The following exchange from a couple of days ago, on the thread to this unrelated PA article, is part of my effort to gesture in the direction of a renewal of our movement.  That effort began in earnest with the cross-posting of my “British Nationalism” piece, though I’ve been responding to “traditional nationalist” commentaries at PA for several months.  One of those with whom contest has occurred is B Hall, who writes at PA from a distributist and trad posture.  His sarcastic comment to an earlier remark from old-hand Michael Woodbridge (who was himself referring to the OP, not to me) set the conversation in motion.

READ MORE...

Apart from the hair.  And about a week.  And the use of military firepower.

Puteau, or possibly Trudin

Example 1

a) Autocrat commences upon a population control project on the pretext of public health measures.

b) Autocrat portrays protesters in dehumanising and deceitful terms.

c) Autocrat gives himself war powers.

d) Autocrat employs paramilitaries to crush protest, employs legal and financial terrorism against dissenters.

Example 2

a) Autocrat commences upon an empire building project on the pretext of supporting separatist fighters in neighbouring independent nation.

b) Autocrat portrays neighbouring nation as never really being separate from his own nation.

c) Autocrat obtains formal consent from the Federation Council for his military deployment.

d) Autocrat launches his military against neighbouring independent nation.

Western elites response to first autocrat: Delicate silence based on the fact that they, too, are trying to transition to a population control model.

Western elites response to second autocrat: Constantly ramping-up economic sanctions against Russia, supplying “defensive” weapons to Ukraine.

This latter is geopolitics, of course, and not merely a moral issue; so we mere members of the public don’t get to see much of the real picture until the historians get to work perhaps a decade or more later.  One would assume that the principal objective of the Western elites is to avoid entangelement in Ukraine while discouraging further Russian expansionism.  One would hope that there are no voices arguing in the private councils of power for conflict as a fast route to the Re-Set; though I wouldn’t rule out the possibility.

If that world is veiled to us, we can at least see what our fellow British nationalists are thinking.  Until now they have tended to support Putin because they think he is a defender of the Russian people against corrupt Western neoliberal and neo-Marxist values.  They tend to see Ukraine, on the other hand, as a nation created by a Jewish neocon revolution, now led by a Jew, and exploited by the West and by NATO as a vehicle for anti-Russian expansion (though Jewish support for Pravi Sektor, based on a shared hatred of Russia, throws them a bit).  Nationalists here probably won’t quibble too much if the Russian Army goes beyond the two areas in which separatists are fighting, say to the Dneiper or down the coast to establish a land route to the Russian-held Crimean Peninsula.  However, everything should change if the Russians push on to occupy the entirety of Ukraine, which seems inevitable.  Likewise, a future threat against Lithuania should cause nationalists to totally re-assess their thinking about the autocrat Putin.

Ultimately, human freedom and the democratic model (or some form of it, anyway) are not contrary to any of the nationalisms beyond the fascisms.  The more of both the better.  It is their scarcity, together with the absence of a genuinely independent and honest press, which constrains the political efforts of not just the nationalists but all the minor parties in the West.  We should be in no doubt which side to support in Ukraine.

And the autocrat Trudeau?  Well, his actions have revealed that the left all across the West isn’t remotely interested in the cause of the freedom and independence of the working man.  It is interested in its own pathological hatred for him because he’s just too white, and for that clarity we can thank the little Canadian autocrat.  Likewise, in one brief, ruthless act he has probably done more than anyone since Henry Morgenthau Jr. in 1944 to demonstrate the morality and ambitions of Power in the supposedly democratic West.  One would desire that he pays a steepling high political cost for it, and the woman Freeland with him.  But then the stress test on his minority government was passed with some ease, so he will probably continue serenely and untroubled in his labours on behalf of the folk in Davos.

This essay, which is long, is the second part of what will, in any case, be a fairly lengthy series wrapping up the Ontology Project and facing towards the problem off structure.  This essay is, then, a technical and preparatory exercise for what is to come, clearing the ground on which pure ontology and the basics, at least, of human difference may cohere in, and contribute to, a single, life-affording causal structure for Dasein.

FIVE CASES CONTRA HEIDEGGER

Why has Martin Heidegger’s 1927 opus Being and Time, arguably the most important book of philosophy of the 20th century, never fed into even an embryonic nationalist project to sideline the Nietzschean fiction and challenge the systemic dominance of liberalism?  Setting aside the endless, besmirching academic arguments about his years as a NSDAP member, and his brief and fraught rectorship at Freiburg, the answer most immediately to hand is that its quest is for the meaning of human being, not its nature.  Both are ontological quests, for sure.  But the former, addressed phenomenologically and without strongly-drawn lines, has proved a gift for thinkers concerned primarily with Being’s relation to World as the social environment, which all-too-easily shifts into the politicised study of the structure of society, language and semiotics, power and inequality.  These academics of inauthenticity would be horrified to find emerging from Heidegger’s thought a model of Man as a relational and agentive being, expressing what is most essential to him, commanding a politics of his shared natural interests.  But, of course, we would be highly delighted.

But to arrive even theoretically at such a definitively real Man on the basis of an account of Being is a really demanding intellectual undertaking.  Many would say impossible just on the basis that Being and the lived-life are categorically exclusive.  Heidegger’s forest of subtle and recondite formulations, which are oft-times run into one another with a cavalier freedom, do not advance the likelihood of success one whit, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Swabian identitarian and German nationalist himself.

In this long-delayed second part to this series (for any undue abstraction in which I hereby apologise) our search for agency will address Heidegger’s model critically and from the conviction that our reality is human being as bearer of Nature’s difference and specificity, and it isn’t intellectually undeliverable.  But there is no immediate way to it in Heidegger’s Dasein.  More clearly drawn parameters, strictly ontologically-derived, internally consistent, are necessary.

In this hunt for definition and consistency, then, I will confine myself to five examples of problem areas, and where possible suggest some re-working.  The objective is to demonstrate both the nature of the problem and that of the solution, and not to be exhaustive in any way; and out of that, as ever, to encourage the development of a complete and advantageous philosophy.

CASE 1: THE QUESTION OF CRISIS-DASEIN

As beings are biological and sociobiological and as their particular array of traits are inherited, so they are ethnically differentiated and specific.  The being of beings must, in its turn, and in its arrayal and deportment, carry some imprint of that specificity; not directly as a first-order effect of evolution, of course, but at the very least consequentially and receptively, like an ancient landscape, perhaps, weathered into uniqueness over the aeons.

Were this not the case then we would have to conclude that the being of a being is a neutral and unfeatured thereness, a profound and singular abstraction from the ontic, sans any hint of a constitution.  But we know perfectly well that the being of a tiger, say, is not that of a mollusc, and once one acknowledges the differential effect on being of different beings, then difference is unstoppable.  One’s enquiry must arrive at the principal specifics of difference, and with human being so we must come to ethnicity as a weathering effect on that ancient landscape.

Heidegger’s phenomenological interrogation of the meaning of being proceeds via the novel medium of a common base-entity or being-ness, Dasein.  Except through the presumption that authenticity will find its mark, he does not approach it from the proving direction of a constitution by imprimatur.  He is a putative light-shiner - he sets about determining “the basic content of Dasein’s existential constitution” with:

... those structures in which disclosedness constitutes itself: understanding, state-of-mind, falling, and discourse.

He analyses the temporality of each, pulling in anxiety and fear as “states of mind” which have the potential to disclose Dasein.  The direction of flow here is towards the shock and disaccommodation of some dread event, a personal disaster or, perhaps, natural disaster, which functions as “the exception”, knocking out the standard behavioural range of personhood, stripping everything back to the truth of a man.  On the surface it is not an unreasonable thesis.  Life conceivably can work like that although it is likely to be a very rare event indeed (which I will expand upon from Case 3 down); and given the power of absence and mechanicity in Man it is certainly not inevitable.  Everyone (excepting psychopaths, I suppose) has the full range of emotions.  Everyone reacts psychologically to disaster.  Some fight for every inch, some freeze, some submit and pray or don’t pray.  Who but the individual his or herself is to know what is from the very ground of that individual’s being and what from his or her personhood?  If it is only for the individual to know this, what is to save us from solipsism?  Then, even if it isn’t solipsistic, a reduction to the individual’s experience ineffably delivers us to a politics of prescribed universalism.  Nationalist philosophy could not issue from that.  Neither could it be systemic to the rest of human life, when there is no crisis in train.

In philosophy, as in politics, the universal tends to homogeny, and homogeny to distance from the lived reality, just as difference and specificity will tend to nearness to it.  An account of Man which does not adequately account for human difference and specificity will never produce a fit outcome.  The unfortunate people under its organising hand will be fated to live the lie of oneness.

Certainly, Heidegger did determine that Dasein has a constitution.  But the arraying of that, along with the conceptualisation of other significant elements in his schema, only encouraged co-option by the postmodern equalitarians.  Obviously, we, too, are looking to incorporate into our thinking that which is immediately useful and, where possible, to qualify whatever else has potential.  This essay is about the latter.

READ MORE...

This is an essay written for PA’s site.  It is a first attempt to shift British nationalism towards a genuine nationalism of ethnicity ...

In a word: ethnic.  In this primer I will set out a basic form of ethnic nationalism that British nationalists could create and promulgate so that we may yet make a philosophically and politically seriously assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power, as these now operate in our home.  I will explain the great necessity but also the great difficulty of that task, and I will appeal to all nationalists to search their heart on the question, and to help in so much as they are able.

BASE ASSUMPTIONS

1. Our people are dying by the hand of our own political class and the corporate and banking interests which they serve.  It is, then, not a natural death, or an inevitable outcome of jet travel and the will of poor peoples around the world to improve their lives.  It is not a political mistake, or an act of stupendous negligence.  It is not a “pay-back” from history.  It is a political assassination, and the assassins know precisely what they are doing, and want to do it.  It is their chosen course for us.  It is a true genocide by Article 2 (c) of the 1948 Convention, for which they confidently expect not to have to answer.

The two principal methods the assassins employ are:

a) Endless, colonising and replacing migration of populations from elsewhere in the world.

b) Psychological warfare, also known as culture war, on the natural role and character of Man and Woman, and on our ethnic person.

But beneath these lies an array of deep-seated causalities acting upon us from the history of events and from the history of ideas, the sum of which presses us to the inevitable conclusion that “a serious assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power” must mean a revolution on no mean scale.  A simple change to national politics alone will, in the longer term, be constrained and, finally, erased by the continuing effect of these foundational forces.  Many, and quite possibly all of them, have to be swept away, too.

The following chart of these forces, including those striving for control of the future of all humanity, supplies a relational form to them, be they historical or historiographical, or even futuristic!  I am still astonished, when I gaze at the totality of it, at just how much harm for our precious people there is in this world.  Heaven knows, there is room for some good.

READ MORE...

The polity is shaped towards our race-replacement by its own deep history of ideas but also, of course, by the history of events which are inextricably linked to those ideas.  The sum of them all constitutes an enormous bulwark against change, pressing us, as people interested in change, to the inevitable conclusion that any serious assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power must mean a revolution on no mean scale.  A simple change to national politics alone will, in the longer term, be constrained and, finally, erased by the continuing effect of these foundational forces.  Many, and quite possibly all of them, would have to be swept away, too.

I’ve made some rather slipshod efforts in the past to draw up a chart supplying some relational context to these forces.  This time, as part of the working up of a new article for PA’s site, I’ve tried to get everything in, including the elements aiming at control of the future of all humanity.  Doubtless, it’s always possible to keep expanding the range of entities, and I might have missed something important.  Anyway, if there is improvement to be made, do please say where.

Popper and Kuhn both successfully attacked the foundation of data-driven scientific discovery of causality with their psychologically and rhetorically intense popularizations of “the philosophy of science” at the precise moment in history that it became practical to rigorously discriminate mere correlation from causation, even without controlled experimentation, by looking at the data.

I only became aware of this after attempting to do first-order epidemiology of the rise of autism that had severely impacted colleagues of mine in Silicon Valley — investigation required since it was apparent that no one more qualified was bothering to do so. I didn’t expect to find a substantial ecological correlation with Jews and autism and, indeed, there was none. However, I did expect to find a correlation with non-western immigrants from India, and found one. Now, having said that, I’m not here to make the case for that particular causal hypothesis — there are others that I can set forth that I also expected and did find evidence for. What I’m here to point out is that my attempts to bring these hypotheses up were greeted with the usual “social science” rhetoric one expects: “Correlation doesn’t imply causation.” “Ecological correlations are invalid due to the ecological fallacy.” and so forth. This got me interested in precisely how it is that “social science” purports to infer causation from the data — especially since it was becoming apparent to me that the one thing Jews absolutely panic over is the presence of any human ecology in the West that remotely controls for the presence of Jews — experimental controls being the one widely accepted means of determining causality in the philosophy of science.

This interest was amplified when I, on something of a lark, decided to take my data that I’d gathered to investigate the ecology of autism, and see which of the ecological variables was the most powerful predictor of the other variables I had chosen. One variable, in particular, that I had been interested in, not for autism causation, but for social causality in general, was the ratio of Jews to Whites in a human ecology at the State level in the US. I don’t need to explain to the readers of MR my reasons for taking that ratio as significant. Well, out of hundreds of variables, guess which one came out on top?

Of course, again, I don’t need to explain to the readers of MR the kind of rhetorical attacks on this “lark” of mine: Same old, same old…

So my investigation of causal inference intensified.

Eventually, circa 2004-2005, I intuited that data compression had the answer and suggested something I called “The C-Prize” — a prize that would pay out for incremental improvements in compression of a wide-ranging corpus of data, resulting in computational models of complex dynamical systems, including everything from physics to macrosocial models. That’s when I ran across information theoretic work that distinguished between Shannon information and what is now called “Algorithmic Information”. The seminal work in Algorithmic Information occurred in the late 1950s and early 1960s — precisely when Moore’s Law was taking off in its relentlessly exponentiating power. Algorithmic Information content of a data set is the number of bits in its smallest executable archive — the smallest algorithm that outputs that data. Shannon information is basically just statistical. Think of the digits of pi. Shannon says the information content is identical with the string of digits. Algorithmic Information says the information content is the size of the program that outputs the digits of pi.

That discovery threatened to bring the social sciences to heel with a rigorous and principled information criterion for model selection far superior, and provably so, to all other model selection criteria used by the social sciences. Moreover, the models so-selected would be necessarily causal in nature and be amenable to using the power of silicon to make predictions without any kind of ideological bias.

This, I strongly believe, was the precise reason Popper and Kuhn committed their acts of violence against science at the precise moment in history they did.

READ MORE...

Long-time readers of Majority Rights may recall an ancient, and now lost to the bit-bucket, essay of mine called “The Electoral Corruption Killer” advocating something I called “The Open Proxy Party” to address betrayals of We The People by Congress, such as overriding the will of more than 80% of the public on immigration so as to surrender the electronic frontier to India in the cyberwar that is now over for all intents and purposes.

Well…

The delegate network is an open sourced implementation of a completely transparent, easy-to-use and understand version of what is sometimes called liquid democracy.  “Easy-to-use” means bridging the digital-divide to plain old telephone service voice interaction, rather than relying on personal computation devices such as smart phones or even personal computers.  “Completely transparent” means all transactions are immediately made public.  “Easy to understand” means all the participant needs to understand is the concept of at-will delegation of their voting power to someone they trust personally.

Imagine a phone number answered by an instance of the Delegate Network. You, as a registered voter, call that number. Say “John Doe of Centerville” and hang up. Later, the registered voter, John Doe of Centerville calls the Delegate Network and votes on bills before the US House of Representatives, but his count as TWO votes: His and yours. He’s your “delegate”. More people delegate to him. His power grows. But John Doe of Centerville is only human. You call the Delegate Network and say “audit”. The Delegate Network reports how your voting power has been used on a bill you deeply care about. Power corrupted him. You say “recall”. Instantly, he wields one less vote against people like you. You know others that trust him. You call to warn them. Even after discussions, some disagree with your opinion. Others agree. He loses more power. Since the Delegate Network is publicly auditable at all times, news of his betrayal spreads to most everyone that trusted him. All have an incentive to communicate in more depth than a Facebook post or Tweet. Power hierarchies evolve toward greater trust.

Now, imagine a candidate campaigns for a seat in the US House of Representatives with one promise:

“I will vote the way the delegate network for my Congressional district tells me to vote and refer all political negotiations to them.”

READ MORE...

Introduction

Property Money is backed by the economy’s total wealth:

When the economy’s total wealth increases, so does its supply of property money. 

When wealth decreases, property money supply decreases.

Contrast this with gold-backed money:  A customer deposits gold and the bank gives him a gold certificate.  The gold certificate circulates as money.  The money supply increases.  When anyone demands gold in exchange for the certificate, the bank gives them the gold and the certificate goes out of circulation.  The money supply decreases.

We’ll refer to “demurrage” as the bank’s cost of securing its gold from thieves, etc. 

Demurrage

Remember that concept.

Let’s now look at government as a “bank” that “stores” the economy’s wealth.  That store of wealth is the total value of property rights protected from thieves, etc. under law.     As exemplar, we’ll look at the most basic property:

A family dwelling.

Building a new house “stores” it under government protection.  The government issues a certificate known as a property title.   However, unlike a gold certificate, the title isn’t “liquid” enough to circulate.  This is where property money comes to the rescue.

Building a new house with a liquidation value of, say, $200,000, increases the property money supply by $200,000 minus the sunk cost, say $150,000, of building it.  Sunk cost includes, among other things, wealth consumed by the house: boards, nails, concrete, wires, etc.  So in our simple example, $50,000 of wealth has been added to the economy.  The property money supply thereby increases by $50,000.

Thus every dollar of property money in circulation is backed by a dollar of value in the economy’s wealth.

This essay describes how property money satisfies the demand for liquidity while privatizing the delivery of social goods.

READ MORE...