Majorityrights Central > Category: Linguistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heidegger adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

        ...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...

You are entering the Twilight Zone of a Blackpool Carnival.

You realize that part of its nightmare is that you could go on indefinitely with this metaphor. There is too much to say -

Its right-wing organizers, their Jewish cohorts behind the scenes and the workers who attend want to maintain the clichés and stereotypes that they have placed as wooden-ducks on the shooting gallery conveyor belts. The Right and Jewish interests want the public to fire at these carefully crafted targets in ostensible justification of their position, which at the same time directs heat away from them and misdirects their potential antagonists. The workers want to maintain these received clichés and stereotypes also because these targets have been carefully crafted to flatter their self esteem and make them feel like sophisticated people for picking them off…

  ...“Diversity,” Blam!  ... “Multiculturalism,” Blam!  ...“The Left,” Blam!  ...“Social Justice Warriors,” Blam!  ...“Equality,” Blam!

The workers further value the cliche and stereotype duck targets as they are rewarded for shooting at them according to kind and gradient of difficulty. Starting with easier targets, they may win a pink clad Lauren Southern Doll for a girlfriend and applause instigated for that from the right wing barkers. Moving on in difficulty, perhaps a Carnival Master Barker Richard Spencer bobble-head; better still, a large stuffed animal with Carnival Patron William Regnery‘s name emblazoned upon it; perhaps a book from his catalogue or a subscription to National Review. The prizes get better with each passing duck ....here they come…..

..“Racist” Blam! You fire, “A code world for anti-White!” You’re down with the White GenNOcide Project. And now Regnery and Spencer take note, you are in line to try for bigger rewards, perhaps celebrity or even an alt-right podcast!

A podcast especially if you hit the next duck….

“Anti-Semite” Blam! You fire, “Jews are behind many conspiracies, but seem pretty White to me and some of my best friends are Jews; fine paleocons who promote Judeo-Christianity.” 

Well done! You can be a regular part of the carnival operation now. A column and regular speaking engagements at conferences and in podcasts with fellow alt-righters is in order having hit that duck. (((The White GeNocide Project))) loves you.

...“Nazi” Blam! You fire, “We were on the wrong side in WWII.” Spencer and Regnery quietly take you aside to a private room, noting your talent as a maverick and Germanophile, with the nerve to take on hard targets, they will tell you, “look, we understand, but you have to cool it for now, most people won’t understand.” Regnery introduces you to his Jewish friends, Paul Gottriend and Gilad Atzmon, who are also sympathetic to Germany and it’s over-zealous persecution. Where not so easily placated by their paleoconservative and liberal alternative respectively, they speed up the ducks and make the targets harder ....next ...

....“Holocaust,” Blam! You answer, “Never happened.” Special note is taken of your potential for stellar initiative. Your talent observed such that you may be taken upstairs and introduced to Horus the Avenger and Dr. Duke; who also tell you, “we understand, but cool it, most others just won’t understand”; nevertheless their ilk can show you how to be a true right wing sociopath, how to run your own franchise dealership, shooting gallery, whatever - you are the Schmittian exception now; you might even sell-out your people in ultimate complicitness with the very Jews that you decry daily.

- They point to TRS, champion dealership now. See?  Even if you are Jewish, no problem, you can go crypto  ...at Alt-Right too. You can also be a semi-open or fully open Jew at Alternative Right, at Stark Radio, throughout the Alt Lite*. Be a celebrity in the Alt Right!

Now, this metaphor of the Blackpool duck shooting gallery may not be appreciated in the sense that it is the kind of metaphor that you’d hear from creepy Red Leftists mocking ordinary people having good-natured, even if low-brow fun.

But the point of going through this metaphor is to illustrate that there is both pressure and reinforcement from a large cultural milieu to be faithful in representation of most of the clichéd and stereotyped ducks offered up as opposition by the alt-right (which is purported guardian of White interests) and encouraged, in fact, usually coined as such by the YKW.

READ MORE...

Regarding your people’s history and future, the (((choice))) you get with U.S. politics is no choice.

The White Left has NOT issued its first, or any fatwa, as Nick Cohen asserts, but what The SPLC has done is tantamount to aiding and abetting one.

One may argue that Nick Cohen is as confused as his audience about the terms “left” and “liberal”, but it is not likely that someone with the name Cohen and entrusted to a prominent writing position at The Spectator is trying to be careful about clearly describing a platform to serve the full class of White interests - i.e., a White Left, not to be confused with liberalism, a confusion of terms promoted by his fellow tribesmen, and by which they’ve been able to confuse the public for decades now.

In fact, he does indulge in a new twist. Whether he fancies himself as being descriptive of White liberals (in his view, Jews, such as Mark Potok of the SPLC, would be included as White) or he has some idea of the power of our burgeoning White Left platform, and therefore seeks to confuse it pre-emptively, he is attributing to the term “White left” logics of meaning and action which do not follow from our platform of White Left Nationalism - The White Class.

Indeed, I had discussed the case of Maajid Nawaz with Kumiko, who had explained to me the irony of The SPLC placing this man on their “hate list.”

While I am against making the distinction between “radical and moderate” Islam, as I recognize all of Islam to be harboring and wielding our destruction, whether most active in a present episode or not, I would not go so far as to put at risk to a fatwa a man who has, in fact, come to denounce the more violent and destructive expressions of Islam and is trying to encourage other Muslims to take advantage of more healthy, moderate and liberal life possibilities.

Kumiko showed me this video of a speaking engagement of Nawaz’s, where he describes his project. She and I agree that Nawaz is a bit off in his recommendations - we would ultimately prefer a full denunciation of Islam in favor of Left Nationalism for his people, but also agree that such sudden prescription is both unrealistic and would be even more dangerous to him; as would our taking his side, in defense of him against the SPLC. Kumiko figured that we would not help him, that we would contextualize him in a way that exposes him more to Muslim violence by associating him with platforms (such as this) of White advocacy; while making an association here would also expose him to further Jewish vitriol, such as The SPLC placing him on their “hate list.”

Nevertheless, we think, “of all the Muslims to put on their hate list!” ?

The last straw for me though, making it a bad option to keep silent, was this Cohen guy trying to say that “The White Left” has issued a “fatwa” on Maajid Nawaz, when in fact it is The SPLC that is putting him at that risk, with a clear signal to more radical Muslims - “have a go at him, we wash our hands of defending him in his attempt to moderate Islam.”

Now then, for a look at the article which attempts to blame something which Cohen calls “the white left” for this.

The Spectator, “The white left has issued its first fatwa”, by Nick Cohen, 31 Oct 2016:

Maajid Nawaz

[Cohen]: I have never advised anyone to use the English libel laws. I spent years helping the campaign to reform them, and am proud of the liberalisation I and many, many others helped bring. I have to admit, though, our achievement was modest.

...and hypocritical, as now you misappropriate the term and in fact libel what would be a proper articulation of The White Left, if the term were disentangled from decades of Jewish journalese confusing “left and liberal;” and understood properly by contrast - by the public, and somehow by copyright law.

Ibid: Libel in England remains sinister in intent – the defendant has to prove he or she was telling the truth – and oppressive in practice. Parliament and the asinine Leveson inquiry into the press failed to tackle the horrendous costs, and kept libel as the preserve of the rich and the reckless. You can risk spending £1 million before a case comes to court. Despite reform, libel courts remain the place oligarchs and charlatans go to suppress the truth.

Well, I will not initiate a case against the sinister intent of Jewish media, even though I believe it is their sinister intent to prevent White (as in not Jewish) people from organizing, unionizing in their exclusive defense - a defense of those Whites who are relatively innocent, who are not right wing supremacists, but are rather characteristically cooperative, non-coercive separatists: White Left ethnonationalists -  that there is by contrast an antagonism, a persistent, sinister intent on the part of (((media, academia and other niches))) to confuse the term “left” with “liberal” when it applies to Whites and a would-be “White Left” in order to keep them from defending themselves against the genocide that is being launched against them by Jewish and neo-liberal interests: by means of open immigration of exploding non-White populations, “anti-racism” (i.e., prohibition of White discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic groups, even in national interest), ubiquitous promotion of race-mixing, endless propaganda of Whites as evil, advancing non-White interests with and against the concept of “White privilege” applied across the board, to all Whites, as something to be “legally corrected” ...their right to abstain from forced contract and imposition undone - a feudal differentiation of laws which disadvantage White organized defense; compelling their mere servitude, their ultimate extinction enforced at the behest the YKW and neo-liberal PTB.

Not only would Cohen libel the term, “White Left,” saying “it has issued a fatwa” but he’s libeled The White Left also by associating it with neo-liberalism and the SPLC in its nefarious irresponsibility to put further at risk a man who is risking his safety to try to encourage more reasonable ways for Muslims.

The White Left is issuing no such fatwa against this man, and rather believes that his heart is in the right place, even if still a bit misguided.

Ibid: Last night, however, I found myself advising the anti-fascist campaigner Maajid Nawaz to sue in the London courts.  I even gave him the names of lawyers who would be happy to help. The attack he is facing is so grotesque, ferocious remedies seem the only response.

It is not “fascism” that he is campaigning against inasmuch as he is articulate - it is the right-wing feudalism of Islam and its (terroristic, if need be) imposition of imam compradores, radical shock troops and the feudal Muslim way of life against what would have been Left ethnoationlaist nations; if not for the destructive imposition as aided and abetted by neo-liberals.

Ibid: Nawaz’s enemy is not the usual user of the libel law: a Putin front-man or multinational. It is an organization that ought to share Nawaz’s values, but because of the crisis in left-wing values does the dirty work of the misogynists, the racists, the homophobes, the censors, and the murderers it was founded to oppose. It does it with a straight face because, as I am sure you will have guessed, the fascism in question is not white but Islamic. And once that subject is raised all notions of universal human rights, and indeed basic moral and intellectual decency, are drowned in a sea of bad faith.

Lets clarify what is really going on here, Nawaz’s enemies are right wingers, Jews (such as the SPLC) and neo-liberals who seek Islamic compradores and shock troops to disrupt Left ethnonationalsm.

Ibid: Nawaz is from Essex. He has fought and been beaten up by white British neo-Nazis. He fell in with Hizb ut-Tahrir while he was young. When he ended up in a torture chamber in an Egyptian jail, he abandoned Islamism for liberalism. Since then, he and his Quilliam Foundation have struggled against both the white far right and the Islamist far right. They have defended liberal Muslims and, indeed, all of us from lethal blasphemy taboos and the threat of terrorism. They respect freedom of speech, including the freedom of their enemies to speak. (When they asked me to introduce their report on online extremism, I was pleased to see them warning the state against the folly of trying to ban extremism rather than argue against it.) Quilliam and Nawaz support women’s rights and gay rights. They believe that there is no respectable reason why men and women with brown skins should not enjoy the same rights as men and women with white skins. They think they should try to stop young Muslims joining Islamic State, not just for the sake of the Yazidis they will take into sex slavery, or the civilians they will tyrannise and kill, but for the sake of the young Muslims themselves.

And now you would try to say that we, “The White Left,” are issuing a “fatwa” against a man who is trying to do this good work? Who is libelous here? Not The White Left: we issue no such fatwa. On the contrary, we commend his good intention.

READ MORE...

Rom Harré, Philosophy of science and psychology Professor at Oxford and Georgetown. Notable ideas: ethogenics, positioning theory

Contradiction in Lived and Told Narratives

Brownwyn Davies, University of New England, Australia

Rom Harré, University of Oxford

INTRODUCTION

The ubiquity of contradiction in human affairs has long been commonplace. Social contradictions were identified by Marx as the source of social change. Repertoires of mutually contradictory “personas” have been demonstrated to be characteristic of people living in complex societies (Argyle, 1976; De Waele & Harré, 1976). At the same time it is evident that there have also been powerful social norms requiring at least the appearance of consistency in displays of character, in modes of talking and writing and even in patterns of thought.

Research on language and social interaction, vol. 2; 1991/1992: 1-36

Though contradiction is a logical concept that names a relation between propositions, it has a well established use as a general metaphor for incompatibilities of many kinds. It is one of the concepts by which “modernity” has bee defined. So in post-modernity one would expect at least some of the uses of “contradiction” to be called into question, particularly those in which it has a normative role. According to Parker (1989, p. 48), modernity itself, “is contradictory: Its discourse promises scientific truth as the solution to humanity’s problems on the one hand, and on the other attributes responsibility and the power to make meaning to individuals.”

We two, as individual authors, have been both constituted by, and active participants in, the construction of that modern world. We now find ourselves fascinated by the spaces opened up by its deconstruction, particularly in the work of feminist authors (1) such as Weedon (1987), Walkerdine (1981, 1984, 1985), Haug (1987). This paper, then, stands at the interface between the modern and the post modern worlds: While still being caught up, inevitably, in the discursive practices of the modern world we nonetheless wish to make contradiction a topic for examination in light of such feminist post-modern/ post-structuralist writing.

As a person in our contemporary world one has access to many ways of talking about oneself and one’s activities in that world: that is, one has access to multiple forms and styles of discourse. These ways of telling may remain discreet and the contradictions that sometimes exist between them may not become manifest nor present problems for resolution or accommodation. But they may overlap. They may be used as parts of some larger whole. And within that whole they may be profoundly contradictory. Furthermore each discourse may itself be made up of contradictory elements. Billig et al. (1988) give the example of liberal discourse containing ideological commitments to the rights both of the individual and the collective. He also cites educational discourse which espouses as values both equality and authority. In each case there is a discreet discourse containing oppositional and and contradictory imperatives.

Yet one of the predominant features of ways of producing ourselves as persons in the modern world is to present what we do as relatively coherent and non-contradictory, both as we interpret what we do and in the various accounts that we give of what we have done and will do. Numerous strategies exist for dealing with blatant contradictions in those productions. For instance there is the bureaucratic device of “wearing different hats.” Each “hat” represents a different set of constraints, aims and repertoires of proper actions.

The movement from the complex array of lived experience to the relatively coherent stories that we tell about that experience will be a central focus of this paper. Like Haug (1987) we see lived experience as inherently contradictory and the appearance of coherence and and non-contradiction as discursive constructions. As Haug (1987) puts it, “human beings, in the process of their socialization, work at restructuring the given elements of their lives until such time as their existence becomes relatively uncontradictory: In other words until social action becomes possible.” We wish to explore how it is that non- contradiction has become such a fundamental requirement of the production of self and in contrast how the recognition of contradiction has been greeted by feminist post structuralist authors in particular as fundamental to understanding their experience.

Told and Lived Narratives

Told narratives

Told narratives, including both the stories one tells about oneself and other people, and those narrations we call literature and drama, are generally framed within coherent conventions of discourse and tend to show each character as continuous and often, though not always, as predictable. The purpose of told stories in everyday life is often to show how conflicts and contradictions have been, might be, or even should be dealt with (Sabini & Silver 1981). Told stories are usually finite with well marked beginnings and endings. An orderly state of affairs is interrupted by the appearance of a predicament, a course of events unfolds in which the problem is resolved, and a new orderly state of affairs comes into being (Harré,1979). Such stories appear as accounts, told versions of events that are used retrospectively to order the complex array of lived experiences. As Huag (1987, p. 48) says:

We are not assuming that human beings live according to plan, or in continuities, nor even that they are always determined by the same consistent factors…continuities are manufactured retrospectively in the mind.

One focus in this paper is on those discursive practices through which intelligibility and warrantability are created.

Lived Narratives

Told stories are the means of providing the narrative frameworks through which we interpret strips of lived experience as they occur, that is they serve to guide the actions that make up lived narratives. Who one takes oneself to be at any one time and what one takes oneself to be doing form essential parts of the lived narrative. One’s actions are played out with interactive others who provide one with (and whom one provides with) subject positions in the collective flow of talk. These positions may be taken up or refused (however difficult that refusal might be), by any one of the members of the momentary collective. Thus lived narratives inform readings of told narratives and told narratives inform lived narratives (Bruner, 1986; Davies, 1989; Davies & Harré, 1990)...

READ MORE...

  “There is no such thing as society”

In that act of being mistaken, anyway - let’s leave a way out for people understandably reacting to the Jewish misrepresentation of the terms, “left” and “post modernity”.

Internal Relation and Emergence

You don’t have to take a position which places your people (praxis) as the central gauge. You can go on like a right wing fool for Jews and place a “quest for truth, facts and universal foundations” (and “inequality” even?) above all - even wreck your own people in that “noble quest;” but you’d be an unnecessary fool, a dupe for Jews and Jewish thinking in so doing. You don’t have to put our people at the center - but you can, as factual verification and reality checking are available in an instant if you are not dealing with reality; whereas the principles upholding our people took many centuries to create and are much more precious and difficult to reconstruct, if ever they can be. It isn’t necessary to place facts at the center - people are born of facts and if afforded correct principles, proper agency and accountability, our people will come to continually adjust their interests with the facts. Hence, the right’s whole arbitrary-making quest for facts and episodic verification at the expense of principled interest in our people is the height of folly.

Chasing mere facts and perfect verification away from “faith” in our people will tend to take them into runaway, beyond our people’s systemic interests - as opposed to taking the White post modern turn into its facilitation of the preservation and reconstruction of our people - where the facts are ensconced in the sufficiently deep emergent reality of our people’s systemic history to afford re-framing at their authentic place in relation to our human ecological system.

Right and Altright reactionary fan club - scavenging the wreckage of continued reaction.

The right, “alternative right”, those in their orbit, lay in wait as vultures for things like GW’s latest surprise: as I stepped aside from a discussion of British politics, he applied the theoretical wrecking ball again to “THE left” and “post modernity” at their behest (he isn’t so lame as to have to do it for himself); ill-prepared for the surprise in that context, I put up a threadbare defense against what I’ve come to see as a part of GW’s autobiography - “champion of the right, universal foundational unifier against the left’s class divisiveness.”

GW - working class hero who sees their classification as a critical problem of imposed nationalist division.

If you are coming here, like myself, chances are that you appreciate GW’s ability - you delight as he wields a scalpel on behalf of White/ethno-national sovereignty, more often a wrecking ball to the pretenses of academia and scholarship that are working against it.

We value this, want him to continue, want him to be satisfied with his part and his contributions. 

What follows here is going to show little appreciation for that, which is abundant and shows forth in spontaneity for the surfeit of his intelligence - often yielding indispensable flourishes and insights that I myself cherish. This piece is rather an ungrateful piece in that regard, given that he has stood by me as I set about chartering a new platform for Majorityrights; and I sent scurrying many who had deep appreciation and respect for him as well; but it is neither for myself nor “his own good” that I proceed not feeling particularly guilty about that - nor is the matter of face saving a pressing matter for either of us - the sake is proper theoretical grounds, which is always my central motivation. Still this will appear rather like a hit piece - as it takes aim, focuses on the clumsier props of GW’s worldview, philosophical underpinnings and aspirations - not on better sides and ideas, which will emerge cybernetically in balance of fact.

If you are coming here, you probably appreciate and identify with GW’s rogue path: as a completely disaffected outsider to the academic fray, he early on rejected the nonsense coming out of there, particularly from fields dealing with social issues. And you delight along with him as he continues to apply the wrecking ball to their cherished liberal ruses under cover of “The left”, their wish to open important borders and boundaries, to bring down individual merit, to drag others down into primitive individual and group failure - instinctively, you sense him taking down liberal bullies who are smug enough to insulate themselves from the consequences of the unsupportable concepts of social “justice” that they wield against those native White populations least responsible for others problems, most likely to suffer from liberalism and least likely to gain from the applications known as “The Left” - applications which can recognize just about any collective unionization of interests except one kind - White. Certainly a (((coincidence))).

Most people who’ve come here, myself included, have also experienced mystification over GW’s not being satisfied with that. You have been at least temporarily mystified as he evades into the arbitrary recesses ever available by the empirical philosophy that underpins modernity; and as he continually applies its wrecking ball, secure in the faith that it will leave in its wake only that which is fine and good; a wrecking ball summarily dismissing scholarship, conceptual tools and principles that others set forth to guide social action.

I have been stunned as he sends the wrecking ball my way as well, summarily dismissing even carefully culled and profoundly warranted philosophical ideas, eminently useful conceptual tools and important rhetorical positions that I have geared to his same White ethno-nationalist interests; while his modernist philosophy willy-nilly casts me into the role of the “lefty academic” foil in key moments.

I am no longer mystified by this.

A reactionary position is mostly retreating (evading) and attacking - whatever looks like an enemy or Trojan horse - but for its instability, it is susceptible to chase after the red cape.

An early contentious streak in the autobiography over-reinforced by circumstance, ability and admirers.

GW is wonderful, we love GW, but like the rest of us, he is not perfect. There is a residual strain of contentiousness in his autobiography that stems from his early disaffection and precocious disregard of liberal prescriptions coming from academia. It’s a part of his autobiography that he takes a great deal of pride-in. It is also socially confirmed enough so that he continues to chase its red cape known as “THE left;” and keeps applying the modernist wrecking ball to any concepts the tiniest bit speculative in circumscribing social interests; or adopting any terms also used by liberal “left” academics - even if used in different ways, he will understand it in THE left way that he is familiar with - and summarily dismiss it as such or apply the wrecking ball.

Unlike most people disaffected of liberal academia, he is not of the working class sort content to shake his fist at academic pomposity, to find solace in a beer and the pragmatism of his working class buddies, allowing the union misrepresentatives to negotiate his interest with their fellow liberals of academic background; nor is he content to join in with the White collar and middle class who typically denounce the worst of academic socialists as unrealistic, while they go along with the liberal anti racism of the academe, signaling their one-upness to the lower classes by denouncing as backward superstition whatever defensively racist discrimination they might even require.

He does share a few things in common with the typical middle class perspective however. Naturally, he has a bias toward viewing his success in positivist terms, as having come about from his gray matter and personal initiative, not because he derived any benefit from artificially imposed social bounds against competition and to circumscribe cooperation. 

Though he can relate to the working class “xenophobia”, he maintains that their maintenance of who they are among a collective “we” (i.e., particular native European nationals) and their choice of whom to intermarry with (same particular native European national) is something that should and can emerge naturally from their genetics - an identity that will emerge naturally, provided they do not have liberal, Fabian and Marxist ideas imposed upon them; the last thing GW wants is to impose another artifice upon them, one which he believes could divide them against their upwardly mobile English brethren, and in turn, divide the middle class even more against them. I.e., the “left” and “right” is normally taken as an economic divider and unifier of class, not a racial nationalist one as I am proposing. The middle class, as much as any, might be reluctant to ‘get it’ and not identify with a “White left,” in which case we would be back to the divisive issue, not the uniting issue that both GW and I seek - we may not agree on terminology but we do agree on native nationalism.

Thatcherite obectivism a means for personal advancement and foundational unification of nationalism.

In fact, GW is a native nationalist, deeply offended by the class system which has long hampered English unity. Thus, he is not content to disavow the worst of liberal and Marxist academics, writing-them-off as the idiots that they are, while leaving the working class to the fate that liberalism will bring to them, and, if left unabated, to all of us eventually. Like a few, more ambitious among us, he set about to get things right, to open a platform for White nationalists, even before it was quite the immanent practical necessity that it is now.

He aspires to identify the ontological connection between all English classes which, if unfettered by artificial constructs, would have them acting as native nationalists in loyal unanimity to their interests.

In that regard, Margaret Thatcher represented to him a liberating moment from the incredibly burdensome artifices of liberal, Fabian and Marxist Left union delimitations and by contrast an opportunity to unite as nationalists on natural positivist grounds.

Normal first reaction that doesn’t take Post Modern turn as it fails to see liberalism flying under left colors.

Indeed, most anybody of this ambition, myself included, who cares about our race and its ethnonational species, starts out in reaction to the absurd, contradictory and destructive liberal rhetoric coming out of academia and reaches to grab hold white knuckle to foundational truths, particularly scientific fact, which cannot be bamboozled by the rhetoric of liberal sophistry (which we later come to recognize as more often than not, Jewish in original motive). And we do grab hold white knuckle - that is to say, scientistically, in rigid over and misapplication of hardish science to the social realm, as we cannot trust the social realm, its rhetorical caprice if not deception - its ongoing disordering effects that apparently threaten to rupture social order anew with every agentive individual. Coming from a non-Jewish, Christian cultural perspective, where our bias starts, if not Jesus, we first liken ourselves to Plato and then modern scientists seeking to gird and found our place and our people’s place, whereas “they” are Pharisees and sophists, wielding the sheer rhetoric that we are going to debunk with our pure, native ability and motives. In a word, we are going to do science against their dishonest bias against us - they are indeed being deceptive and biased on behalf of unfair people; we see it as our objective to establish universal foundational truth that will be unassailable to this sophistry.

That is the normal first reaction of a White person who cares about themself and our people - it was mine and it was GW’s - a nascent White nationalist in response not only to the anti-White discourse coming out of the university, but in response to the very frame of the discourse - that is to say, taking on the frame [Jewish and liberal social stuff and lies versus White science and truth] - against accusations of privilege, racism and exploitation, we sought pure innocence in truth beyond social tumult and disingenuous rhetorical re framing. We (understandably) acted with absolute revulsion to anything like social concern and accountability - why should we be accountable to ever more alien imposition? - itself neither offering nor asking for an account sufficient to maintain our EGI - and where our people are eerily unconcerned or antagonistic to our people as well, we are only more compelled to take on the task ourselves - to pursue pure warrant. Our first reaction to the liberal chimera called “THE left” is: “I” noble servant of postulates - theorems - axioms - upon universal foundational truth.”

Beyond our people’s relative social interests even, we must save ourselves from the lies of “The left” (never minding that their first lie is that they represent our left) and found our moral/ontological basis where Jews, other tribalists and our selfish liberals, who only care about themselves, can never again manipulate it. We hold white knuckle, rigidly, in reaction to Jewish sophistry.

History will show that our people who pursued and secured sovereignty, health and well being found a philosophy advanced of that - competent and able to secure their social interests. They’d taken the White Post Modern turn from this reactionary position.

For reasons unfolding here, including reasons of his personal autobiography, GW has yet to appreciate and take the post modern turn.

Personal ability and interpersonal circumstances have facilitated his carrying-on in a typical first philosophical position of an amateur outsider in regard to academia - the epistemological blunder of “they are just sophists who provide nothing but nonsense while ‘I’ and my pure thoughts in relation to ‘theory’ am going to set the world aright” - an epistemological error in the relation of knower to known that is born in reaction and puerile hubris, carried on by being strong, smart enough to persist long after most people would shrink back from the signs of its limitations; going further uncorrected as it has been endorsed by “no enemies to the right” (a dubious principle, if there ever was one); it has grown into a surprisingly big and audacious ego wielded as a wrecking ball against “post modern philosophy.” We are supposed to rest assured on his faith that in the aftermath of wreckage, that the emergent qualities of his mind are all that is required besides the occasional foil to play off of in order to clarify and carry the modernist program forward to unshakeable, universal, foundational truth - unassailable to any social reconstruction. Never mind that we are already willing to agree upon most of the fundamental rules that he would seek - our agency is not necessary if it is going to suggest anything like planned social construction of systemic defense. No, that’s all impure stuff to be cast aside; and by contrast of true Platonic form, if you are freed from that ignorance and come to know the good he will secure, you will do that good.

He is not satisfied to simply negotiate, reason-things-out and reach an understanding among his people, he is not even particularly concerned that it won’t be a damn bit of good if people can’t understand his philosophical yield - he wants to secure that good on ontological foundations beyond praxis - beyond the capacity for manipulation. Most sophomores abandon this, their freshmen objective, as not only obsolete philosophy, but in fact, come to recognize it as destructive philosophy - a destruction which GW continues, with tremendous faith, without need of Aristotelian compass, that tremendous confidence to persevere where Wittgenstein failed.

The boomer generation - libertarianism and egocentrism.

The likes of Bowery and GW will be slower, if ever, to make the turn in direction, not because they are stupid, of course, quite to the contrary, but because they have the mental horsepower necessary to keep patching and operating the antiquated and obsolete technology that is modernity; and stem predilection both motivates them and enables them to do that; they are more self sufficient, less immediately reliant on the social (why carry others weight?); more confirmed by females by being reliable as such (concentrating on how to do things, not stepping on the toes of females by asking questions of social control - as long as you are at one end of the competition you are OK - liberal or the right wing end); confirmed by non academic workers in their more pragmatic concerns; and confirmed by right wingers in their penchant for anti-social theory beyond social manipulation - exactly, they are also slow to take the turn, of course, because they have an understandable lack of trust in liberal-social narratives; this unwillingness to suspend disbelief may be increased inasmuch as they have benefited as baby boomers, less harried for their identity in the parts of their life-span experienced prior to the culture of critique and in their personal initiatives after its reprieve - in Bowery’s case, with aspects of the objectivism behind Ron Paul’s libertarian “revolution”; and in GW’s case, during the Thatcher years (Thatcher’s initial backers having discovered her reading Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, who obliviously carried forward upon the Tractatus) - years of brief, partial liberation from liberal-left union fetters - “there is no such thing as society” - in either case, a false friend facilitated as false opposition - viz., an expression of steered objectivism derived of Austrian schools beginning with Wittgenstein.

The title is a projection of objectivism. Subtitle: look who else is reading it.

What is confirmed to me - in a roundabout way, when GW dons his powdered wig, grabs a quill pen, does his best John Locke or whatever voice serves, and says oh, “that’s just Aristotle and his rhetoric,” “all of the good ideas are coming from the right”, “based in nature, none of this praxis stuff”, says that he “never loses an argument against academics”, etc., then continually re-applies radical skepticism of the empiricists and their forerunners - is that he is showing an ego driven and confirmed desire to carry-on the “pure” modernist project; viz., in his ontology project and his destruction of everything in its path, even treating Aristotle and William James as utter morons, GW is revealing a vain desire to do something all alone, like a combination of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosphicus and Heidegger’s Being & Time: “The world is everything that is the case” meets “the worldhood of the world” - without the post modern implications of the latter. All that is required is the emergent qualities of his mind to set the world’s ontology aright - it will be “unassailable” by liberal, social, “left” rhetoric.

His reaction, confirmation and penchant for empirical verification against Jewish rhetoric has apparently caused him to disregard the post modern turn that was occuring also in Heidegger’s philosphy, albeit in Heidegger’s case, in that somewhat rigid, German way (which I find endearing).

GW appreciates Heidegger, so why does he not move forward from 1927 and why does he retreat to 1921 and the Tractatus? That he consders “OF being” the better starting point than Heidegger’s “There Being” provides a clue to ego centrism and Cartesian anxiiety - he not only proposes the reconstruction of the Cartesian starting point, “Of being”, but proposes it as an exclusive position, not even taking hermeneutc turns with Heidegger’s non-Cartesan starting point, “There being.”

“Unassailably” proclaiming that “The world is everything that is the case”

Whereas Wittgenstein himself was forced to yield-to, if not recognize the necessity of, the post modern turn - so much so that he was embarrassed by his effort at a complete ontology in The Tractatus Logico Philosophicus - having proclaimed its logic “unassailable” at once upon completion, he later repudiated it, even took to referring to its author as if a different person.

The Motivation for Post Modernity

Part of the craze for “post modernity” is that people (correctly) sense that modernity is destroying their differences, their traditions, their ways of life, their people and their very lives. And yet they frequently found traditional societies destructive as well. Therefore they were happy to have not only backing of cross cultural studies, vouching that different ways of life are valid, but also some confirmation from the very foundational math and science which modernity pursued to an apex that finally turned back on itself.

Kurt Gödel had demonstrated that a theory of any complexity could not be both complete and unambiguous.

Neils Bohr had priorly announced that there is no instrument fine enough to resolve the wave/particle distinction.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle elaborating from that was subtler still - that the observer is engaged in interaction and has reflexive effects upon that which he observes.

Confirmation of Aritstotle’s Praxis and suggestion that it should be the radical basis of assessment, not pure objective facts.

These findings confirmed Aristotle’s premises as set forth in Nichomachean Ethics - on the nature of Praxis - people are in reflexive relation, mostly requiring a degree of practical judgement as they are less predictable than the theoretical causality which the hard sciences pursue. It also would suggest placing praxis more in the center than theory - i.e., a socially based perspective where people are the arbiter, as opposed to “I think therefore I am” in relation to mere, indisputable facts and non-interactive third person behavioral units; a pursuit even outstripping the subject ultimately in favor of fixed theoretical facts - the Cartesian relation (pursued non-relation, as it were) of knower to known.

Vico was first to take the hermeneutic turn against Descartes, to bring ideas into historical context, the relation of knower to known into the social world of praxis

A relation knower to known other than the Cartesian model is required by modernity’s recognized failures and impervious destruction.

Those who care about people, who see the destruction of Descarte’s “relation” of knower to known, understand the wisdom of Aristotle, and realize that Vico -  Descartes’ first major critic - was in fact, proposing the taking of theoria into praxis: i.e., correctly placing people and praxis at the center of his world view. He was setting forth the historical, hermeneutic world view, the post modern world view. And, in turn, those who understand Heidegger will see that he was following in that same direction, which may be called “existential” and which is centered in praxis - the social world.

The White Post Modern turn is, of course, the best and most moral perspective for advocating people - Whites especially - Jews don’t want that and so they fool the uneducated masses and most of the educated masses as well by reinterpreting the terms by which people - viz., White people, might understand this - and they get them to react against didactic misrepresentation. That is, they are getting them to react in aversion to what is good and healthy in racial advocacy by having made it didactic in misrepresentation - e.g., the highly sensible Post Modern is presented as “dada” (whereas I have secured its sensible form in White Post Modernity).

Bowery and GW were impelled on, for the didacticism of the (((liberal-left - contradiction of terms))) and for the (((misrepresentation))) that was this false opposition and its false promise to liberate us from The left, among other reasons. Objectivism, the neoliberalism and libertarianism of the Austrian school of economics, Thatcherism, is merely a false opposition that (((they))) set up against “(((The Left))).” It is a product of late modernity, derived of the Vienna School of Logical Positivism, which in turn was derived of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

Again, that was Wittgenstein’s attempt to set-out a comprehensive and “unassailable” ontology - “The world is everything that is the case.” He would later say that the Tractatus was “not a very good book”, lest he be mistaken for one not recognizing that those who had taken the post modern turn had left this philosophical quest behind. Nevertheless, the Austrian school of logical positivism founded upon the Tractatus lived on through his cousin Hayek (who Thatcher was discovered dutifully reading); it was then taken up by von Mises et. al, who would conveniently and explicitly adopt this no-account modernist program against any one of subsequent generations who was the least bit reflective, who had any social complaints about how they and their people had been left without social capital after this generation of egocentric locusts devoured all social capital in their path. Waiting generations of right wing reactionaries, ensconced in their well protected Internet bubbles, were ready to look up to these libertarians for their lack of social concern, conveniently blaming the socially conscientious of prior generations for the problems - “The Left”, where not “hippies”, were the ones asleep at the wheel and leading us over a cliff, “but not the objectivists” and not (((The YKW))).

One-up intransigence of boomers meets generation Internet bubble for a right-wing cocktail, silencing socially conscientious voices between.

Because of GW’s unwillingness to trust anybody but himself, he takes recourse in the one aspect of the post modern turn where his first person account of all the world’s foundations might be claimed - emergentism. He has a problem, however, when I say that the world still interacts.  He has to take recourse to the absurdly arbitrary claim that “life doesn’t interact.”

Emergentism, in fact, is one of the key contributing factors to the post modern turn - it challenges the reductionism and fixedness of the modernist ontology project in an important sense - the emergent whole being greater than the sum of its parts means that significant referents are changeable in complex systems, thus qualifying Bowery’s criticism - “there is either a referent or there is not” - as this charge must yield to the fact that facts can be re-framed as they emerge physically, as they are designated by individuals and as they emerge in social consensus. And yes, what emerges still interacts in a myriad of ways.

Gen Xer’s were a bit late for the ride

“There is no such thing as society”

Their lack of faith in the social narratives as they are applied by YKW is understandable, the faith they show in the guiding principle of modernity to leave only what is fine and true in the wake of their wrecking ball is not. There comes a time to suspend disbelief. To draw a hypothetical boundary around our people is as good a time and place as any. “Wise men see lines and they draw them” - William Blake. And its not so hypothetical.

Perhaps because their boomer generation was early in line and they were intelligent enough to position themselves by means of objectivism for a deck chair on the higher end of a sinking Titanic, they can take some solace in writing-off those who might be going under first, if it does go down, as hazards of nature, having not acted “naturally” in EGI - Bowery in particular, being motivated by an affinity for the individuality of northern Europeans, abandoned ship (MR, anyway) when Dr. Lister and I began raising criticisms of “individualism über alles” and raising social concerns against that.

In fact, for this reason, Bowery issued an ultimatum (“either him or Lister”) which defaulted to Graham’s more social side, upon which Bowery expressed his “revulsion” for Majorityrights.

READ MORE...