Majorityrights Central > Category: The American right

My advice is to treat everything you have learned in higher education exactly as you treat everything you have learned from Christian teaching, excepting only that, knowing of it, one might investigate the damage that it has visited upon the life of our race.  It is useful to analysis.  But do not seek to re-interpret and apply any part of it creatively to the European existential question.  The philosophy of our peoples’ life has not yet been written. - Guessedworker

My learning comes not from what was then called “The Tower Library” when I first came there, renamed the W.E.B. Dubois Library after the Mulatto Marxist, at the demand of liberally protesting students, which included classmates of mine (I rather wound up hoping that the library would tip over and fall onto our department’s Machmer hall which was right near the library to one side below).

In this bit of recent “advice” from GW, I find some exoneration for the vitriol and rebuke that I’ve visited upon him - starting when some tipping point was reached in his dismissiveness. I already had strong reason to believe that politeness and respect would not work to stop him from trying to minimize, misrepresent, dismiss and bury what I’ve brought to bear. But that statement confirms it for me.

And with it, that there are total inaccuracies in his concept of where what I’ve learned comes from. Inaccuracies that suit the stereotyping of his autobiography.

I have called attention to a feature of GW’s autobiography - the non-academic David who is going to singularly slay the entirety of the academic Goliath, preparing the ground for his foundational and comprehensive world view of the requirements of European peoples - an utterly grandiose aspect of his autobiography that was formed in reaction to YKW academic abuses of social organization and advocacy.

As I have explained, I am very sympathetic to this and, in fact, returned to graduate school for the purpose of defending White men in response - my thinking at the time, that it would be from an approach of scientific foundation - the very word “pragmatism” was repulsive to me and it took Pearce’s calm and sympathetic advice that I did not like mere pragmatism, to calm me down. He added, that we are pragmatists because we have to be. If you follow the pragmatist line of reasoning to its conclusion, even our ideals and our pursuit of our depths are pragmatic - though it is not my purpose to defend the pragmatists but rather to illustrate where I was coming from and how I was helped around. I believe Pearce’s teaching would hold that pragmatism, literally, would be short on prefigurative force, if not contextual or implicative force, where perhaps it should not be over emphasizing practical force, practically speaking.

To negotiate the post modern condition, he and his colleagues, along with grad students, would focus on the need to manage coherence, coordination and mystery. Coordination would be the feature that would require a more basic, universal language to negotiate.

GW said that I made the wrong choice to not follow up foundational science. GW is wrong. While it is good and necessary for some of our people to study cognitive science, that is not what our advocacy and its philosophical underpinnings most require at this point - we’re under attack psychologically, yes, but our concerns are deeper than that, we need more of a social perspective to look at the deepest problems, as we are under attack as a species, group system, a race - largely a matter of social classification as Pearce would show:

W. Barnett Pearce

Sexists, racists, and other classes of classifiers: Form and function of “...Ist” accusations

by Julia T. Wood and W. Barnett Pearce

An “. . . ist” accusation indicts an individual as a racist, sexist, or other “. . . ist” whose thoughts and/or acts discriminate on the basis of class membership. The self‐reflexively paradoxical structure of “. . . ist” accusations precludes refutation, but response is possible. Pragmatic and moral implications of alternative responses to “. . . ist” accusations are evaluated.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, Volume 66, 1980 - Issue 3. Brief provided by Taylor & Francis Online

In late 1989, I wrote to W. Barnett Pearce to discuss his work and how it might resolve problems that I was struggling with. Noting my struggles with accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ - and having compassion! - he sent me this article, so on target and deft in the manner which it handled my concerns, that it demonstrated unequivocally that his was a discipline that I needed to be apprised of. Indeed, this article provided two of the most important clues for my WN advocacy. The first being that ‘race’ is (in an important regard) a matter of classification - at very least being treated as such by people who mattered, particularly by our foes, but also by our people, where they know what is good and necessary for them. Secondly, as the blurb above hints at, our antagonists can always shift its paradoxical structure to their anti-White agenda:

Viz., if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate based on race, sex, etc., I judge everyone on their individual merit”, then they can charge you with being disingenuous, willfully ignoring “the long history of discrimination, oppression and exploitation of these groups.”  But then, on the other hand, if you take the measure of saying, “ok, lets take that into account and use, say, affirmative action to help these groups into positions in which they are under-represented”, then you are classifying and discriminating thereupon, hence a racist by definition.

Along with that article, Pearce sent me another one regarding The Problematic Practices of Feminism: An Interpretive Critical Analysis, Communications Quarterly, 1984, with Sharon M. Rossi - which I found ironic, that being the exact name (same year as well) of the girlfriend of mine who drove me to psychic melt-down.

Anyway, the (very helpful) gist of that article, which I’ve noted several times before, is that within the context of liberal feminism, even a well intentioned man can always be put into the wrong:

You can always be treated as either a wimp or a pig, no matter what you do as a man.

If you try to treat her with deference, gentleness, help and respect, then you can be looked upon as a wimp and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her strength, agency and autonomy.

On the other hand, if you treat her as one of the boys, respecting her toughness and autonomy, then you can be looked upon as a pig, a male chauvinist pig, not respecting the special quality of her gender, but rather a male chauvinist pig, projecting the hegemony of your patriarchical world view over all and everyone.

* Note: while Pearce had compassion on me for what he might deem as unfair overcompensation on behalf of people of color, neither he nor his colleagues should be construed as “racists” nor endorsing my political activism and philosophical positions across the board - that would absolutely not be true.

And part of the problem of GW’s mis-assessement also stems from a STEM mentality, a predilection that he shares with Bowery, a predilection that essentially wishes that engineering, science and philosophy were practically the same endeavors. Not so much need for the “ought” corrections of the social world, we primarily need to find and describe what is, single out and fix any broken link. Compounding problems of STEM type predilections, is the head start this perspective has had through the internet, a STEM created medium to begin, amplifying this perspective (already amplified, as it tends to pay in the market, while social concern, not necessarily).

But it’s worse than that in terms of any concern for holistic philosophy and advocacy.

GW’s situation both as an ensconced Englishman and boomer who derived some benefit - economic and the satisfaction of free enterprise - from the other side of the controlled opposition from cultural Marxism - viz. some sort of “objectivism” - contributes to a confirmation bias that independent success of individuals and nations is basically a matter of freedom from all that superfluous and unnatural social advocacy stuff - which from his perspective on Jewish laden academia, is seen as possibly serving only liberalism and misdirecting notions of choice, where English emergence is the only legitimate default.

And it is worse still than that in terms of holistic, systemic philosophy in advocacy of our homeostasis, its recovery.

My learning comes not from visiting lecturers to the campus, Cornell West and the S.P.L.C.‘s Morris Dees - who spoke of his case to bankrupt Metzger for “vicarious liability” ..lectures brought on by the university to quell racial tensions being raised by I can’t imagine the likes of whom.

The luxury (compared to American Whites) of being able to say with stronger conviction, “here in my ancient homeland, with my people”, has afforded more confidence to double down on his STEM predilection and patch up a modernist, “natural” reaction (Modernity is also largely STEM in origin) to abuses of post modernism - and, he has received support in this reaction from other groups in reaction, groups that I’ve ousted from this platform and who, therefore, seek to bury the world view that I advance.

This has given GW more confidence than he should have in a modernist philosophy and a wildly inaccurate and disrespectful disposition toward what I bring to bear. Spontaneous reactions were brought out in me - in moments when I finally could not believe that he would stop trying to mute, minimize if not dismiss what I was bringing to bear.

Disconcerting though my spontaneous eruptions may have been to a tipping point in the level of utter disrespect for what I’d brought to bear by the very host of the site, I’ve taken solace in the fact that I was asked to take the site in a direction that I saw fit. I had and still have confidence that is fine for several reasons.

Through experience, I’ve come up with a philosophical framework to form the basis of advocacy for European peoples in coordination with other peoples and natural systems.

A major feature of my platform which gives me confidence is that it holds up and makes sense consistently of what is going on.

Despite that, another aspect that gives me confidence in my position is the fact that the notion of “correctability” - i.e., Praxis takes us into engagement with the input of others, where it is not only welcome - it is a built in requirement (particularly where it mirrors good will toward our group interests). This is “my ownmost innocence”, to turn Heidegger on his head for a moment.

Some people will try to say that because this platform rejects, for the most part, Christianity, Nazism, Jewish input, scientism (a susceptibility not only of modernists, but also neo trad types - incl. women who see beta males everywhere and see them as dead wood who need to be killed off) and wild conspiracy theories, that I am not open to input. That’s not true. These positions are rejected for what should be obvious reasons for those interested in fostering the interests of European peoples. And they have other places to go, whereas a WN platform that rejects these things exists only at Majorityrights.

My learning comes not from W.E.B. Dubois’s mulatto supremacism, which proposed that an African American “feminine man” who, in joining with the more “masculine” Teutonic would produce a common human/American civilization by a racial division of labor.”

But what many of those adhering to these world views have in common and have in common with GW, I believe, is that they are reacting to Jewish abuse - academia being the generating house of misrepresentations, gross distortions in theory of social organization and advocacy, which has become more and more blatantly anti-White social advocacy (it was blatant even thirty years ago).

I have called attention to GW’s autobiography, a significant part of which was formed in reaction to YKW academic abuses of social organization and advocacy.

I understand his reaction, as I have said, I went back to academia with the intent of pursuing a graduate career in defense of White men, not for any mere practical reason, but on the basis of foundational science.

GW said that I made the wrong choice to not follow up foundational science, and GW is wrong. While it is good and necessary for some of our people to study cognitive science, that is not what our advocacy and its philosophical underpinnings most require at this point - we are under attack psychologically, yes, but our concerns are deeper than that, we need more of a social perspective to look at the deepest problems, because we are under attack as a species, a group system, a race.

Now let me revisiit GW’s statment:

My advice is to treat everything you have learned in higher education exactly as you treat everything you have learned from Christian teaching, excepting only that, knowing of it, one might investigate the damage that it has visited upon the life of our race.  It is useful to analysis.  But do not seek to re-interpret and apply any part of it creatively to the European existential question. The philosophy of our peoples’ life has not yet been written.

While I can’t presume that his misrepresentation of where my knowledge comes from doesn’t come from the bad will of his business competitor world-view and/or the other antagonistic world views that spur him on, lets give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment and presume it is sheer misunderstanding - I will clear away the inaccuracies in his concept of where what I’ve learned comes from.

I spent the first three decades of my life learning from experience what it was like to be antagonized as a White man, without the backing of a particular group, not Italian, not Polish and certainly not as an English man in England. What I’m saying is that my racial circumstance was even more radical in its existential circumstance and requirement - the absolute need to understand what is requisite.

...

My undergraduate major was Fine Art, so even though my academic requirements at Tufts were comparatively minimal, happily for me, since that’s all that I could cope with, what Jewish influence there would not be heavily enmeshed in by me - again, because I could not process the liberalism that was only gaining in America at that time - given only ostensible reprieve by Reagan’s (((paleoconservatism))) - my response to liberalism and its advocacy in that moment was to take on a semblance of identity politics in Theory of Soviet Foreign Policy with an adviser to President Reagan (viz., with a non-Jewish expert on Soviet / Polish relations; true, the texts were (((Adam Ulam and Dimitri Simes))) but what was I going to do with this information anyway?); I took religion courses for my social requirements, trying to practice pure Christianity, but fortunately these courses planted the seeds that the bible might not exactly be the word of god, but the work of many all too human hands, and it was a phase that I would totally throw off once the stress of university was over.

Christianity had been the basic recourse that my family had shown me in response to liberalism (though it was not discussed, just go to church and Sunday school and shut up).

With the pain of the utter communicological confusion of my family and of that society, art, including the beauty of White women, was my first recourse in terms of sustaining motivation. Then when I realized in my undergraduate career that that was not going to be sufficient for a man trying to cope with the liberal world, I fell back on Christian religion to cope with my undergraduate academic years. I got through while embarrassing myself trying to defend that stupid religion against people with vastly superior resources to me. But to give myself credit, I did learn that it was not THE moral order and I moved on.

A major lesson I learned from academia was what a burden it was to be told what I was required to read. Once I graduated, it was a great moment of liberation - I not only had a key to learning, through erudition, but now I could read what I wanted and needed.

And I would later learn that without the solid guidance that a scholar can provide, that there could be a lot of wasted time reading material that was off the mark of what would be most incisively helpful.

So my field of inquiry and learning moved inefficiently from art, to religion and… the first subject matter that I started reading outside of university on my own was, of course, psychology. Carl Jung was first. Then some Jews, yes, Freud and Gestalt (Fritz Perls), Rollo May, most of it not very helpful but at least suggesting that there could be some empirical anchoring, means to self advocacy and guidance.

Then a truer learning experience as I read along these things at work, my first girlfriend, who would fly off the handle screaming at the suggestion that maybe she didn’t need to scream at me, that I was a nice guy, willing to work things out, despite the fact that I had a family that screamed at me (among other communicological pathologies), so I didn’t need more of it.

This caused me to see a psychologist as Sharon was a bitch (by her own admission and words) who was going to help inspire me by destroying my mind. In fact, when she sensed that I would be quite content to break up with her, she reappeared at my desk with hands clasped in a plea that I not break up with her - so she could really lower the boom and finish my mind off, so I would find.

I needed the psychologist very badly in order to try to keep it together.

During these few years in the mid 80’s, I gleaned a little something from Heidegger and took his advice, as I’d said, to put my perspective into a historical time line and this was when I began my critical revision of the Maslowian Hierarchy, seeing the significance of the hippies in relation to feminism, Maslow’s story of Actualization and its negative implication of modernity and the systemic runaway of the American project - a rupturing of the first and most essentially human perspective, social systemic homeostasis; and how this (((American story))) of ‘being all you could be in individual human potential in the land of opportunity’ was opposed to Aristotelian Actualization and its emphasis on optimality and human nature, to be augmented with a post modern furthering of his emphasis on the difference of praxis (social world) and its requirements in circulating inquiry of phronesis (practical judgment).

I’m getting a little ahead of myself.

READ MORE...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over valuation of objectivity and its attendant rational blindness.

Stefan Molyneux@StefanMolyneux: If you promote multiculturalism

Without promoting objective rationality

You set the stage

For civil war

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

@StefanMolyneux Replying to @MatthewParrott @contrastatist: Hahaha

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations for the Sacred…

What responsibilities merit consecration in a new religion for European peoples?

While we can maintain unflinchingly that religions are formed between people and not from divine revelation, it is clear that we need a religion in the sense of the semi-transcendent capacity to connect with the patterns of our time in memorial and systemic excellence as a people, in genus and species, with reverence in episodic enactments to help lift us to that realm, beyond demoralization, the uninspiring defectiveness of a large percentage of our people, and the clear imperfection of even those who are excellent, on balance; to guide the relative interests of our people and our patterns as its specific and primary concern, as opposed to the rational blindness of maintained objectivism’s disinterest, the naivete and narcissism of its sheer modernist universalizing, oblivious to the intransigence with which other peoples will thereby take advantage of us, abiding by their traditions and inherited ways, looking after theirs and claiming the moral high ground, connection to sacrament, the means to handle sex and marriage “justly”, while flouting the demoralizing upshot of our secularized modernist fall-out - where not seduced and wrecked by modernity themselves. The question then arises what forms and ways are our responsibility to treat religiously?

While the YKW’s media control goes back (J.B.) much further than the days of broadcast media but has in fact tyrannized the west with threats of hell and damnation, claiming with that their mono god as provider of THE moral order, the truth is that there are other moral orders, better, more appropriate moral orders (if you can call Christianity moral, which I would not) for Whites and that moral orders among people are unavoidable at least in some rudimentary form - there will always be some acts that are Prohibited, some that are Obligatory and some that are Legitimate. Better that they be explicit and deliberate, while not so elaborate as to inhibit the authentic human freedom that they should facilitate.

We may be assured that Hermeneutics is the very European vehicle which lifts us above the arbitrary and contradictory of what is merely apparent in the empirical realm in momentary and episodic evaluation, facilitating the liberation from mere facticity, allowing us to be free from the tangled, contradictory, overly limiting or runaway logics, freeing us of no-account scientism, brute might-makes-right arguments among other such nonsense, while indeed facilitating the return to empirical verification as need be - thus, also freeing us from speculative nonsense which is of no account to the union of our people. It is the means to bring us back from Cartesian detachment and estrangement - whether held to be beyond nature or in natural fallacy below human nature - but rather into the authentic being, heeding the anti-Cartesian prompt to re-engagement and holding fast, Dasein (there-being) and MidtDasein (there-being amidst your people).

And in hermeneutics we might engage the wisdom of the language, its etymology in a couple of key instances.

Our systemic dissolution as a distinct people is a result of liberalism, whether induced from our own or imposed upon us more forcibly.

Here a play on the word deliberate works nicely in two senses. In the “de” of de-liberate, we are freeing ourselves from the unaccountability of liberal transgression by its arbitrary pseudo objectivity; and secondly we are deliberately, that is, by at least a modicum of asserted prerogative, deliberately choosing loyalty, taking advantage of the consolation of agency, but holding fast to the belief in our emergent form(s) (as GW would rightly insist), given that there is the possibility of our liberal transgression, specifically, our capacity to breed out with other races. In acknowledging consciously, with our brethren, where the important lines of unionization are to be drawn and not transgressed for pain of ostracism, we are social constructionists, if even only as to how the facts of our differences count (e.g. important to the point of sacred), but thereby facilitate not only agency and accountability, but personal and group coherence, warrant, human and pervasive ecology.

As we must take the White post modern turn away from universalism and scientism, we avail ourselves of our hemeneutic facility, to dwell on the profundity of our emergent forms as GW and Heidegger wisely insist; and to liberate us from the inauthenticity, arbitrariness and confusion of mere facticity, into the authenticity of coherence, which, again, provides for accountability, agency, warrant, human and pervasive ecology.

And we focus on a second word, re-invoking the etymology of religion, it’s implications, the “ligaments”, i.e., rules which re-attach our people to our realm, our union, through accountability.

...an accountability to our social capital accrued and passed on through vast history and struggle.

...a social accountability and indebtedness for their abilities that liberals/right wingers want to make short shrift of in the narrow warrant of pseudo-objectivity, in the desire to believe that they are as singularly responsible for their success as conceivable…inspired in hubris to disingenuously see their good fortune in more and more Cartesian detachment from social interaction, indebtedness, construction, or naively accepting this detachment from social accountability through fatuous claims by their moral overlords of a personal relation to god that would sanction needless destruction, or “liberating” authority of “natural” law so primitive and arbitrary that it is fit only for a creature headed for rapid and deserved extinction.

And whether through hubris or reaction (often in anxious, white knuckle grasping for purely objective, unassailable warrant against vast YKW rhetorical abuse in their interests in the relative realms of praxis) as you continually detach as a first person, from second persons and more and more from you identity in the third person, going either Cartesian route, whether beyond nature in supposed communion with god and principled disinterest in human purpose, or in brute law of nature, again, to the point of disinterest in human relational concern, you become susceptible in your naivete, or disingenuous hubris, to machinations of YKW weaponization.

Thus it has come to us that we must overcome the estrangement and deliberately look into this re-attachment, the religiosity, a religious attitude toward our people, our relative interests and relative place in the world and its people - the means to coordinate with it and them while fostering ours. We deliberately pursue warranted assertability of our people’s relative interests as opposed to leaving it to the happenstance of universal objectivity - with that foolery, to the deliberate machinations and ruin by others, not so universally inclined of good will and common interest despite what their “god” might say.

Nevertheless, there will always be acts which are Prohibited, Obligatory and Legitimate; the question is, though, how do we elevate these rules to a structuring beyond the arbitrary, in protection of our pattern from the disingenuous and the naive, who would divert and rupture the relative interests of our social systemic homeostasis, our union, The White Class?

Perhaps it does begin with attention to the episode, specifically, episodes that are vital to our pattern. It is particularly important to elevate the vital moment and episode to a level of our relationships and cultural pattern in reverence for what is not always immediately apparent, as we are a people whose excellence tends to be more sublimated and subtly manifest in societal pattern - a B2 Stealth Bomber and ensuing explosions while manifesting power indeed, do not necessarily have the personal immediacy of a slam dunk or end zone dance, Jim Hendrix, Sly and the Family Stone or Thelonius Monk wailing on their instruments, the momentary istantiation of black bio-power or the tropism of high contrast taboo; the sometimes flush of beauty in other races’ or mixed race women which can have our dissuasion appear as jealousy to the young and inexperienced, rather than what it more fundamentally is - a respect for our pattern and its distinctly human kind of magnificence.

What responsibilities merit consecration in a new religion for European peoples? Nominations for the Sacred:

These issues can be nominated for vital constituents of a new religion for White people.

- The Borders and bounds of an ethnonation/people
- Ancestor Day, reverence of the ancestors.
- Sex/monogamy (as a choice which is a necessary option for group homeostasis and morale)
- The 14 Words
- Human ecology, pervasive ecology
- Our distinct kinds (genus and species).
- The optimal over the maximal; viz. the optimal sublimation of European manhood.

Reverence for these observed, ceremonial, commemorated responsibilities can tap into the hermeneutic (narrative) capacity to take the mere moment and episode to semi-transcendence to the pattern - while anybody can be said to be amazing for the fact that they manifest survival through evolution to this point, invocation of semi-transcendence is a necessity given the fact that most of our people are less than great relatively speaking and those who are better than average, are imperfect; therefore, we need semi transcendence to tap into the pattern to lift us beyond pessimism and cynicism - to tap into the broad relational, systemic, time in memorial pattern, seeing it into the future.

While it is my hope that commentators might contribute to the list of vital constituents for proposed consecration in service of European social systemic homeostasis, I realize that not endorsing Hitler, Jesus and Jews has made Majorityrights and myself outcasts of the establishment, therefore the naturally participatory and supportive will find themselves in uncomfortable circumstance.

For now, I’m going to round-out this post by cutting and pasting below the fold my remarks on MJOLNIR as it discussed the Notre Dame burning, its having brought these issues into relief…

READ MORE...

From Age of Treason Blogspot:

“The Tautology of Jewing”

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

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

....

And from Majorityrights:

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

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

DanielS:

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

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

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

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

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

Related at Majority rights: Hitler/Nazim were Not White Nationalist. Part 1 now on line

A Public Service Announcement:

Instrumental Nazi propaganda has been disproved in several places, but I make an emergency post because the terribly misleading film, “The Greatest Story Never Told”, is* headlining on the White Right Hub. (Update: It’s been taken down by its proprietors - thank you).

In addition to the bald faced lie, straight out Nazi propaganda of 58,000 German civilians being killed by Poles to instigate WWII…

The film, “The Greatest Story Never Told”, also misrepresents the Bromberg incident, which happened three days after the Nazi invasion, as if it was a precipitating event - “bloody Sunday” Goebbes called it for propaganda value. It happened when the retreating Polish army had intel that civilian fifth column activity was occurring in Bromberg, and in the panic and rage of the retreat they were sniped as they passed through Bromberg. At that point - with the intel that there was fifth column activity of Nazi partisans there - the Polish army rounded up suspects and executed them on emergency grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1939)

Whether the Polish army executed innocent people or not, it was under extreme circumstance and there was serious Nazi partisan activity being undertaken by the “civilian” population in the area. And very importantly, the Nazis more than made up for it - exponentially - in the number of Poles executed and the destruction of Polish civilian population and property.

WN (including White Right Hub) need to reconsider promoting this film, “The Greatest Story Never Told” - it is highly inaccurate and not conducive to the White Nationalist cooperation that is so important to our survival.

In service of that, it is useful to observe the even less ambiguous matter, the whole cloth lie that it promotes of “58,000 German civilians” having supposedly been murdered by Poles interwar. This propaganda was not remotely true, a lie promoted by Goebbels propaganda machine to “justify” the war.

Ethnonationalism is the most reasonable means by which to pursue accountability and responsible negotiation of human and pervasive ecology - justice and decency, in a word. These audios discuss major sources disrupting ethnonationalism along with means to reconstruct it as it is necessary to structure social systemic homeostasis and coordination with other nations and cultures.

The Audio/Visual Files are now Found on Bithute

            Part 1 Audio                  Part 2a Audio                  Part 2b Audio

                      Part 2c Audio                                Part 2d Audio

      Part 3a Audio          Part 3b Audio        Part 4a Audio  Part 4b Audio

The Audio/Visual Files are now Found on Bithute

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

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

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

........

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 2b audio, a significant chunk of information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.......

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

Clerk Maxwell’s Demons and Jewish Crypsis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Niches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...