s what “the left” necessarily means), Whites felt compelled to identify as some form of Right, Neither Left nor Right or Third Position as a function of the (((red caping))) to rupture our systemic homeostasis, leaving us susceptible to infiltration and misdirection in headlong Right wing reaction. Unionization closes off that vulnerability and the neo-logism, White Left EthnoNationalism, allows us to make accountability and the definition of its aspects in our interests explicit.

The depth grammar of the right is not accountable to our ethnonational union of people: it is accountable to god, to “truth”, to principles, to the great man or small group of elites, to “nature”...but not particularly to praxis, to the broad systemic union of our ethnonationals, our people. The neologism, White EthnoNational Left, can make it clear in a way that “Neither Left Nor Right” or “Third Position” can, that praxis, the union of our people is our central concern and is where accountability is due and not in any Marxist sense precluding reasonable individual liberty, private property, free enough enterprise, abundant resource or ethnonationalism!

This ambiguous result of the red cape reaction, disrupting organization, is why they will settle for an identity of neither left nor right, or third position, failing identification as some sort of right if not liberal.

But for all the attention given the French Revolution as “the source of our problems”, I’ve found following the Lockeatine line making more coherent sense of our predicament in Modernity’s disorder, since that is where the taboo against classification (a term corresponding with unionization) for White men was set forth and ripened for weaponized (((red caping))).

This has created a mystification, disingenuously wielded or naively adhered to by those who identify as right wing as they criticize the left for wanting more state regulation of social justice, while at the same time allowing the red cape of internationalism to extend over whom the nation is comprised.

Our right wingers and other liberals are disingenuously or naively being encouraged to believe that they are objectively if not divinely entitled to be unaccountable and disloyal to the broad group of our own people and creating vulnerabilities, allowing for the rupturing of our social systemic homeostasis as such because individual rights are held sacrosanct while social classification (by Whites, anyway) is considered evil.

Locke’s anti-classification notion of civil individual rights creates systemic pattern vulnerability

John Locke was aggrieved by the Aristocratic Class’s discrimination against lower classes in Britain. His grievance dove-tailed with his concept of empirical philosophy, maintaining that all individuals have the same perceptions while social classifications are a fiction of the mind; therefore these fictitious classifications should give way to civil individual rights.

This concept suited the ‘enlightened’ Epicurean predilections of Jefferson, along with his wish to throw off British upper class and British rule all together, and thus he made Locke’s anti-social classification notion of Civil Individual Rights into a central component of the American way.

Jefferson missed the bus on Kant’s noble but failed attempt to rescue principles from the arbitrary empiricism of Locke, let alone Vico’s correct placing of group praxis at center of the world view. And the fairly arbitrary notion of civic individualism over classificatory patterns, this ‘liberation’ from traditional patterns, became characteristic of an America that would grow more and more powerful until it was the world’s hegemon, wielding power and influence over all, for better and worse.

Jewish (((red cape))) weaponization of “Civil Rights” was still way in the future when blacks and women were given the franchise. While Jews could be said to be influential, even if only indirectly through Christianity and their part in the slave trade, it is certain that some Whites were engaging a Cartesian purity spiral on the notion of civil rights.

As America’s ship sailed further into the abyss of Modernity’s disorder, Nietzsche, a critic of modernity, chided those who thought that they were merely describing reality and proper course of progress: “they are only drawing maps of maps”...

Nietzsche would be very influential on Heidegger and his Post Modern/ Hermeneutic turn.

Over in England, Russell and Whitehead wanted to tackle the problem of classification presented by the classic liar’s paradox, “I am a Cretan, all Cretan’s are liars.” In response, they came up with Theory of Logical Types, that class and membership were on different levels, and therefore, “a class could not be a member of itself.”

Russell would confide that he considered this “the most arbitrary thing he ever had to do.”

Arbitrary perhaps, but their focus on classification is interesting, and they were generating useful thoughts, indeed schools of thought in coming to terms with Post Modernity.

Whitehead would say that “even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”...adding, “one cannot continually investigate everything, but must take for granted a given state of partial knowledge from time to time.”

Note: the legitimate existence of our race is beyond a false or inadequate working hypothesis - even if Post Modern (((red caping))) would try take advantage and exaggerate greatly the significance of our capacity to interbreed with other races. White ethnonationalists should take heed that the working hypothesis of our classification is sufficient to devote a large measure of our efforts to its advocacy.

Certainly Bateson made worthwhile use of logical types in his theory of schizophrenia; and the whole school of thought generated from there made important contributions to solid Post Modern philosophy. It dovetailed well with his Post Modern, neo-Aristotlean concerns. Class functions on a level of relational patterns. Humans are mammals and therefore care about relationships. It causes them confusion, pain and destruction when they cannot invoke this level to order their lives. Of Locke’s anti-classification program, he admonished that “it could only produce dark, Satanic mills”...

From his centralization of praxis (in a necessary, non Cartesian relation to environment and others) and communication in reflexive interaction, communications scholars would develop the very useful communications perspective, that we live in communication.

From his more social and biological position on praxis, Bateson was also able to offer some corrections to the deficiencies and toxicties of Heidegger (e.g., “nature rarely works within lethal variables”); it is significant to offer corrections to Heidegger as he was, on the whole, not just a great and important philosopher for Europeans, but rather prominently manifesting the Post Modern/Hermeneutic turn.

While Heidegger was beginning to wrestle with the Post Modern/ Hermeneutic turn, Wittgenstein was doubling down on Modernity, trying to map an unassailable correspondence of language to world in his Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

Bateson would chide those who would engage in this scientistic wish to get away from any ambiguity of the language, social classification and its invocation of meta-communication what-so-ever, as having an apparent wish to “get back to the innocence of mood signs”...

Wittgenstein expressed his embarrassment in belatedly catching the post modern turn.

However, there were adherents to the Tractatus at The Vienna School of Logical Positivism, who never did catch on. And they extended the invisible hand to the Austrian school of economics, including Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, and von Mises, Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, Thatcher, Reagan, on to the guys behind H.U.D., fannie mae, ginnie mae, freddie mac and fangled Wall Street instruments, finally Bernanke, Paulson etc. to the 2008 financial melt-down.

The Vienna School of Logical Positivism held a mandate to follow through on the Tractatus to establish a language that mapped and mirrored reality perfectly - free of any ambiguity and metaphor. But a few different aspects to words (e.g., referent, signifier, context) are always found to make some metaphor and thus human judgment and convention unavoidable and indispensable.

Language as currency and semiotics

While Heidegger is clearly the more useful and important philosopher to us, the 1/4 White Wittgenstein does have a few concepts that are useful to us in his later philosophy.

For example, his borrowing of the concept of internal relation - a co-evolutionary concept - from continental philosophers, operating much like fractal technology, provides a useful alleviation from the Cartesian anxiety: how does one think? All kinds of ways. Where does one start? Anywhere. You want orientation? Look at an episode - where perhaps a practice may have begun; look at what people are doing and consider the use involved. You want to penetrate deeper? Look at the depth grammar. As language is the currency of convention, the ordinary language philosophy that is derived of Wittgenstein is turning out to be useful - more on that when we finish the historical background ..the Heideggerian school, its off-shoots and advances in post modern thought since; before we detail our thesis of the (((red caping))) of these concepts and rectification in White Post Modernity.

This attention to language isn’t superficially caught up in Jewish language games. Heidegger was also keen to follow “the wisdom of the language” for what its roots and sources would offer as suggestions.

And as we exist in the arbitrary thrownness, as Heidegger calls the contingent nature of our classification at its most radical level, post modern philosophy steps back from a suffocating quest for a perfect Kantian architectonic or Hegelian dialectic; recognizing that we have to be pragmatists to some extent, it retrieves us from mechanistic quest of Theoria and takes us back into Praxis, going the way of the Pragmatists, looking more to the development of working hypotheses and specificatory structures in its pursuit of operational verifiability and warranted assertability.

I was chided for using the metaphor of “conceptual tools”, or a tool kit, ready to hand to bring to bear to our problems, as if we should just za zen manifest emergent ethnonationalism every moment.

When GW insists that we need a complete, unshakable “foundation” to the project of universal ethnonationalism, I would ask why he thinks that we do not already have “foundation” enough to begin - a working hypothesis of our people’s existence and need for advocacy enough to warrantably assert? He and other more scientifically oriented people might help greatly by shoring up our “foundation”, behavioral tendencies, etc. but the idea that we don’t know enough to proceed in our defense is absurd…as is the idea that it is not bespeaking deeply considered philosophy, but merely political advocacy.

It fits my working hypothesis that he’s reacting to Jewish red capes of and among praxis, along with other liberal rhetorical abuse that instill Cartesian anxiety, compelling the belief that we do not already have grounds to warrantably assert our advocacy, but need to have some pure, universal warrant beyond praxis; as if we don’t know enough about our people, the value of our different European kinds that merit homelands of our own and a means to survive as distinct kinds in diaspora…not that we can’t do better, find better popular inspiration, some key fundamental connections, but enough to begin.

Genetic evidence accumulated in recent decades bolsters our concern for human and pervasive ecology - that would certainly include concern for our own kinds.

Though we can infer many working hypotheses from experience, e.g., that Asians, Africans and Europeans have different rates of maturity with different advantages that can tangle each other up when brought together in interaction, operational verification of science does contribute to warranted assertability of the fact - R and K strategy, testosterone levels, lesser impulse control and sublimation, warrior gene, etc. - the point is that concerns of praxis and science are not mutually exclusive and should not be antagonistic.

There are many occasions when science uncovers issues not at all apparent to ordinary sense (e.g. Jewish crypsis) and that sort of excellent yield of science is not discouraged, unappreciated and mutually exclusive to hermeneutics either.

The antagonism that I’ve experienced from Bowery and GW - GW’s wish to “sweep aside” everything bespeaks a failure to see the underlying importance of Post Modern Concepts to Whites, to trust that application for Whites is very different from the red caping they perceive; failing to appreciate its function to protect the good in what is and has been, the value of agency and correctability in its outlook to stave off their worst fears (e.g., in Bowery’s case, a concern of “eusociality” and the loss of distinct European self sufficiency) and to create, in fact, the grounds of homeostasis, group and individual.

GW sees a susceptibility among academics to top down wish to impose concepts over what should be concern to describe what nature will do irrespective. This imposition upon nature has come to the utility of Jewry as a characterization of what “the left does.” This characterology of “the left” is a red cape.

He hasn’t been ready to accurately grasp what I’m saying, nor its significance due to his own vigilance to slay academic pretense and misdirection as it over motivates misconception that I’ve been the mere passive receptacle for Marxist indoctrination and not one making original inferences, weighing concepts for their utility to European people, leaving some things behind, willing to have what I’m taking for granted constructively questioned, but not constantly and with deconstruction being the only “input.” 

GW and Bowery are not appreciating that hermeneutics is a circulating process - and no, GW, its not “back and forth back and forth” in some trivial, plodding manner - it is inquiry that can gracefully and as a matter of utility take starting points from wherever necessary and engage utility (including the utility of ideals).

Where GW and Bowery make well placed, rigorous observations about sub praxis natural underpinnings, they should only contribute to refinement of our working hypotheses, specificatory structures, perhaps adding operational verifiability to the already warranted assertability: the eminent validity of ethnonationalism and the working hypothesis that the White/European race and its subspecies does, in fact, exist - and well it should - at least it is natural for species to defend themselves, even if you believe that we should not survive (as a Hitler might not, in his scienstism).

A more rigorous, scientific focus, a closer reading as it were, shouldn’t be considered mutually exclusive to what I’m saying.

It can be a problem if they veer into scientism - try to say that what I’m saying should be swept aside - probably as they perceive and react to red capes or are stuck in a STEM habit of trying to isolate “the problem” in a circuit while making all else redundant (e.g. me and what I’m adding) by comparison to their “new model”...not realizing that they are attempting to sweep aside things that are far more important than their straw man contentions. They are habituated to issue straw men as they are not prepared to see friendly concepts coming from the humanities and therefore interject straw men in place of working to complement what I am actually saying with their valuable input.

I over reacted to GW’s reaction to non-foundationalism, when saying there “can be no unassailable foundations” - technically true philosophically, but stretching hermeneutics to the point of absurdity to ignore laws of biology and physics; call them foundational if you will. Our biological species is, after all, what we’re about; not some alternative narrative to that, possible though it may be. Its frustrating to be confronted with misreadings of post modernity as being absurd. In its proper understanding neither I, nor any scholar that I’ve ever talked to, deny evolution, laws of biology and physics, facts…we take these matters for granted while someone reacting to the (((red cape))) misrepresentations would try to characterize us as absurd - or, rather, going along with the (((red cape))) characterology of “the left” as not dealing with nature (as opposed to one who deals in verifiable and specifiable hypotheses).

Concluding the history and moving on to specifics should help people to see this as a collaborative enterprise, not mutually exclusive to their reasoned concerns.

Specificatory Stuctures

- are suited for Praxis. Aristotle observed that people: are biological creatures evolved for optimal need satisfaction; registering reflexive systemic effects of excess, deficiency and actions of others - as mammals in particular who have relative concern for relationships, have agency, can learn to learn, can reframe agendas hermeneutically. Social science thus differs from hard sciences, especially from physics but even from biology in our human capacity for agency and reflexive effects in interaction. To make sense of this requires what Aristotle called phronesis (practical judgment), or what Shotter calls specificatory structures: largely or partly finished general frameworks, slightly ambiguous, but having ready understanding to act as participatory currency by the public - frames that can be shaped and crafted for broad perspective, not suffocating necessary imagination to transcend moment and episode into broader patterns as need be, nor precluding re-specification in precision, down to genetic or molecular levels, as need be.

This hermeneutic capacity in liberation from mere facticity to transcend stray moment and episode, paradoxes, strange loops, tangles, defeats, is necessary not only for individual coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, but also for groups.

READ MORE...

Tech Crunch, “FCC doubles down on its dead-wrong definition of how the internet works”, 25 Nov 2017:

In May, when the FCC released an early draft of its plan to undo 2015’s strong net neutrality rules, I pointed out that its case rests almost entirely on a deeply incorrect definition of how the internet works. There can be no mistake now that this misrepresentation is deliberate; the agency has reiterated it in even stronger terms in the final draft of the proposal.

I’m not going to go into great detail on it (my earlier post spells it out) but the basic problem is this: broadband has to be defined as either an information service or telecommunications service. The first is “the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information,” while the second is “the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.”

It’s important because the two things are regulated very differently — the FCC has much greater power over telecommunications services, under the “Title II” authority that internet service providers are so afraid of.

While it’s certainly true that ISPs do in some ways store and generate data on behalf of the user, usually as part of managing their networks, it’s equally certain that their primary purpose is to transmit data between the user and points of his or her choosing. Consequently, broadband should be classified as a telecommunications service.

But don’t take my word for it. The FCC made the argument for me in its 2015 order, citing many sources of its own in support of this fact. This excellent primer produced by the EFF and nearly 200 experts explains basically from first principles how the internet works and why it should be defined as telecommunications. There are big names on the list, but it seems clear that even the garden variety experts understand this much more clearly than the FCC does (or pretends to).

The FCC dismisses these scholars and founding technologists of the internet in a footnote, describing itself as “unpersuaded” that the internet works the way they insist it does. Meanwhile, the proposal repeatedly and unquestioningly cites the comments of ISPs claiming that something as simple as caching data magically exempts them from being telecommunication services:

Just trust them — after all, it’s not like they have a horse in this race.

“The FCC’s case against net neutrality rests on a deliberate misrepresentation of how the internet works”, Tech Crunch 23 May 2017

The resulting definition of broadband as enabling users to generate, store, transform, and process their data is absurd. It is, as the Internet Engineers comment points out, like saying your phone is a pizzeria because you can use it to order a pizza. It is like saying that because you build a road, you are also building all the businesses along that road.

It is edge providers like Wikipedia, Dropbox, and even simple websites like TechCrunch that provide the services users request; it is ISPs that carry that data, with no change in form, between users and those edge providers. The FCC rejects this fundamental idea and substitutes a convenient fiction that upholds its current ambition to reclassify broadband. There is a semblance of plausibility to all this, but only because of precedents set in times when the internet looked very different.

This may be their downfall. Because the entire proposal is predicated on this spurious and outdated definition, to remove it causes the rest to crumble. Without reclassification there is no rollback of net neutrality. There is hope here: the FCC’s argument (which is to say, the broadband industry’s argument) already failed in court and may do so again. Here’s hoping. - Devin Coldewey

        Previously at MR, regarding net neutrality.

        ...the YKW and liberals.

“These companies are all part of the problem and they are all pushing the same propaganda that pushes the agenda of White genocide; propaganda that normalizes the breeding-out of the indigenous people of these lands. These adverts are important though, as they communicate an important message to the public; they tell us the aims and desires of the globalist, capitalist system, the big corporations and the internationalists who control them; you see these internationalists have just shared with us their Christmas wish.” - Mark Collett.

READ MORE...

Even if universal foundations were possible and believed to be prerequisite of perfect ethno-national guidance, particularly given our crisis, which by definition calls for immediate practical responses; and particularly as that way of pursuing truth and comprehensive serviceability is unnecessary, we cannot abide delays for radical skepticism in service of that end in lieu of what is already clear and indubitable in ethnonational interest.

Pragmatic philosophy has conceptual tools that could serve and save us as ethnonationalists, but it is necessary to wrest their application from civic democracy, taken for granted as a virtue at its onset by its liberal American charter members, and taken over the top in universalizing that application against ethnonationalism by the YKW.

It is not far fetched to believe that they have taken good conceptual tools, exactly which we would need as ethnonationalists, only to apply them against our interests; moreover, taking them so far over-the-top in misapplication as to get a didactic reaction from ethnonationalists - who react by playing opposite day from the tools that we most need - and who, in reaction so overdrawn as to reject its humane virtues, repel and antagonize the would-be sufficient bases of ethnno-nationalists that they might otherwise coordinate with. That is not far-fetched, it is by now highly detectable as standard operating procedure of YKW academia with regard to conceptual tools which would best serve ethnonationalists.

Nevertheless, there are important differences between a philosophy necessary to uphold ethnonationalism as opposed to the philosophy of pragmatism as it has been taken into practice; but these differences are not to be found only after successfully overcoming our fallibility through establishment of universally unassailable foundations for ethnonationalism.

The difference that makes a difference for ethno-nationalists is rather in emphasis and elevation of the concept of indubitabililty - working hypotheses of which there is no reason to doubt as being in ethnonational interests; whether a logic so plain that we may take it for granted, or more complex, but warrantably assertable through operational verifiability - we recognize no need for anything remotely like a relentless critique of these working hypotheses - especially not from those known to hold antagonistic ideologies to ethnonationalism. Thus, we de-emphasize critique and presumed correctability of working ethnonatonalist hypotheses, particularly by those with antagonistic motives and ideologies - markedly, those advocating civic democracy drawing upon genetically universal population; and those advocating imperialistic and supremacist ideologies which would not allow for ethno-nationalist sovereignty.

The principle working hypothesis of ethnonationalism, of course, would be the assertion that in our given genetics we are warranted to go on existing as a nation while our nation is warranted in turn to maintain our genetics inasmuch as we can allow for others to maintain theirs; and vice versa.

We may proceed without the pseudo-prerequisite of universal foundations, recognizing radical skepticism as being misdirected for that aim and an expression of Caresian-anxiety caused by philosophical abuses such as those promulgated under the rubric of pragmatism; alleviating that Cartesian anxiety in fact, by attending in contrast and emphasizing instead pragmatism’s finer virtues, which are three:

1) Acknowledgement of fallibilism and affordance of its participatory correction not only provides ongoing availability of correctability of our knowledge, but it can do so for ethnonationalism as such, providing for a correction of mere pragmatism, and into an institutionalizing of ethnonational delimitation. As such, it allows us to build our ranks qualitatively but also quantitatively in the varied contributions necessary for our community to flourish and defend our people against infiltration, exploitation and genocide.

2) As such, it is not just any correction, but an ongoing correctability which, when coupled with pragmatic delimitation in the aims of correctability to the requirements of our community as ethno-nationalists, can relieve “the Cartesian anxiety” - an anxiety given our antagonists’ relentless attack on our ethno-nationalist community (and yes, they have made me hate that word too, for their didactic abuse of it - the disingenuously vague, merely cultural, non-genetic connotations they’ve associated with the word “community”), we feel a sense of anxiety, a longing for the grand Cartesian either/or. To explain that further..

“But lets turn to the ideas of these thinkers [Pierce, James and Dewey]. I’m going to present a composite picture with some dominant themes. The first theme is anti-foundatonalism and the critique of Cartesianism. Descartes, in his meditations, was searching for a solid foundation for the edifice of knowledge. Something that is indubitable and incorrigible; a truth that can be known with certainty, and that can serve as the real basis or foundation for knowledge. Descartes is haunted by what I have called in some of my writings, “the Cartesian anxiety” - the grand either/or. Either, there is some support for our being, a fixed foundation for our knowledge, or we cannot escape the forces of darkness that envelope us with madness and intellectual and moral chaos. Now, there is a way of reading a good deal of philosophy from its beginning, to its present, and especially from Descartes to the present, as a search for a firm foundation. Whether we take the foundation to be the intellectual grasp of eternal forms, or the direct grasp of immediate empirical intuitions, or the cogito itself.

The appeal to such a basic, rock bottom foundation, cannot be underestimated. In our time, the failure to discover, quote, such a foundation, is said to lead straight right to a defeating relativism, that denies the very foundation of truth, objectivity and moral fealty; and I think unfortunately to a great extent, that still infects a great deal of popular consciousness. ‘If I don’t have something basically to believe in, then anything goes.’

Now the pragmatists, all of them, challenge this way of thinking, challenge this kind of grandeur, they seek to exorcise this Cartesian anxiety; they reject the ideal that there is an absolute grounding or foundation of our being. I think one of the best statements of the pragmatic alternative was succinctly stated by Wolfred Sellers, when he writes, “for empirical knowledge, like its sophisticated extension, science, is rational not because it has a foundation, but because it is a self correcting enterprise that can put any claim into jeopardy, although not all at once.” The alternative to the foundation metaphor is to think of inquiry as a self correcting enterprise; that has no fixed absolute beginning points and no absolute end.”  {1}

What is requisite is what is required, not a universal foundation.

In fact, participation in our fallibilistic correction can include contributions as deep, abiding and scientific as any - i.e., you can, in theory, question anything, even the most verified scientific law; though sane people, in vast percentage may consider you insane, dishonest, at best engaged in some speculative inquiry that will require you to compile verifiable information for you to bring to bear once you’ve completed your rather impractical inquiry; but the skeptic is not owed a privileged position of non-accountability for the initiation of inquiry over that which the community holds fast (the burden of proof is on the skeptic, so to speak, given) that which shows no practical need to change for the rather impractical inquiry; this holds true for many requirements of ethnonationalism -

3) The great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible:

This alternative paradigm, this alternative way of thinking, leads me to a second theme, that I think is characteristic of the pragmatic tradition, and that’s the theme of fallibilism. If inquiry is a self corrective activity, that can put any claim into jeopardy, then this means that all knowledge claims, indeed all validity claims are fallible, in the sense that we never can claim that we know anything with a type of certainty that cannot in principle be questioned. But there is a difference between indubitability and fallibility. Many of our beliefs are indubitable in the sense that we do not doubt them; and indeed may not even be aware that we have such beliefs. But what is indubitable today may turn out to be false tomorrow. Furthermore, fallibilism is not to be confused with epistemological skepticism. Hilary Putnam, who is one of the outstanding pragmatists of our time, and still alive, once wrote that the great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible. Pierce, for example, never doubted that we can know a reality that is independent of ourselves. But he also argued, that we’re never in a position to claim that we know this with absolute certainty ...and I think we can illustrate what is meant by anti-foundationalism and fallibilism by an appeal to an understanding of scientific inquiry (or we could relate it to all kinds of inquiry). The validity of a given theory or explanatory hypothesis in any of the sciences is not dependent on showing that it rests on an absolute foundation, but rather that it is supported by the best empirical evidence and the best reasoning. Every serious scientist today knows, that our current theories and hypotheses will most likely be mollified or even abandoned in light of further inquiry and evidence. So strictly speaking what we take to be true today might turn out to be false. Nevertheless, it would be hyperbolic to say that consequently, we don’t really have any knowledge because any knowledge claim that we make may turn out to be false… rather the pragmatic point is that all knowledge is fallible and all knowledge is corrigible - in principle it can be corrected.

[...]

The question arises, if we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, how to warrant and secure our knowledge claims? And answering this will bring me to our third theme, the importance of the community of inquirers and the sociality of our practices that shape us. {1}

The principle working hypothesis of ethnonationalism, of course, would be the assertion that in our given genetics we are warranted to go on existing as a nation while our nation is warranted in turn to maintain our genetics inasmuch as we can allow for others to maintain theirs; and vice versa.

That our genetic genus and species exist as significantly discreet from others on the planet is indubitable. That sheer skepticism of the “reality” or “significance” or “sufficient grounds to defend” these classificatory differences will jeopardize these differences, particularly when discriminatory rules in their defense is prohibited though anti-racism and anti-discrimination laws is indubitable.

That there are good reasons to want to protect these differences is indubitable.

That game corresponds directly with an attack on any would-be gentile left, i.e., socially accountable, nationalism and unionization; particularly as Jewish interests have reached clear hegemony, they have sufficiently greased the palms of right-wing elitists to be complicit as they take control of right-wing reactionary platforms as much as possible; and have promulgated the vilification of “the left” (“speculative” social organization/unionization) as much as possible to try to counter any gentile social classification gathering as left, social nationalism to challenge their hegemony.

However, whereas the pragmatists stance against foundationalism and Cartesianism and its charge for us to accept fallibilism has been co-opted against us, it also offers us the best tool, weapon in fact, by which to warrant our defense - viz., that anti-racism itself is Cartesian. As such, we may come loaded for bear against the enemies of ethno-nationalism:

The attack on the ethnonational community comes principally from Jewish community’s extrapolation on the prejudice against social classificatory discrimination, with facilitation of their fellow Abrahamics (note that Abahamics are not nationalists, they are imperialists; and we do not have to respect them as nationalists) and the liberal community: The central component of anti-racism is a game of weaponized social classification against gentile ethnonationalism.

This Abrahamic attack is well cast in terms of Manichean as opposed to Augustinian devils. Judaism and Islamics were coming from a place in evolution to compete more against other tribes for resource - thus, how to trick (Manichaen devils) them became a central skill.

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

How is anti-racism Cartesian?

By artificially separating us from engagement in account of our broad, but very real, biological patterns and relative interests as such; as opposed to approximating our natural homeostatic delimitations, we are prohibited from observing these relative delimitation by means of classificatory delimitation - incited for the modicum of vaguery, ambiguity, arbitrariness and contingency at the edges of these classifications; for the history, where classifications were often used by one group to abuse another, we are obligated instead to put these patterns at risk to pure objectivism - on universal foundations - which is Cartesian.

Because our classifications are fallible in the sense that we can interbreed with other races, their communities charges that there are no important differences to warrant discrimination. This is Cartesianism on the empirical side, where the classificatory distinctions are held to be arbitrary and of dubious, if not fictional significance. Furthermore, as our antagonists and liberals confront us with the fact that all races can interbreed, they can and do argue that evolutionary competition and integration will produce good, if not the best results.

It is not practical for our community to try to foundationalize as an objective fact that this cannot possibly, in any way be true; and fortunately, it is not necessary.

The best we can do, and we can do very very well, is make the best arguments (practices, e.g., might of arms, count as “argument” here) in our defense, achieving warranted assertabilty - with operational verifiability of that warrant so much the better.

How do we argue in the face of this Cartesian incitement?

To begin, it is practical is to acknowledge that we can interbreed, but to argue and assert, in the event that their hypothesis just might just be wrong, that it is nevertheless indubitably valid to classify peoples according to genetic groupings for the sake of accountabilty; to keep “reserves” (i.e., the vast majority and their prerogative for a separatist homeland) and with that to build counter-arguments in warranted assertability that we and our qualities are worth saving despite their purported infallible claim that they aren’t. We establish warranted assertion in defense of our classification - as having distinct and long standing evolution, merited to remain in its trajectory, provided we allow for others to maintain theirs. The act of classification and its implementation affords agency thus, coherence, accountability, warrant in inherited social capital and human ecology.

And again there is a crucial difference for ethno-nationalists from academia’s (particularly Gadamer’s/Derrida’s ) crucially abused (as Cartesian) notion of “marginality” - where “marginals” are taken to be those who are from without, outside the classification and/or antagonistic to it, as opposed what would be the ethno-nationalist concept of marginality - i.e., those remaining just within the classification despite pressure, but well disposed to its reconstruction; and having the additional existential benefit of “knowing where the shoe pinches.”

As such, marginals would contribute to a homeostatic function of the ethnonational system, against incursions and crass exclusion of sufficient basic function and of outlier advance.

What is practical toward that end is the unionization of our relative interests as classifications so that we may not only have criteria to be accountable to our relative interests, but also to objective facts beyond our relative group interests; and to the relative interests of other genetic classifications.

But either way, pure racial distinctions or “one race, the human race”, it is an unnatural and impossible standard of purity which, when observing history and what happens with this void in means of bio-historical accountability, will show that it is prone to reaction and attack on other classificatory groups. It is a game that can be countered with pragmatism and hermeneutics applied, as I have said, with ethno-national delimitation - but we must ask, why has that not happened? To answer that question we have to know a bit more about where the prohibition of classification comes from, the context it operated\s in, and where these remedies came into play.

Where does this classificatory game, a game that is weaponized against us, particularly as Whites, come from? a little history is in order:

The YKW, in their ordeal of civility, as a self interested group classification, were confronted and threatened by the civic nationalism of America, viz., its civil individual rights which, as an instrument holding no proviso to recognize their group interests, observed that America’s civil rights were based on the Cartesian and following that the Enlightenment and modernity’s prejudice against prejudice - viz., given Locke’s prejudice against social classifications as they happened to operate against him; he took a position against social classifications that they are necessarily, universally pernicious fictions of the mind, only a machination of the dishonest; and against that deployed the Cartesian notion (on the empirical end) that only sense perceptions of the individual mind are real and that group classifications are non-empirical, nefarious fictions which should be prohibited in favor of civil individual rights.

To deal with this, the YKW made American Whites live up to their rules (Saul Alinsnky style), but weaponized them over the top as “civil rights acts” which denied White freedom from association, thus effectively put them into involuntary servitude where operative. Moreover, they made Whites live up to Locke’s prohibition against classification and took it over the top as well in the form of “anti-racism.” Anti-racism is essentially a prohibition against social classificatory discrimination.

Kant had anticipated the dangers of Locke’s purely empirical perspective, how destructive it could be perhaps especially to conscientious people, and his major work, “The Critique of Pure Reason” was an effort to solve this problem, to provide universal foundations in “the nouminal concept” against this empirical arbitrariness; a noble effort, thought it failed; as Heidegger said, it was still Cartesian.

The analytic school’s Whitehead and Russell, in taking it upon themselves to try to solve the liars paradox [classically, “all Cretans are liars, I am a Cretan”, or plainly, “I am a liar”] provide a later example of a philosophical method insufficiently equipped to deal with skepticism of social classification. The analytic school’s tools in fact would be susceptible to paradox and dealt with these issues clumsily - with Russel admitting that the “theory of logical types”, viz, “that a class cannot be a member of itself”, was “the most ad hoc thing he’d ever had to do.” Nevertheless, while it may have been ad hoc to his analytic sensibilities, logical types did have practical applications.

We are all pragmatists - because we have to be - and Whitehead, a renowned mathematician was acknowledging this when he said: “we cannot continually investigate everything, but must be able to take some things for granted and proceed from a given state of partial knowledge. Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”

And he was in the ballpark before WWII forced a shying away from more explicit, concrete applications, when he said “philosophy must now perform its final service and save a race of people sensitive to values beyond mere physical pleasure.” If his having used the word “race” was not made radioactive by the supremacist Nazi campaign of WWII, we might have been sooner to implement the idea of classificatory function, despite its fallibility.

The experience of Whitehead and Russel of trying to solve the liar’s paradox with the ad hoc theory logical types, that “a group cannot be a member of itself”, is an example of the clumsiness of a sheer analytic philosophy in dealing with classificatory paradox; while right-wing purity spirals to go beyond social problems are equally prone to paradoxing and hoodwinkng into runaway. By contrast, these are matters which a judicious implementation of pragmatic correctability could handle, well, practically, and matters which an additional hermeneutic component can handle gracefully - it will deftly put aside “paradoxes” with narrative sequentiality, furtive, hierarchical and other provisos.

The Vienna School of Logical Positivism (from which the Vienna School of Economics derives) was another effort in this vain. The tried to establish a pure positive language free of metaphor and failed for confrontation of the fact that words have more complex, ambiguous and contingent relations to their referents - they couldn’t avoid metaphor, in a world. The later Wittgentsein was forced to acknowledge this, calling the Tractataus upon which the Vienna School of Logical Positivism was based, “not a very good book.”

Heidegger’s invocation of hermeneutics was effort in the right direction as a way of dealing with Cartesian duality, the Cartesian anxiety, and our authenticity of dasein. As one might guess following the coherence of this article, I would add the dasein of social classification, some facimile thereof to round out his philosophy, falling a bit shy of a sufficient philosophy as it did for phenomenology’s first person overemphasis and lack of emphasis on group pattern connecteness, criteria and accountability - there was something like that in Heidegger but not emphasized enough; his philosophy strained in the reification of anxiety before individual death as the source of meaning, being, dasein. Like the pragmatists, the method for our interests was there, but underused for lack of proper basis (for what we’d fallen into) and emphasis, especially among later practitioners.

Like pragmatism’s “participatory correction” from an ever more enriching and diverse basis of civic democratic universalism, hermeneutics could serve the YKW in its academic big business of selling talk, to any mathematically challenged, verbal brained undergraduate with an axe to grind against White men in particular, in non-stop culture of critique; and any fallback they might take in science: as if hermenutics is anti-science simply because its capable of critiquing scientism, viz., bad science or bad scientific application. 

Thus, what happened when I tried to talk to Professor MacDonald on the basis of hermeneutics - he insisted that “hermeneutics was anti-science” because all he’d seen in academia was YKW fostered abuse of the concept - they’d done what they always do; they’d taken concepts which would be most serviceable to ethno-nationalism, de-emphasized the aspects which would be most helpful to ethnonationalism and put over the top those features which when exaggerated would be most destructive; made them didactic; so instead of the coherent means to pursue our authenticity in organic form, and take hold (responsibility, the other interpretation of ownmost “guilt”) for our historical and systemic breadth, hermeneutics is associated with people who think that history and events can mean virtually anything they imagine, rather what cultural Marxists might think, divorced from empirical reality.

The pragmatists have shown that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible; that we can hold up to our opponents outlandish metaphors, speculations and narraties; while asserting and warranting our interests instead, more imperfectly at first and less so with ongoing correction by community interests. And together with that, hermeneutics has shown the means to overcome the Cartesian anxiety, a way to overcome paradox, arbitrariness and nefarious positivist chicanery against ethnonationalism. However, given (dasein’s thrownness into) the setting of its charter, America’s civic, democratic nation, the liberal democratic motives of its charter members and YKW co-opting, pragmatism has over-emphasized and rather exaggerated fallibilism’s correctability through social participation - viz., extolling a “diversity” of critique, alternative “narratives” in an ever broadening, and thus ever more arbitrary “democratic community”, giving us an “enrichment” which is, like classical liberalism, insufficiently committed by state administrators charged with accounting for the upholding of biological groupings, and citizens accountable to uphold their biological grouping, as would concern the ethno-nationalist; nor do they conceived to account for protection of these protracted historical bio-systems by delimitation of ethno-nationalism (that classification = “racism”); hence the predictable denouement into radical skepticism, as it becomes more and more the case for gentiles that one must look after one’s narrow interests completely (a problem not sufficiently helped by the pragmatists or Heidegger, and especially not as they’ve come into popular discourse), whether that position is most advanced by those who’ve managed to do well for themselves, despite and perhaps because of their complicity with group classificatory disintegration, or those, notably the YKW, who also do well for this disintegration, hypocritically promoting the prohibition of unionization of social group classifications where they cannot be exploited by their own institutionalized group classification.

This democratic correctibility, now called “social justice warriorism” for its didactic form as promoted by YKW pragmatism and neoliberal complicity, is already a skepticism of gentile classifications, its relentlessness and hyperbolic attack provoking a longing on the gentile part for otherworldy foundation by contrast; and offered (((“neo” reaction))) in kind to promote a new skepticism to social justice and unionized, participatory means of correction; the (((alternative right))) is offered to institutionalize their new position in defense of their supremacism, YKW and complicit supremacism, at the expense of institutionalizated accountability to ethno-nationalism.

Skepticism toward the unionization of group discriminatory classification is institutionally perpetuated, assimilating the “reality” that one must accept - this “inequality” not only has force of itself, but also the intellectual cache of the elites; both elitist gentiles and now also promoted more as a form of activism by Jews via the alternative right; promoted more now as a mere fact of nature, to which only the delusional and unrealistic would object and try to be so leftist as to unionize against, given their increasingly obvious hegemonies. Radical skepticism, especially toward the practicality of ethnonational classification and unionizations thereof, is almost part of our DNA and its inherent susceptibility to be exploited by now; it is the last things we need.

Nevertheless, gentile vulnerability to skepticism of group unionization and aversion to taking what we might refer to as the anti-Cartesian turn with the Pragmatists and the hermeneuticists, has also been exploitable not only because their anti-Cartesian remedies were taken over the top in didacticism; but because anti-Cartesianism came only after Cartesiansim and its means of exploitation had already been institutionalized, taken for granted and embedded in civil individual rights - divorced as they were, in fact prohibiting discrimination of group classification - while especially promoted through the rule structure of America - that is no small matter; as its rule structure spread in ostensibly warranted hegemony to further purity spiral given its victory over right wing reaction in WWII; a reaction which was similarly a purity spiral, though more explicitly seeking to throw-off, to purify itself of the guilt and burdens of the YKW and their priorly institutionalized means of infiltration and exploitation of group classificatory interests; viz. to throw off Jewry and their ensconced purity spiral of guilting the gentiles with ethno-sacrificing Christianity by means of “natural law”. American victory only increased the hegemony of liberalism’s liasz ez fair relation to the YKW purity spiral of Christianity, a liasz ez fair relation reinforced initially by its Cartesian constitution; and later, as intersectional (where Jewish hypocrisy is confronted) reaction increased to the point where it might notice Jewish ethnocentrism, paleoconservatism and its spawn, the alternative right, were unleashed to maintain that liasz ez fair - “our Judeo-Christian, ‘western’ culture.”

On a level of more common concerns, as Cartesianism was institutionalized in the American Constitution, leaving patterned concerns only implicit, and suspicious of groups, particularly those suspected of Aristocratic snobbery, Locke’s form of empirical individual rights increasingly ran roughshod over biological systems, doing its purity spiral, in prejudice against classificatory prejudice - mostly done naively by the gentiles, but often disingenously by elites beholden only to their narrow interests and a quid pro quo with an equally disingenuously YKW.

Note: we are not proposing doing away with the concept of individual liberties and rights, only that the Locketine technology was not the way, we have better ways now. But failing the implementation of those better ways, the ethnonationalist community remains largely in reaction to hermeneutics and pragmatism’s participatory correctability for the exaggerated misuse of those disciplines against our classification and truth; laregly in a reaction not only instigated with didactic exaggeration, but on pain of social ostracism. You gonna question muh rights? - nothing more sacrosanct than to an American (or to many UN charter activists for that matter) than their rights; you a Nazi? - need I say more? We remain stuck in the Cartesian realm of reaction, where analytic at all - and failing that, engaged with its faith cousin - you gonna question muh Abrahamic religion?

But another factor which had lent to the taken for grantedness of Cartesiansim and its increasing hegemony was the impetus of its yield to science and technology (and the lucrativeness of that); modernity’s progressiveness indeed, running roughshod over the human ecologies that left nationalism might otherwise serve and protect - commie leftist pinkos.

You gonna question muh capitalism, science and technology? muh manly pristine theory with that messy pinko lefty rag girly social pragmatism stuff? With this amateur understanding of the philosophical remedies that we are up against, the lack of understanding of the problems that we are up against and the means to correct them for the inability to see past and get past their abused forms; even though we would get past theme if we use of their correct forms. However, so long as we remain in reaction, we remain outside of our advanced philosophy and correctabilty for ethnonational ends. And in this mindset bereft of hermeneutics liberation from mere facticity, we remain stuck in the physics envy of clean lines and highly predictable cause and effect (to our enemies too), as opposed to the (only somewhat) messy but facile narrative coherence, agency, accountability and warrant to wrest our ethnonational sovereignty. And in this wish for pure analytic coherence, we remain unduly hindered by paradox and chimera that can be used by our enemies to hoodwink casual, implicit ethnonationalism.

Thus our plight begins with a form of skepticism, that such patterns exist that can and should be classified for their discriminatory protection, and that terrible things will not necessarily happen if such discriminatory classifications are rendered. The YKW version of universal civic democratic participatory correctabilty is a steady, grating skepticism writ large.

The assault by the YKW on our people, as if we are not importantly distinct - neither ideally nor practically, in classificatory assessment of genus and species, and not precious in such distinction, is centuries long.

As GW observes, it is an assault evidently prescribed by Jewish tribal interests to rupture differentiation and defensive exclusion among “the gentiles”, viz. the non-Jews, as gentile distinctions, complementary, coordination and the defense thereof may threaten Jewish power and influence. 

This centuries long assault on our distinction began with neither Boas nor Descartes. It is narrative of classificatory disintegration, divorcing us from our complementary relations and coordination, from our land, nature and and earthy connection; it is a narrative that has been hegemonic over European peoples through and of a YKW mass media control that is not only decades long but, as Bowery observes, it is centuries long, with their Bible having functioned as the predominant “mass media” and medium of this narrative transmission for the better part of two centuries - promoting a narrative culminating with Jews as the chosen people, the light of the world, while the gentiles might only enter the hereafter by being purely altruistic, non-self interested. Dissent of that narrative, on the other hand, was on pain of otherworldly damnation, or literal, this worldly persecution - at times, even penalty of death.

And when in church, the priest did not say “let us think”, he said “let us pray” - viz. repeat by rote the priest’s call to submission to the Jewish god. It is a narrative trajectory increasing in hegemony and culminating in their story told as light of the world over the correspondingly undifferentiated gentile other.

European thinkers only began to shake this hegemony, throw it off as imposed superstition and return to the rationale of the Greeks and our own northern lights in The Enlightenment. Nevertheless, European peoples were not fully emancipated, as they would need to be in distinction of our peoples, by means of Luther’s proclamation that “here I am, I can do no other”, nor by Descartes, proclamation that “I think, therefore I am”  ...as he was, in pursuit of universal foundations.

These pursuits would have a loyalty nevertheless, but a loyalty not to the organization and relative interests of group patterns, but rather a loyalty to elitist objectivism, to mere facts and the upholding of the pretext of their objective pursuit - if one was to have the tacit approval of the scientific mavens and engineers who were becoming a new priestly caste, and that panderers (and pandered-to, frequently puerile females) against those who would operate against our classificatory interests.

...as with Nazism, warrant was not to be located in the differentiation and coordination with the other, but in the demonstration of purity of “natural law”, and supremacy that served the purging reaction of the meme virus.

Speaking of what is indubitable, taking advantage of the obvious disagreeableness of this concept, a reaction really, like a massive fit of coughing and diarrhea - a case of your struggle and stink is ok only if you are German supremacist - the YKW have with this indubitable didacticism amplified means to lay guilt trips and cause the gentile other to pursue warrant of innocence by a doubling down in Cartesianism; particularly through the victorious American enshrinement of enlightenment Cartesianism in the Lockeatine notion of civil individual rights - as they serve their aim to rupture the danger of opposing group classifications as “non-empirical”, a rupturing imposed on lines of “anti-racism”, “anti-Nazism” etc.

Marxist and neo-liberal YKW both would, in their elite mentorship, recognize the susceptibility of European peoples’ defense in their adherence to Cartesianism, and the YKW operate against it in mimicry of its own terms, in anti-racism, naturally - with particular emphaticness after WWII, they would be marching through our 7 institutions, and let us add another, even more so would they march through our very genome.

If the young White man is to have hope to be let past their gate-keepers - often the bitches who didn’t want to be fair, but want to incite genetic competition beyond their merit (their typical shit test in initial interaction episode, “isn’t racism terrible?”) - he must embrace the advancing meme structure, loyalty all the more fiercely to objectivism, to anti-racism, to the incursion of African and Arab hoards - if he hopes to extricate himself from the broader community of subjects as they are beholden to objectivist naivete, blind to individual and group Manicheanism (rule changing devils), who only mimicked adherence to Augustinian (natural) devils where it suits them in their “objectivism” as it is bound to be infiltrated by YKW: from Wittgensteins’ Austrian school positivism to its heirs Hayek and Austrian school libertarianism, to its neo forms, neocon, neo anything, as Irving Kristol admits, it is weaponization against Whites, still holding the undifferentiated gentile other as template of purity, innocence and warrant - the prejudice against prejudice was to make Whites live up to their own rules, as those rules worked against them.

Categorization, what I call classification, is not an artifice, is not Cartesian - it is a perfectly natural and necessary emergent function, to sort out, to discriminate healthy social patterns from unhealthy - “Women, Fire, and other Dangerous Things” (lets call that chocolate women, fire and other dangerous things). 

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent and it is killing people.

Even if it is by means by a crass version of Darwinist competition:

As I have said many times in one of my original theories, Modernity’s Cartesianism has had a vast disordering effect on society. And the “anti-racist” extrapolation of anti-social classificaiton is a union busting function of the YKW writ large, playing manichean games with social classification/anti-classification as it suits their interests. Just because European peoples are prohibited from discriminating by social classification, doesn’t mean that other’s aren’t doing it, allowed to do it; and doesn’t mean that classification (categorization) doesn’t happen naturally - it happens anyway; with the categories too difficult to ignore, because they are basic, even in “universal” human terms: particularly male and female.

The result is that the patterns of our protracted maturity as K selectors are truncated, our female co-evolutionaries are pandered to from males from every direction, predated upon by R selectors, particularly as the YKW foist race mixing upon Whites to demoralize White men and to bust gentile unionization; they pander to the basest tendencies of females to incite genetic competition.

They take advantage of another category impossible to ignore - black men, particularly by contrast to White females, a category and contrast so stark that it is almost impossible to ignore as a tropism. They take advantage with their “anti-racism”, with the fact that blacks are not necessarily at a disadvantage as they say, in all cases and ways - not given their license to discriminate on their behalf and make coherent sense; not within the disorder, where black aggression, hyper-assertiveness and abilities on an episodic levels are a more salient criteria for partner selection; they are not disadvantage in these circumstances of anti-racism, if you take into account that opportunism is acting in concert with their ancient history, the bio-power of their long pre-evolution to Whites; which serves them in this mix, to privilege them over females, to provide them with females and children (frequently at the zero zum expense of Whites); along with the fact that their coherence, their classificatory identity is allowed, they are offered remedial programs by the liberals and YKW, to make up for a history of oppression that we had nothing to do with; furthermore, their daring is increased as expectations of them, as individuals, are low; group ethnocentrism backs them in their risk taking. They often have less to lose (some of their women are nice, but….). Whereas European men have a lot lose, and become skittish; furthermore, the merit of European men tends to show over protracted patterns, patterns that are ruptured by anti-racism; and truncated by the opportunism of males, R selectors and what-not, that they are not allowed to discriminate against.

Meanwhile the one up position in partner selection that females occupy (because eggs are precious, gestation vulnerable and sperm is cheap) emerges with increased significance, with puerile European females gaining in premature confidence and discretionary power as gate-keepers, as they are talked-to, solicited from every direction and pandered to - her opinions matter; as she has ready recourse in all directions to brute enforcing males, if anyone objects to her prerogatives. As she is pandered to, she is encouraged by the power of her position in this liberal mix. Her base tendency as female to incite genetic competition, which would be vastly and healthily sublimated in classificatory maintenance, is exacerbated, probably exponentially. This incitement further ensconces the Cartesian rupture of ethno-natinonalism, as liberalism affords puerile females incentive to maintain the easy advantages her increased one up position affords in the disorder - it is, as it appears, “only natural.” - Just as the gamers will tell you, as they promote R selectionism to move through European girls. And the disorder and disintegration absent the assertion of our classificaitons is perpetuated as such.

Thus, the Cartesianism of anti-racism is disastrous for our species.

The central component of anti-racism is game of weaponized social classification against Whites. As exemplified in the racist’s paradox:

Again, the “racist’s paradox - if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate, I judge everyone by their individual merit”, then you can be charged by the anti-racist with disingenuously ignoring the history of (your alleged) classificatory discrimination and exploitation of blacks ...on the other hand, if you say no, “I take affirmative action on behalf of their group to take into account the history discrimination and oppression against their group” then you are classifying, thus a racist by definition.

Thus, by means extant of Cartesian structures the proposition nation was brought to bear in exploitation by the YKW and complicit liberals against our fallible hypotheses, with predictable results..

It is a purity spiral ever more Cartesian and divorced of practicality in its reaction than that of the Cartesian anxiety which they had already exploited.

And their rhetorical flourish magnifies the anxiety that we must have a foundation somehow prior to words and discourse for our peoplehood, otherwise we cannot potentially challenge with their rhetoric, anywhere in the universe.

But toward our defense and in defense of human ecology broadly thus, it is necessary to overcome the Cartesian anti-social classification that underpins anti-racism ..its Cartesian detachment from land and resource relation as well.

With the pronouncement, denouncement really, of the Cartesian prejudice against prejudice - specifically its proposed innocence in prohibiting discriminatory social classification - that:

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

Given the existential threat to our people for the devastating, decades long march through our institutions, of the YKW and their lackeys wielding the wholly unnatural, weaponized Cartesianism that is “anti-racism” ....the last thing that we need is mis-applied skepticism regarding the very antidotes to mis-applied skepticism - i.e., mirroring the anti-classification which is “anti-racism.

And we must avail ourselves of pragmatic correctabilty and the hermeneutic turn delimited to ethnonational aims - that is the way to resolve Cartesian anxiety. It is the way that allows for historical and conceptual breadth to capture the “non-empirical” classifications, that would provide for agency, coherence, thus accountability and warrant in maintenance, use and protection of our social capital and human ecologies.

It is not my purpose here to defend Pragmatist philosophy nor to proclaim myself a Pragmatist philosopher - Pragmatist philosophy is rather to be treated as a tool. It is not only to be taken to where the school of thought has been taken by academics, against the loftier aims of our people…  it has made its way to the ordinary language of our “communities” that it might otherwise serve, to be taken as concerns ranging from laboriously dull to obnoxiously undeserving of participation. No, rather something like Sam Dickson’s suggestion that we subscribe to a kind of race idealism - that might be most pragmatic; and those who complain that Aristotle’s turning away forms was a turning away from the breadth of European imagination, they can find imagination resurrected in hermeneutics, along with rigor! Finally, though pragmatism tends to be associated with a lack of deeper concern in a particular respect - that is a lack of sufficient respect for prefigurative force - for matters of enduring importance - it is a bit unfair, particularly if we see pragmatism as a tool.

If GW wants to tighten the connection between what is, the ontology, and what ought, that could be part of correctibility - any organization of sense making in that case, in an instant anyway, would have to a part of inherent evolution.

Emergentism has kindred aims with pragmatism and hermenuticism, namely and aversion to the reductionism and anti mind body distinction, if not anti-Cartesianism on the whole; however, it has run into some problems that may receive aid from pragmatism and hermeneutics. Again, pragmatism and hermeneutics proper would not look at emergentism as necessarily adversarial, but rather a closer reading, at a more rigorous and of an ongoing survey.

It is confronted with difficulty in managing dichotomy that may perhaps be mollified by hermeneutics.

At least one problem for emergentism is:

Jaegwon Kim

Figure demonstration how M1 and M2 are not reduced to P1 and P2.

Addressing emergentism (under the guise of non-reductive physicalism) as a solution to the mind-body problem Jaegwon Kim has raised an objection based on causal closure and overdetermination.

Emergentism strives to be compatible with physicalism, and physicalism, according to Kim, has a principle of causal closure according to which every physical event is fully accountable in terms of physical causes. This seems to leave no “room” for mental causation to operate. If our bodily movements were caused by the preceding state of our bodies and our decisions and intentions, they would be overdetermined. Mental causation in this sense is not the same as free will, but is only the claim that mental states are causally relevant. If emergentists respond by abandoning the idea of mental causation, their position becomes a form of epiphenomenalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism

It is true that more (and more) information about more genetic and emergent levels will help guide us better; the process of ongoing correction does provide for that.

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

“Anti-racism is anti-broad classification of peoples and against classification of peoples being used as criteria for discriminatory accountability. This prohibition of discriminatory classification is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.”

That’s a safer mantra because anti-anti-racism is less likely to be misunderstood as such, in a supremacist or other needlessly aggressive, exploitative, destructive senses.

READ MORE...

Quoting Gary Anderson, who wrote to MR: “There are many Jews that hate Zionism. The fact that you fail to report that makes you a racist. You probably are a Zionist because you undermine the antiZionist movement with your racist filth.”

I’m fully aware that there are many Jews who hate Zionism. Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon are well known examples among WN circles. I never duck that fact and do not need to. Nor am I a Zionist, as you conjecture. Nevertheless, whether Jews are anti-Zionist or Zionist, I do not consider them a part of our advocacy group, but as a different people from Europeans and more or less antagonistic to us - much more antagonistic for the most part, while the rest are a part of the pattern nevertheless and cannot be trusted. I do not hesitate to categorize them as such for three very fundamental reasons to begin A) They are the most ethnocentric people in the world overall, including non-Zionist members - whose ouliers tend to be liberal at best (not something Europeans need more of). Jews look after themselves while prescribing liberalism to others - Europeans by contrast, are not very ethnocentric, not good at looking after their group interests; and thus need to discriminate against Jews especially; because Jewish identity, negative though Jewish identity is for Whites, is not very clearly distinguishable to Whites, as being different from Whites, but tends rather to be hidden in crypsis - the natural “camouflage”, viz., appearance of being White - Jewish identity thus needs in particular to be distinguished and separated from. This crypsis is a part of their systemic process, wherein their liberal elements serve a function of mixing with (in this case Whites) to weaken any coherence and potential antagonism that might be directed at Jews from White groups. B) Jewish antagonism and destruction of Whites is easily documented; along with its stemming from disproportionate Jewish influence from seven power niches: 1) Religion 2) Money and Finance 3) Academia 4) Media 5) Politics 6) Law and Courts 7) Business, Investment and Industry - and with all of this, US Military (and other military) as well. C) I am a separatist, not a supremacist looking to exploit or kill them. Therefore, even if I achieve my goal of separatism, I have not pronounced a death sentence in naming Jews as an outside group. If I am mistaken about something that I attribute to them, it is not irrevocable and can be corrected.

I am not “racist filth” but there is something very wrong with you that you would try to deny the most elemental function of biological nature, to discriminate for the purpose of survival of one’s self and one’s kind - and to identify and classify kinds not only for defensive purposes, but for the purpose of human ecology, accountability to that and legacy of human capital. By contrast, your prohibition of discrimination and said accountability is a prescription for the exploitation of that human capital and of genocide. That is evil. You are the one prescribing the filthy thing that would destroy people. Shame on you Gary Anderson (Ramirez).

Arthur Scargill

..since we have an international audience, and sarcasm doesn’t travel well, I am compelled to say immediately that Arthur Scargill is not GW’s best friend, in fact, more like the opposite.

This article will be a work in process in regard to a hypothesis that I have of Scargill, that his successful fight against Edward Heath’s conservative government fits in with a broader hypothesis of mine - namely that Jewish interests take the best, most serviceable ideas in terms of social function and organization - specifically in this case, I am talking about the left social concept of unions, guilds, syndicates - and they make them didactic, i.e., Scargill’s union activism became didactic for the rubric and concept of the left, by having Soviet, Marxist and ultimately Jewish backing against ethnocentric, native nationalist interests; which forced right wing reaction. It is a reaction also manipulable, of which they will indeed make use in their interests. That is, where they fail to gain compliance with their international leftism - a “leftism” which spells liberalism against native ethnonationalism and tends only to allow for one nativist national union in the end - YKW.

A union is a social concept of members and non members; that is, in and out groups, non-membership, membership, legitimated discrimination and accountability on its basis. This concept can be applied to the level of ethno-nation. It is that level of unionized application especially which Jewish interests oppose - under the rubric of Marxism or the international workers Left, while deftly protecting their own Jewish unionization and nationalism (Jewish ethnocentrism and Zionism). But right wing interests, typically flying under color of objectivism, also tend to oppose this level of national unionization; and tend to conveniently go with their narrow interests as luck affords them or to be bought off by neo-liberal international interests and Jewish interests in opposition to the organization of native nationalism.

Thesis: It is standard operating procedure for Jews that they take good and compelling Left ideas for social organization, such as social unionization, and make them didactic (go over the top in misrepresentation with it to the point of reversal); compelling right wing reaction in their enemies as they are both more manipulable among enemies in that reaction and tending as such to frighten-off would-be popular supporters for the lack of empathic social perspective; its having been made didactic.

By associating himself early-on with Soviet Marxism, and successfully contributing to the overthrow of Heath’s conservative government, Scargill was didactically facilitating the concept of international leftism which in the end would leave room for only one unionized nation - Zionism being the only native nationalist union to be allowed; thus it was that Scargill’s unions movement was backed by proponents of international leftism and deployed as liberalism against the native national concept of Britain, imperviously forcing a reaction - Thatcher, whose Jewish objectivism acted further as a blunt instrument against the native nationalist union.

Anders Breivik

Where younger generations don’t stay on page with the memo of the one unionized native nation to remain of international leftism, but maintain absolute liberalism against all native nationalisms - as the participants of a Workers’ Youth League (AUF) summer camp on the island of Utøya did in their protest against Zionism - then a Zionist Breivik may be coddled to act through the available valves of ethnocentrically sanctioned aggression, that which is allowed by Jewish controlled discourse - coddled as such in his LARP to murder 77 kids in a misguided right wing reaction of nativist nationalism - Jewish interests want White nationalists to be didactic right wing reactionaries and to not be White Left Ethno-Nationalists.

Scargill more recently, still wears the red tie, but…

Coming back to the issue of Scargill, however, I thought he was going to more easily fit into the mold of a liberal, anti-racist, anti-native nationalist rat, masquerading as one concerned with unions and workers. Indeed, from what I know, admittedly not much, as I have not followed this history of British unions and their conflicts through the post World War II years, he perhaps still belongs in that category. There is evidence that he does, that he genuinely could have been a significant threat to the national interests, native and otherwise, of Britain and other European nations:

Wikipedia, Arthur Scargill:

Early political and trade union activities

Scargill joined the Young Communist League in 1955, becoming its Yorkshire District Chair in 1956 and shortly after a member of its National Executive Committee.[4] In 1957 he was elected NUM Yorkshire Area Youth Delegate, and attended the 6th World Festival of Youth and Students in Moscow as a representative of the Yorkshire miners. In 1958, he attended the World Federation of Trade Unions youth congress in Prague.

[...]

National Union of Mineworkers

Scargill was a leader of the unofficial strike in 1969, which began in Yorkshire and spread across the country.[6] He had challenged Sam Bullogh, the chair of the Yorkshire area’s NUM, to act on the working hours of surface workers, given that the union’s conference had passed a resolution that their hours be shortened the previous year.[6] When Bullogh (unwell at the time) attempted to rule Scargill as “out of order”, he was voted out by the area’s delegates and a strike was declared across Yorkshire on the issue.[6] Scargill saw this strike as a turning point in the union’s attitude to militancy.[7]

His major innovation was organizing “flying pickets” involving hundreds or thousands of committed strikers who could be bussed to critical strike points to shut down a target. He gained fame for using the tactic to win the Battle of Saltley Gate in 1972, and made it his main tactical device in the 1984 strike. By 1984 however the police were ready and neutralized the tactic with superior force.

In 1973, Scargill was elected to the full-time post of compensation agent in the Yorkshire NUM. (The Yorkshire Left had already decided to stand him as their candidate even before the strike.) Scargill won widespread applause for his response to the disaster at Lofthouse Colliery in Outwood, West Yorkshire, at which he accompanied the rescue teams underground and was on site for six days with the relatives of the ten deceased.[6] At the subsequent enquiry, he used notebooks of underground working from the 19th century, retrieved from the Institute of Geological Sciences in Leeds, to argue that the National Coal Board could have prevented the disaster had they acted on the information available.[6] This performance strengthened his popularity with the Yorkshire miners.[6][8]

A few months later the president of the Yorkshire NUM died unexpectedly, and Scargill won the election for his replacement, the two posts were then combined and he held them until 1981. During this time he earned the esteem of significant sections of the left and the British working class, who saw him as honest, hard-working and genuinely concerned with their welfare,[9] and he was also respected for improving the administration of the compensation agent’s post. In 1974, he was instrumental in organising the miners’ strike that led Edward Heath to call a February general election.

[...]

Scargill’s statements in the years after becoming NUM president divided left-wing opinion with his support of Soviet Communism, most notably when he refused to support the TUC’s positions on the Solidarity union in Poland or on the Soviet shooting of the Korean Air Lines Flight 007.[13] One branch of the NUM, at Amnesley in Nottinghamshire, put forward a vote of no confidence in Scargill in Autumn 1983 following his comments on these matters, but Scargill defeated this at a December meeting and won a vote of confidence instead.

It is suggested and with likelihood that his strikes, such as those on the coal mines during Thatcher years, could have been used by the Soviets and could have had disastrous consequences for national security had they not been countered by British security who were aware of underlying Soviet design.

Nevertheless, by recent talks of his - here, 1, 2, and 3 in favor of Brexit and against the European Union, its common market, etc, in which by contrast to neo-liberal interests, he goes so far as to argue against those who would depict as “racism” his and other’s objection to immigration, as it is clearly against the interests of native workers, it seems that it is not quite so easy to depict him as running contrary to native nationalism, let alone his means (left unionization) doing that - at least not at first blush. Forgive the newcomers to this issue. While he may well have an outmoded idea of the sort of work and unionization to be protected, his heart appears now to be in the right place and the concept of unionization seems indeed to prevail as the natural recourse for organizing the people against scabs, the traitors and the downright treacherous - yes, including the treacherous by means of imposing immigration against native nationals; i.e., the concept holds up despite the fact that it has been typically misrepresented, including through him, by geopolitical forces trying to put forth Jewish/Zionist internationalism on the one hand and neo-liberalism on the other - both converging at a prescription of liberalism for native European nationalists; and since both sides are controlled by Jews and right wing objectivists, neither side wants anything like the unionization, the syndicalism of left nationalism for native Europeans and White diaspora as it would threaten their interests.

The concern now, of course, is that he is being used again by forces of neo-liberalism to placate naive native workers with promises of a place in obsolete production and protectionism in order to allow the YKW, Zionists and their Russian and American proxies to control the international market and labor - particularly Asia, as its rising interests would have little common ground with Zionist, Jewish and right wing interests as expressed through the Russian Federation and the United States; but may have a great deal to gain by making common cause with Left ethnonationalism among Europe and her diaspora.

More Silk Road News:

But wouldn’t Asians traipsing among Europeans be looked upon as “scabs” in this concept, thus not having common interests and at risk to its adoption? Not if they’re also characterizable as an accountable union, as opposed to the unaccountable ruse of objectivism.

A peaceful day in Clock Town

As of 11 Apr 2017, the train is moving with 32 containers. Assuming that everything goes well, the train should arrive at Yiwu in 18 days.

There is of course a geostrategic element behind each of these developments as well.

As Xinhua wrote about a particular section of the initiative last year:

Xinhua, ‘First train from China to Iran stimulates Silk Road revival’, 16 Feb 2016 (emphasis added):

[...]

The train, also referred to as Silk Road train, has passed through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to Iran, travelling a distance of 10,399 kilometers. [...]

The travel of cargo train from China to Iran is part of a Chinese initiative to revive the ancient Silk Road used by the traders to commute between Europe and East Asia.

Tehran will not be the final destination of these kinds of trains from China, the Iranian deputy minister said, adding that in the future, the train will reach Europe.

This will benefit Iran as the transit course for the cargo trains from the east Asia to Europe, he said.

Chinese ambassador to Iran Pang Sen told Xinhua that as one of the cooperation projects after Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Iran, the cargo train is playing a important role to promote construction of the “Belt and Road” initiative.

And cargo trains reaching Europe is precisely what is happening.

It’s very nice.

But there’s a problem

The shadow cast over all of these kinds of proceedings, is that there is an ongoing background problem where the Trump administration and the Israelis are constantly trying to disrupt everything for their own reasons which revolve around Zionist strategic imperatives.

The phenomenon of Zionist strategic imperatives—such as the Zionist opposition to the Iran deal, or the Zionist desire to hand Syria over to Al-Qaeda—finding their expression through American foreign policy, is a phenomenon that is a real problem, and it is a problem that will have to be combated with more determination than ever if we are going to secure post-Brexit prosperity for Britain as well as economic growth in Asia.

Our time is limited. The American Zionist problem needs to be fixed before 2060, otherwise it might merge with the next migration problem and then something truly horrible and completely unmanageable will happen.

Do not become despondent. The situation is extremely dangerous, but as long as you understand the problem then it means there is a possibility that you can solve the problem. It is possible to defeat the American Zionist agenda. The tools do exist for accomplishing that, and they have always existed.

You have to believe in your strengths.

“We all want a country that is fairer so that everyone has the chance to succeed. We all want a nation that is safe and secure for our children and grandchildren. We all want to live in a truly Global Britain that gets out and builds relationships with old friends and new allies around the world.” — Rt Hon Theresa May MP

It’s happening

Today is really a day of vindication. Both the detractors on the Eurofederalist side, and the detractors on the disruptive Alt-Right ‘Big Europe’ Russophile side had said that this day would never come and that the United Kingdom would descend into either chaos on the one hand or compromise on the other. 

But to their manifest displeasure this day has indeed come.

The United Kingdom has formally given the EU notification that it intends to leave the bloc.

Sir Tim Barrow, UK ambassador to the EU, handed the written letter to European Council president Donald Tusk today.

The moment that the letter was accepted, the notification to leave was triggered.

The UK now has two years to negotiate an agreement with the 27 remaining EU countries over its future relationship with the bloc.

Theresa May told the House of Commons: “This is an historic moment from which there can be no turning back.”

She made the announcement as Article 50 was formally invoked when the letter Mrs May had signed was received by EU Council President Donald Tusk. She told MPs in the House of Commons this morning that she believes Britain’s “best days lie ahead”.

The Prime Minister said she would work for the “best possible deal” for Britain after Article 50 was formally triggered.

She added: “Now is the time for us to come together to be united across this House and across this country.”

A statement issued by the European Council said the talks would start by focusing on arrangements for an “orderly withdrawal” from the bloc.

The council, pledged to approach the talks constructively and hoped the UK would be a “close partner” after Brexit.

“We regret that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union, but we are ready for the process that we now will have to follow.

“Our first priority will be to minimise the uncertainty caused by the decision of the United Kingdom for our citizens, businesses and member states.”

Who will our key negotiators be?

Over the next two years the United Kingdom and the European Union will attempt to negotiate the details of a potential Brexit deal and shape the possible future of UK-European relations.

The main negotiators for the United Kingdom will be:

David Davis

Sir Tim ‘Deepstate’ Barrow

Oliver Robbins

Article 50 letter

These are the key sections of the Prime Minister’s letter which seem to warrant the most scrutiny:

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

As I have announced already, the Government will bring forward legislation that will repeal the Act of Parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – that gives effect to EU law in our country. This legislation will, wherever practical and appropriate, in effect convert the body of existing European Union law (the “acquis”) into UK law. This means there will be certainty for UK citizens and for anybody from the European Union who does business in the United Kingdom. The Government will consult on how we design and implement this legislation, and we will publish a White Paper tomorrow. We also intend to bring forward several other pieces of legislation that address specific issues relating to our departure from the European Union, also with a view to ensuring continuity and certainty, in particular for businesses. We will of course continue to fulfil our responsibilities as a member state while we remain a member of the European Union, and the legislation we propose will not come into effect until we leave.

This is what is called colloquially, ‘swallowing the medicine in one gulp’. The acquis communautaire will be repatriated in full into the United Kingdom in one step. After that, it will then be possible for the British parliamentary system to begin to repeal or amend whatever elements of the repatriated acquis communautaire that they feel the need to. It also allows for a smoother exit because the elements of the body of law that do not need to be altered, can be kept in place in the exact way that they are written.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

From the start and throughout the discussions, we will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK as we do so. When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.

 In that section, Theresa May is signalling that she intends to move the United Kingdom toward a more federal structure. This is particularly for maintaining stability, as it is known that there are both internal and external pressures that will be brought to bear to try to break up the United Kingdom in this time of both opportunity and vulnerability.

To avert that possibility, offering greater federalism to the four nations of the United Kingdom will enable the central government to neutralise the soft middle in Scotland and in Northern Ireland.

It also supplies a black-and-white text counter argument which can be waved in the face of outside news organisations, for example RT, who have since 2014 been trying to promote Scottish independence in the hopes that they can weaken London. Scottish independence is something that will never be allowed to succeed.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek.

This is a key difference between her strategy and the strategy that had previously been taken by David Cameron. 

Cameron had made the crucial mistake of signalling that he wanted some kind of deal no matter what, and this emboldened the continental European negotiators on the other side of the table.

Theresa May is making no such mistake. Her statement plays game theory correctly. Theresa May is signalling here that while she would not want to leave the negotiations without a deal, she is actually willing to do so. 

In fact, this, coupled with the last few months of ‘hard Brexit’ media coverage and her statements to the media which reinforced this, place her in a perfect position. The fact that very little is publicly known about what goes on in the inner space of her thoughts also makes it more difficult for continental European negotiators to know how to approach her. She is ‘difficult’, as all students of Geography are, and that is a good thing.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

Since I became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have listened carefully to you, to my fellow EU Heads of Government and the Presidents of the European Commission and Parliament. That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”.

The United Kingdom is maintaining that it will not seek membership of the European single market, because to do so would be to accept ‘freedom of movement’, which the precise thing that Brexit is being initated to escape from.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.

The mention of ‘third countries around the world’ appears in the letter, and is a reference to what Theresa May called ‘the fastest growing export markets’, in her House of Commons statement.

House of Commons statement

The most salient elements of Theresa May’s House of Commons statement I would submit are the following:

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s Commons statement on triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

Because European leaders have said many times that we cannot ‘cherry pick’ and remain members of the single market without accepting the 4 freedoms that are indivisible. We respect that position. And as accepting those freedoms is incompatible with the democratically expressed will of the British people, we will no longer be members of the single market.

We are going to make sure that we can strike trade agreements with countries from outside the European Union too. Because important though our trade with the EU is and will remain, it is clear that the UK needs to increase significantly its trade with the fastest growing export markets in the world.

The ‘fastest growing export markets in the world’ are ASEAN+3 and SAARC in Asia, and the Pacific Alliance in Central and South America.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s Commons statement on triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interests of all our citizens.

With Europe’s security more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War, weakening our cooperation and failing to stand up for European values would be a costly mistake.

This is a prelude of things to come. It means that what Theresa May is doing is flipping the script on the continental Europeans. Any hesitancy on their part to reach agreement during the economic element of the negotiations will be cast by the United Kingdom as “the European Union backsliding and regressing into protectionism.” It’s a good way to approach it, and it will be infuriating to the continental Europeans. Extra infuriation can be added by comparing the continental Europeans unfavourably to any of the non-European countries which the United Kingdom will also be trying to negotiate trade deals with.

That kind of talking point would take the form of “This other random country here is so eager to uphold the liberal free trade order which has prevailed since the mid-1970s, why aren’t you as agreeable as they are? Just do what we want you to do!”

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s Commons statement on triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

We all want to see a Britain that is stronger than it is today. We all want a country that is fairer so that everyone has the chance to succeed. We all want a nation that is safe and secure for our children and grandchildren. We all want to live in a truly Global Britain that gets out and builds relationships with old friends and new allies around the world.

These are the ambitions of this government’s Plan for Britain. Ambitions that unite us, so that we are no longer defined by the vote we cast, but by our determination to make a success of the result.

We are one great union of people and nations with a proud history and a bright future. And now that the decision to leave has been made – and the process is underway – it is time to come together. For this great national moment needs a great national effort. An effort to shape a stronger future for Britain.

So let us do so together. Let us come together and work together. Let us together choose to believe in Britain with optimism and hope. For if we do, we can make the most of the opportunities ahead. We can together make a success of this moment. And we can together build a stronger, fairer, better Britain – a Britain our children and grandchildren are proud to call home.

I commend this statement to the House.

We’ve all been waiting for this moment for so long. Theresa May has always been by our side.

She’ll make it come true, like she always does.