The Alt-Right/Alt-Left has given birth to “new” (((White))) leadership.

“And this will be a sign for you: You will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a feeding trough.”—Luke 2:12 (ISV)

State of the art Jewish agenda - how it looks at this point vis-a-vis Trump: 

At this point it is evident that top echelon of Jewish interests have come to recognize that they and their race mixing agenda are so far ahead that they’ve decided to get good with the White right-wing, to blend with and steer their reaction.

Hence they have gotten out in front of the reaction that their PC liberalism has created in Whites; and with that, they are orchestrating the “White”  us / them, friend / enemy distinction.

Though I disagree with him on some important, fundamental issues, to give credit where credit is due, Wolf Wallstreet was incisive in his hypothesizing two differing agendas among Jewish elites: Plan A, of the Noel Ignatiev kind, wants to wipe Whites out completely - relatively more expressed by Hillary and Bill than Trump.

Plan B is taken by the kind of Jewish elite not quite so crazy and a bit more fore-thinking - realizing that they can use what they perceive as the “better breeds” of Whites, they want to leave some of them around to interbreed with and help steer their elitist political agenda - against interests that ethnonationalists shouldn’t be against and on behalf of interests that ethnonationalists should not be for.

Rather than wanting America, the proposition nation, to fall, with its neo-liberal component being a world’s foremost manufacturer and exporter of race mixing, rivaled only by Judaic, Islamic and Christian influences; they want the American political institution along with other Abrahamic/proposition nations to come more thematically, if not comprehensively under Jewish and neo-liberal lackey guidance.

A Trump victory does not only buy us some time, it buys them and their word-smiths some time - for one thing, to make (((the USA))) and (((the Russian Federation))) into good friends, and at one with (((White))) national politics.

Following the U.S. as an alternative right base, the Russian Federation is the Jews first option after Israel for a vector of parasitic control.

Needless to say that the U.S. is not an ethnostate, but neither is the Russian Federation, in either its vast size or content. As proposition nations, both are susceptible and heavily influenced by Jewish interests. Don’t believe the stuff that (((they))) have gotten (((the Alternative Right))) to believe about Russia being good friends to Assad - they disarmed a defense program that took Assad decades to develop in defense against Israel. And now Trump wants to let ISIL destroy Assad. Even more laughable is The Orthodox Nationalist claim that China is a solid ally with the Russian Federation. Not true to say the least.

The Russian Federation is not opposed to Israel and to Jews. The Russian Federation was complicit in the overthrow of Gaddafi.

The proposition nations of the US and the Russian Federation, along with those nations that Jewish and neo-liberal interests are turning into proposition nations through immigration and race mixing, are not strictly opposed to Islam as they are guided, but use Islam as shock troops and compradors to destroy ethnonationalism - as in the case of what they did to Gaddafi and in what Putin has done and Trump would do to Assad. Such is the case of Trump’s and Putin’s position with regard to Asian ethnonationalism.

Trump and the Jewish political class have installed a stance which is hostile to the idea of Asian ethnonationalisms entering any cooperation with White American ethnonationalist counterparts; as if Trump and the Jewish political class have as their chief concern a common interest with White American workers - that is Not true:

Business Insider, “Donald Trump said wages are ‘too high’ in his opening debate statement”, 10 Nov 2016

NPR, ‘How Trump Broke Campaign Norms But Still Won The Election’, 09 Nov 2016 (emphasis added):

JAMES FALLOWS: So [Trump’s] main point, it’s based on something that is in my view largely just wrong [...] factually incorrect—and that is the idea that essentially the economic problems America has is because China is—in particular but also Mexico and Japan and South Korea - are stealing our factories and stealing our jobs. [...] They’ve been losing them mainly to automation. They’ve been losing them mainly to the robotization of factories around the world. And that is why I can tell you from going back and forth to China that in every single country of the world, including China and Japan and South Korea and Mexico, the employment problem is the hollowing out of factory-type jobs because of automation.

It is a dubious prospect for ethnonationalists to want to “protect” the proposition nation anyway.

Right/Alt Right Misguidance Against Left Nationalism

By contrast to the right-wing objectivism that the Alternative Right is beholden to, which is manipulated and susceptible to Jewish and neo-liberal entryism, White ethnonationalism needs a position more characteristically White Left Nationalist: this would turn a critical eye toward the (((corruption))) of leaders of proposition nations such as Trump and Putin (if it can be said at all that Putin is in charge of ‘a nation’ rather than a parasitic aggrandizement larger than the moon) and what are becoming proposition nations ... such as those in Western Europe; at the same time it would turn a sympathetic eye toward and a cooperative stance toward the legitimate basis of ethnonationalism in Asia and the rest of the second world - in Europe exemplified by the Intermarium - to cooperate in our sovereign justice against the hegemony of Jewish interests, their misguiding of neo-liberal internationalism; as it backs shock troops and compradors among Islam and African population and biopower.

Trump has installed his contrasting, friendly, supportive stance toward black Americans (his singular racial/ethnic sponsorship, in fact) with his highly combative stance regarding Mexicans as if the former stance is strictly common ground with White ethnonationalism and both responses are anything but “solutions” to problems that his friends (YKW and right-wingers) created. But did you know that La Raza see themselves as a neo-race, aligned against blacks and against Jews? Who would have a problem with that?

Wikipedia, ‘Texas’ (emphasis added):

Under the Mexican immigration system, large swathes of land were allotted to empresarios, who recruited settlers from the United States, Europe, and the Mexican interior. The first grant, to Moses Austin, was passed to his son Stephen F. Austin after his death.

Austin’s settlers, the Old Three Hundred, made places along the Brazos River in 1822. Twenty-three other empresarios brought settlers to the state, the majority of whom were from the United States. The population of Texas grew rapidly. In 1825, Texas had about 3,500 people, with most of Mexican descent. By 1834, the population had grown to about 37,800 people, with only 7,800 of Mexican descent.

Many immigrants openly flouted Mexican law, especially the prohibition against slavery. Combined with United States’ attempts to purchase Texas, Mexican authorities decided in 1830 to prohibit continued immigration from the United States.

That law was an expression of Mexicans’ express prohibition of blacks in their territory. What’s the problem with prohibiting them?

A policy such as that, wrapped up in the fundamental base of La Raza’s ethnonationalism, is something that White ethnonationalists could strive to leverage cooperation with. “But no!” say the Alternative Right, “they are Leftist, we cannot cooperate with Leftists!”

White ethnonationalism might perhaps even cooperate with the Turkish Kurds against Erdogan ..but “no!”, say the Alt-Right, “we cannot cooperate with Leftist Kurds against Erdogan! - He believes in ‘god’, the god of Abraham… he follows laws in line with our Christian laws”, they continue, “... in line with…”

Erdogan’s administration, by the way, was almost as quick to congratulate Trump as Putin was.

Trump has aligned White interests with an obsequious stance toward Jews.

Say what you will, make your arrogant, snarky, condescending comments, gloating as you look downward, as the somebodies that you are now - bullfrogs perched on lily-pads - but if you think a choice between Hillary and Trump was anything but an expression of just how pathetic your objectivist aversion to decency and cooperation is, as it has been manipulated by the powers that be and continues to be, then you only increase the chance that your legacy will breed with Jews and other non-Whites, and your opportunity to participate as stewards of human and pervasive ecology will steadily decrease and steadily become more Jewish..

While we might take note of bonafide and cooperative ethnonational reasons as to why Japan was 93% in favor of Clinton, why the Philippines have set about to break with The US, etc…lets take a moment to give some kudos to White Americans and their advocates for exercising what was their better of two choices in a rigged deck.

Let me return a condescending congratulations to the Alt-Right on the stay of their execution….there is time to boil the frog slowly, where Kek does not jump out of the pot to reclaim itself as an Asian font of energy, culturally appropriated by Jewish hubris and misapplied by the Alt-Right, in near equal hubris.

Lawrence Murray is an excellent writer, obviously intelligent, not completely off theoretically - though still off, lets take a look at his victory lap with the still too meager, if not distorted, alternative right light that is thrown from the right wing torch that he carries:

The Right Stuff / Lawrence Murray, ‘Now I am become President, Leader of the Free World’, 09 Nov 2016:

On the far end of Manhattan’s West Side, a different story was unfolding at the Jacob Javits Center. A massive convention hall named after former New York senator (((Jacob Javits))), it was supposedly chosen for its glass ceiling, which Clinton would symbolically shatter as our first female president-elect. Instead, it became a glass pitcher of liberal tears. The choice for Clinton’s ill-fated coronation symbolized something else as well. (((Javits))) was a major force behind the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, which ended the country’s eurocentric immigration quotas and resulted in the rising tide of color we are currently grappling with. Each generation has become more “diverse,” and so in turn each cohort of new voters. It’s why New York was a solid lock for parachute candidate Clinton, and a hopeless cause for its native son, President Trump.

(((Native step-son indeed)))

ibid:

As the post mortems will surely tell us in the next few days, there just wasn’t enough turnout from voters of color. There just weren’t enough Hart-Celler Americans to stop President Trump. Not even the creation of an entirely new minority class over the last 50 years, Latinos, was enough to prevent a nativist and civic nationalist from being elected. But frankly, this was our last opportunity to strike back at the ballot. President Trump won by a wavy Caucasian hair. Having to literally drive the Amish to the polls in order to save the White race was poetic, though not a long-term solution.

But such problems are for another time, for now we celebrate. We celebrate the year that White populism shattered the glass ceiling of identity politics in the postwar West, as predicted. An article in The Atlantic puts it succinctly: “[President] Trump was carried to victory by a wave of right-wing populist nationalism, as working- and middle-class white Americans turned out in droves to vote.” President Trump’s victory is a monumental paradigm shift, or has the potential to solidify into one. The media called Teflon Don every name in the book and tried to tie him to all manner of anti-establishment heretics. President Trump did not waver; he undertook the hero’s journey and emerged victoriously in the name of the Amerikaner Shire.

Rather did (((The Atlantic))) inaugurate a paradigm shift from Jewish plan A to Jewish plan B - the slow Kek boil, the intermarrying with the frogs, er “Keks” who manage to jump out of the boiling pot.

ibid:

There is now a biblical flood of authors and pundits talking about “working class Whites,” “White voters,” “White males,” “non-college Whites,” “less-educated Whites,” “blue-collar Whites,” “rural Whites,” and even the unspeakable phrase “White identity politics.” This is yuuuge. We have a mandate from our folk for nationalism. The largest ethnic group in the West, the native peoples of Europe and their descendants in Greater Europe, is being recognized as an important political interest. Granted, it’s an interest that our rulers on both sides of the Atlantic insist must be vanquished, but that they must now name us explicitly is massively important to the spread of our ideas.

The concept of the enemy has returned to politics.

(((Whites))) with “leftist” enemies, with Asian enemies, “Islamic extremist” enemies and so far as they can help it (((and they can force choices that you should not want to make, such as Hillary or Trump))), “friends” with “moderate Jews”...“moderate Islam”....“moderate blacks”...  “friends with the right wing” - the “that’s the way it is” club, the Jesus suicide map club and friendkinstein club 88 - European neighbors be damned ..be friends with “the alternative right” and its (((entryist big tent, and with that perhaps the “alternative left”))).

ibid:

Get ready for the storm, because White people, this is your fault. Because of your existence, millions of members of designed oppressed groups must live in fear of being treated like outsiders.

While you are at it, brace yourself if you are an ethnonationalist, for the reality that the US has been the adversary of ethnonationalism in most cases, as in Vietnam, the Philippines, in Japan, the Turkish Kurds and more - indeed, where have they defended ethnonationalism?

ibid:

Americans will have to decide very soon—quickly—where they stand on President Trump. The choice now is pro-Trump or anti-Trump, and nationalists as much as anti-nationalists have made him into an avatar of American Whiteness.

That’s right, the Alternative Right has been co-opted into representation of their interests by that fool: that crass businessman, that mere promoter of the brand name attached to his failed, toxic assets as a means to pay off the Jewish financiers saddled with his shallow but grandiose vision, now intimately entwined with Jewish values - Donald Trump is here to represent (((White interests))).

ibid:

With his opponent out of the way (probably for good), where people stand on this choice will become much more salient.

With Hillary, the quintessential personification of the White man hating bitch out of the way, hopefully it will continue to feed their right-wing hubris to help highlight and distinguish them as they tend to obfuscate and muck-up the ethnonationalist agenda.

ibid:

Our position is not unassailable, but it is stronger than ever before. So we celebrate, that President Trump has given rise to nationalism, to America First, to formal recognition of the Alt-Right, to outing cuckservatives as #NeverTrump turncoats, to (((anti-globalist))) memes entering the public consciousness, to levels of shvitzing that shouldn’t even be possible, and more than anything else to hope for the future of our people, not just in the United States but around the world. This is as much a victory for White Americans as it is for Swedes, Australians, the British, the French, and other European peoples. We will make the world save for ethnocracy.

Jews have money and they know that they can buy their way into enough of you such that your (((Whiteness))) around the world will be mixed with their motives.

ibid:

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the shitlord scripture the Bhagavad Reeeeeeeta; Kek is trying to persuade the prince that he should save his people, and to impress him takes on his frog-headed form, and says, “Now I am become meme, the destroyer of cucks.” I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.

You aren’t Kek, but you are frogs, you are somebodies, somebody frogs on lily-pads; on water boiling slowly now; perhaps you’ll jump out of the pot and into the waiting arms of your kosher mates; before that, to prove your anti-Jewish credentials, perhaps you’ll do them a favor by exterminating the undesirables from among them, while also true to your (((Fuhrer))), killing those inferior “lefty” Whites.

It is 4.00 am in England, and I have switched on my laptop to find out how close Hillary Clinton is to becoming the first female president of the United States of America, which was the predicted outcome when I switched off my laptop five hours ago.  But the media is now saying she isn’t.  Donald Trump is moving in on a victory in Florida, all the red states, and perhaps two or even three of the blues.  It will put him in the White House.  What will it mean?

Well, an awful lot of words will be written about that over the next several days, and by people a lot more qualified to comment on the US political scene than I am.  But there are a couple of points that spring to mind now, and I thought I might quickly gesture in their direction.

First, the Trump voter profile:

Mr Trump’s support was strongest among whites without a college degree. He was winning nearly two-thirds of them. Whites with college degrees are split between Mr Trump and Mrs Clinton. Mr Trump is winning both among white men and white women, though his margin is much higher among men.

... points to a highly sophisticated political understanding that white Americans have developed over these last months and years.  And not just that - they have clung to it tenaciously, in the midst of a furious Establishment campaign to poison support for Trump.  I wouldn’t claim that the clear racial divide in voting is evidence of racial solidarity among whites, which would offer an opening to a politics much more akin to something we might desire.  The typical white voter is much more likely thinking in terms of personal interests first and of taking America back from the elites second.  So, individualism:

68 percent agree that “traditional parties and politicians don’t care about people like me.”

... and civicism:

57 percent feel that “more and more, I don’t identify with what America has become.

... but not racialism.  But it’s still a hell of an advance on dumbly walking into the polling station, election after election, and voting for yet more of the same punishment.  People have understood how and why they have been betrayed, and by whom; and they have, in record numbers, seized upon the first real electoral opportunity to change that.  It is a remarkable and touching statement of disaffection and of hope.  Whether or not over the coming years President Trump will justify the faith that white Americans have shown in him, it signals a break with the complacent Establishment parties that they may never be able to repair.  As long as whites have a majority among voters, anti-establishment politics will be the electoral king.  It will have a profound effect.

One of those effects will be that the public discourse will open somewhat to the ambitions and interests of white America.  The ease with which the Establishment media will be able to slyly malign whites as a group - happening tonight on ABC, I have heard - will be challenged.  Likewise, the progressive lockstep operating throughout civic America will be challenged.  There will be popular demands on the new administration to sweep away politically correct and anti-white activism on campus and in schools.  The Supreme Court will be reformed.  This will happen even if the Trump administration makes little or no progress with the economic and industrial policies it has promised.  Also, the building of the wall and the restrictions on Muslim immigration will effect a more overtly pro-white racial dispensation both in terms of government policy and how people at all levels actually think about race in America.

First Brexit, then Trump.  Of course, as nationalists we are cautious about all this.  But it is still pretty exciting.  We share in the hope of white Americans too.  It is a very, very good result for us - not least because America still wields enormous influence in the world.  The cause everywhere of our people and our politics will be advanced.  2016 has been a truly remarkable political year.  Elections in France and Germany are upcoming.  We still await Norbert Hofer’s victory in the Austrian presidential election.  We are living in interesting times.

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...

A few weeks ago I posted a piece here about the limits of incremental change.  Its goal was to explore how far political reaction not guided by nationalists … the kind of political reaction which is emerging all across the West … can really go before it encounters the immoveable object of Establishment interests, Money Power interests, Jewish interests; at which point only an authentic nationalism can push on.  This article today will also address the problem of limits.  But this time those will be the limits in commonplace nationalist advocacy which do not necessarily preference “pushing on”.

This short article will also serve as a response to Daniel’s reliance, stated over his most recent posts, on social critique.

Readers may be familiar with my criticism of American White Nationalism as a reactionary but non-revolutionary ideology greatly compromised by the unacknowledged, vestigial liberalism of its advocates.  I touched upon the radical nature of what it is NOT … systemic nationalism … at the opening of Part 3 of the What it means to be human series:

In what struggle are nationalists truly engaged?  Well, yes, the struggle for the future of our people: a struggle for survival, a struggle for autonomy, a struggle for homeland, a struggle to live unburdened by the racial Other.  That is clear.  A process of deliverance, of salvation, then.  But also deliverance and salvation from the entire political, social, and economic form of the modern world, meaning from its economism, its egalitarianism, its “liberty” and “progress”, its “tolerance” and universalism … even, for some, its democratism because that, too, is a modernist massifying ideology.

Yet nationalism’s struggle is not confined to the getting of power and the re-making of the polity, a bit like re-making a bed.  It is more revolutionary and totalistic than that, requiring a change at an extra-political level that completely sweeps away the liberal order in the West, bed and all, and with it the life it generates and the very Mind in which that is even possible.  Nationalism’s radicalism leaves nothing but Nature itself undisturbed.  It seeks not a simple answer but a complete answer.  This is so whether it is a self-exultant, heroic progressivism like the fascisms, or a reactionary, Evolian conservatism, or something more Volkish and identitarian ... or even existentialist and Heideggerian.

And so on.

The point is that the mass of WNs, along with a probable majority of self-described European nationalists, are not willing to think through the consequences of such radicalism.  They may claim to be 100% AltRight or National Socialist or even white left (a contested term, it seems).  But as reactionaries they have a conservative civilisational vision.  In most cases it has little more ambition than for a return to where we were, ethnically speaking, two or three generations ago.  Minus the Jews and blacks, of course, and the bad political choices, the bad life-style choices (especially the “mudsharking”).  Bolt on a few useful ancillaries like race-realism, no more brother-wars, and maybe some bits of honour code, and that’s rebirth, right … that’s whites living and working and voting for and by their own collective interests, governed by men and women who understand that and are faithful to it.  Isn’t this all that white America really needs?  Oh, and the personal liberty, of course.  Got a constitutional right to that.  What free man wants government pushing him around?  Oh, and there’s Christianity.  Believers are always gonna believe.  Can’t stop that.  Shouldn’t even try.  And then there’s guns.  Didn’t the guy behind the bar just say that a well-armed populace is the best defence against tyranny?  Of course, the tyranny has tanks and aircraft.  And electronic warfare.  And the FEMA camps.  And your address.  But, hey, if you think your 9mm mail order popgun will help, we’re cool with that.  Just kindly point it somewhere else.

READ MORE...

Muammar Gaddafi and Aisha Gaddafi.

R2P, the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ is the latest formulation which is used to rationalise just about any kind of arbitrary intervention without revealing the strategic and economic aims behind that intervention, lest those aims be subject to analysis or criticism in the international media.

Now that the situation in Libya has more or less settled into a repetitious cycle of instability of a predictably bad sort, it’s worth taking a retrospective look at the intervention, drawing together the various vectors which brought about this result.

Everyone likely remembers when Dick Cheney went on a sort of flamboyant tour talking down the Libyan intervention, because he thought it would result in disaster. The old Huguenot has many faults and has always been prone to over-extending his hand and overestimating the capabilities of the US military, but he is easy to understand because he actually is a true-believer in his own words, which means that he could at least be relied on to take the Global War on Terror seriously unlike many of his contemporaries. Cheney pointed out that even by R2P’s own logic, there was nothing to gain in terms of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ since Gaddafi had already given up his NBC weapons programme in 2003 and handed it all over to the United States.

Simultaneously, Libya had been an ally in the Global War on Terror and had collaborated repeatedly with the United Kingdom with intelligence sharing and even extraordinary rendition carried out against Islamist reactionaries of various stripes.

Cheney then invoked RAND RR637:

RAND Corporation, A Persistent Threat: The Evolution of al Qa’ida and Other Salafi Jihadists, 04 Jun 2014:

Research Questions

• What is the present status of al Qa’ida and other Salafi-jihadist groups?
• How has the broader Salafi-jihadist movement evolved over time, especially since 9/11?

This report examines the status and evolution of al Qa’ida and other Salafi-jihadist groups, a subject of intense debate in the West. Based on an analysis of thousands of primary source documents, the report concludes that there has been an increase in the number of Salafi-jihadist groups, fighters, and attacks over the past several years. The author uses this analysis to build a framework for addressing the varying levels of threat in different countries, from engagement in high-threat, low government capacity countries; to forward partnering in medium-threat, limited government capacity environments; to offshore balancing in countries with low levels of threat and sufficient government capacity to counter Salafi-jihadist groups.

Key Findings

The number of Salafi-jihadist groups and fighters increased after 2010, as well as the number of attacks perpetrated by al Qa’ida and its affiliates.

• Examples include groups operating in Tunisia, Algeria, Mali, Libya, Egypt (including the Sinai Peninsula), Lebanon, and Syria.
• These trends suggest that the United States needs to remain focused on countering the proliferation of Salafi-jihadist groups, which have started to resurge in North Africa and the Middle East, despite the temptations to shift attention and resources to the strategic “rebalance” to the Asia-Pacific region and to significantly decrease counterterrorism budgets in an era of fiscal constraint.

The broader Salafi-jihadist movement has become more decentralized.

• Control is diffused among four tiers: (1) core al Qa’ida in Pakistan, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri; (2) formal affiliates that have sworn allegiance to core al Qa’ida, located in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and North Africa; (3) a panoply of Salafi-jihadist groups that have not sworn allegiance to al Qa’ida but are committed to establishing an extremist Islamic emirate; and (4) inspired individuals and networks.

The threat posed by the diverse set of Salafi-jihadist groups varies widely.

• Some are locally focused and have shown little interest in attacking Western targets. Others, like al Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula, present an immediate threat to the U.S. homeland, along with inspired individuals like the Tsarnaev brothers — the perpetrators of the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. In addition, several Salafi-jihadist groups pose a medium-level threat because of their desire and ability to target U.S. citizens and facilities overseas, including U.S. embassies.

Recommendations

• The United States should establish a more adaptive counterterrorism strategy that involves a combination of engagement, forward partnering, and offshore balancing.
• The United States should consider a more aggressive strategy to target Salafi-jihadist groups in Syria, which in 2013 had more than half of Salafi-jihadists worldwide, either clandestinely or with regional and local allies.

Now, why would Dick Cheney be going around hawking this research in defiance of the US government in 2014? We know that it is not due to the usual partisan party-political reasons, because US party-political divisions are largely illusory anyway. The only explanation is that he seriously thought that the US was doing something that he didn’t think it was ‘supposed’ to be doing.

This means that there was a fundamental rift between Dick Cheney’s view of reality, a view of reality which had evolved between 2001 and 2007, and the new (or old, depending on how you look at it) reality that had asserted itself after 2011 as Hillary Clinton happened to be steering the ship of foreign policy as Secretary of State. This is not due to a difference in character of the individuals per se, but rather, a difference in the circumstances at the time, which Cheney had not caught up to because he was no longer in office and was not subject to the countervailing winds of lobbying (this includes not only positions taken by companies, but also positions taken by whole states, significantly, Israel and its ‘Clean Break’ programme going into effect in Libya) which reflect the change in economic necessity. Cheney is still living ‘in 2007’. The logic of capital was thus partially revealed through the nature of the ‘gap’ between Cheney’s—now out of office—and Clinton’s—then in office—understanding of the situation.

After 2001, there was the perception among the Americans—or at least, it appeared that such a perception existed—that the days of leveraging Salafist-jihadists as a tool of American foreign policy had ended, because the events of 11 September 2001 had shown them that a new enemy had emerged and that this enemy was the very same Salafist-jihadism that they had been patronising in one way or another through the Cold War and its immediate aftermath. Some of the Americans seemed to actually be of that mind themselves, and so it may not have been a mere perception.

However, we live in a reality in which material economic factors have predominance over the idealist conceptions, and in cases where the two do not line up, the longer the timeline is extended, the more the economic factors come into predominance. As Friedrich Engels said:

Marx and Engels Correspondence, ‘Engels to Borgius’, 25 Jan 1894 (emphasis added):

Their efforts clash, and for that very reason all such societies are governed by necessity, which is supplemented by and appears under the forms of accident. The necessity which here asserts itself amidst all accident is again ultimately economic necessity. This is where the so-called great men come in for treatment. That such and such a man and precisely that man arises at that particular time in that given country is of course pure accident. But cut him out and there will be a demand for a substitute, and this substitute will be found, good or bad, but in the long run he will be found. That Napoleon, just that particular Corsican, should have been the military dictator whom the French Republic, exhausted by its own war, had rendered necessary, was an accident; but that, if a Napoleon had been lacking, another would have filled the place, is proved by the fact that the man has always been found as soon as he became necessary: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc. While Marx discovered the materialist conception of history, Thierry, Mignet, Guizot, and all the English historians up to 1850 are the proof that it was being striven for, and the discovery of the same conception by Morgan proves that the time was ripe for it and that indeed it had to be discovered.

So with all the other accidents, and apparent accidents, of history.

The further the particular sphere which we are investigating is removed from the economic sphere and approaches that of pure abstract ideology, the more shall we find it exhibiting accidents in its development, the more will its curve run in a zig-zag. So also you will find that the axis of this curve will approach more and more nearly parallel to the axis of the curve of economic development the longer the period considered and the wider the field dealt with.

In Germany the greatest hindrance to correct understanding is the irresponsible neglect by literature of economic history. It is so hard, not only to disaccustom oneself of the ideas of history drilled into one at school, but still more to rake up the necessary material for doing so. Who, for instance, has read old G. von Gülich, whose dry collection of material nevertheless contains so much stuff for the clarification of innumerable political facts!

For the rest, the fine example which Marx has given in the Eighteenth Brumaire should already, I think, provide you fairly well with information on your questions, just because it is a practical example.

By quoting this, am I implying now that the United States and some of its allies have been drawn into finding it economically ‘necessary’ to support Salafist-jihadists? Yes, it seems that economics has reasserted itself.

Previously I had, with some degree of confidence, said this on the issue:

Kumiko Oumae / Majorityrights, ‘North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet’, 11 Jul 2015 (emphasis added):

Islamists feel that their economic and social relevance is being sidelined by the dominance of international finance capital and the national bourgeoisie of countries in the developing world who have been activated by the unbinding of the circle of North Atlantic finance that took place after the 1970s. After the 1970s, capital flowed out of the North Atlantic area and into the developing zones in the periphery.

As a result of that movement of capital, social transformations took place, which Islamist reactionaries of different sorts interpreted as being a threat to their own dominance over the civic spaces - some of these being countries, some of them being zones within countries - in the Middle East and Central Asia.

However, this chaotic process, out of which a new order will emerge, is entirely necessary and is justified by the role that the actors in the North Atlantic are playing. I use the word ‘justified’ not in the petty-moralist sense of the term, but rather, in the scientific and economic sense of the term. The international financial system exhibits its justification for existing - its historical role - through the fact that it takes its surplus wealth and uses it to wend its way through every corner of the earth looking for new ways to engender the development of productive forces. This is a role that it will continue to be justified in taking on, until such time as it exhausts its progressive potential and is necessarily sublated and superseded by new social and economic systems, ones which would be established on socialist or syndicalist foundations. There is considerable evidence since 2008 that the system of international investment is already approaching its structural limits, and that various actors are attempting to explore those limits. And that after the development and interconnectivity of South East Asia is completed, ‘zero-profit capitalism’ could next emerge.

It’s clear now that the progressive potential of American and French capitalism is drawing to a close. Whereas previously the trajectory seemed to be that these states would find themselves locked into a zero-sum conflict over the fate of the Arc of Instability, the present interest of monopoly capital in maintaining their market share in the face of competition from elsewhere, is to enter into a ‘Holy Alliance’ of compromise and retrogression in which the United States and France begin to cooperate with their former ecclesiastical and feudal adversaries against a common threat of expropriation in the local sphere. They find themselves united in a common antipathy toward socialism, to shore up their global hegemonic position.

Bold statement, right? Do I have any proof at all to justify this view? Yes. See here:

U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05779612 Date: 31 Dec 2015:

I don’t think that requires any particular comment. It practically speaks for itself.

However, could any of this have happened without tacit Russian consent? Let’s continue our retrospective:

The Jamestown Foundation, ‘Russia Placing Itself Above the Fray in Libya’, 29 Apr 2011 (emphasis added):

Russia made the US/NATO military intervention in Libya possible in the first place, by abstaining in the UN Security council vote on resolution 1973, rather than vetoing it. Russia’s March 27 abstention was a diplomatic masterstroke, poorly understood at that point by the Obama administration, which credited its “reset” for the Russian green light. As Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Duma’s International Affairs Committee, spelled it out: By abstaining, Russia has positioned itself to demand full observance of the resolution’s provisions by those who voted for it, and without sharing responsibility with those countries for the political consequences of their intervention (EDM, April 25).

As it turns out, the Western belligerents have undertaken this operation with insufficient forces; the US has withdrawn its most effective strike planes prematurely from action; and NATO — to which the US has largely devolved the operation — fights with one hand tied behind its back, unable to reinforce and escalate as long as Russia does not approve this via the UN Security Council, or by some tacit arrangement.

Arming the rebels is a poor option because it would simply prolong the conflict without a decisive outcome, absent of a massive US/NATO offensive. The top rebel commander, General Abdel Fattah Yunis, has rushed to Brussels, with a shopping list of weapons for insurgent forces that are yet to be trained. “We don’t mean light arms,” Yunis clarified for the press in Brussels. He wants Apache helicopters, anti-tank missiles, and torpedo boats for the rebel forces. “NATO has everything,” he judged (Interfax, April 28).

Russia will not necessarily or permanently veto a massive US/NATO offensive. Moscow will almost certainly negotiate its position, seeking trade-offs on issues of priority interest to Russia. For the time being, it can de facto tolerate an incremental escalation of offensive operations, insufficient for Western belligerents to win quickly, but sufficient to entangle them in yet another protracted conflict. If this scenario materializes, Moscow plans to emerge in some mediator’s role above the fray. And irrespective of the tempo of military operations, Russia is set to collect a windfall on European oil and gas markets, due to the halt in Libyan supplies for an indefinite period.

And:

The Jamestown Foundation, ‘Russia Unveils Political Objectives In Libya’, 21 Apr 2011 (emphasis added):

Based on statements by Medvedev, Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov, and other officials (“Moscow Positioning to Exploit Libya Stalemate,” EDM, April 21), Russian objectives at this stage in the Libya conflict can be summed up as follows:

1.  An early ceasefire in place, to be followed by mediated negotiations between Muammar Gaddafi’s government and the insurgents. Russia opposes regime change in Tripoli, but seems noncommittal on two key issues: Gaddafi’s personal departure from power and Libya’s territorial unity. With or without Gaddafi, an early ceasefire in place would result in dividing Libya de facto into eastern and western territories, pending an uncertain outcome of negotiations between Tripoli and Benghazi.

2.  Adherence to the UN Security Council’s existing mandate, which is limited to enforcement of a no-fly zone. Russia tolerates US/NATO air strikes in support of the outgunned insurgents, but opposes any ground operations, or arms supplies and training, to the same insurgents. Such prohibitions ensure the military superiority of pro-government forces, while the air strikes merely help the insurgents to fight defensively. Thus, Russian policy favors an inconclusive, open-ended civil conflict in Libya.

3.  No legitimate US/NATO actions without the UN Security Council’s, i.e. Russia’s, consent. Russia wants the Security Council to evaluate NATO’s compliance with the relevant resolutions on Libya. Such deference to the United Nations (instrumental in Moscow, ideological in the Obama administration) can open a way for Russia to affect NATO policy decisions through its role in the UN Security Council.

4. A halt on Libyan oil and gas supplies to the European continent. Russia gains from the unexpected interruption of those supplies and is interested in a prolonged halt. This has become, tacitly but indubitably, a Russian objective in the Libya crisis. Thanks to this conflict, Russia free-rides on higher prices for its oil and gas; it can increase its market share in Italy, Austria, Germany, and potentially other European countries; and gains more lobbying power for Russian energy projects that increase European dependence on Russian supplies.

Beyond the objectives linked directly with this conflict, Moscow has a broader interest in seeing the US and NATO tied down in wars of choice and other protracted confrontations. These increase Russia’s leeway for action in ex-Soviet [Central Asian] territories, Russia’s top priority. Moscow must welcome the disproportionate allocation of Western resources to expeditionary wars from shrinking defense budgets in NATO Europe, where lack of military investment stands in contrast with Russia’s ambitious military modernization program.

So, that’s that. My intent was not to rehash things that are already known, but rather, to draw a view of the conflict which may not be known to the average observer, particularly not observers taking the positions favourable to Russia that have become standard to “WN” and “the Alternative Right”. Positions which are of course completely at odds with the actual nature of the Russian Federation.

Part two will fill in some gaps on the role of Israel and Ethiopia in the Libyan conflict and its aftermath, as both countries made strategic gains as a result and were invested in the outcome. So stay tuned for that.

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...

First is not the same as most essential (inter esse), a take-away from prior thread.

Updated (significantly) the morning of October 18th CET

I agree that it is important to not set the bar too high and that is something which GW helps to articulate very well - i.e., the Heideggerian place of MidtDasein - by ensconcing the authentic consciousness of the subject in a world view that is not all that conscious - not feeling constantly compelled by the instrumental, for reasons too subjective, too objective, or too “the They” but resonating rather, with the emergent - he contributes thus significantly to the articulation of its authentic form, in this holding fast attention to resonance, from resonance of subjective emergence to resonance of the objective field, a position which does partake of the calculative (Cartesian) while not remaking stuck there, generally. On the other hand, also generally, Heidegger helps to not set the bar too high, by suggesting that authentic thinking generally occurs slowly, in a meandering, qualitative survey by poesis. While the subject is the inevitable entering point of caring interest, its viewpoint is calibrated authentically from there, taken away from inauthenticity and into engagement with its full organic process by re-attention to “there-being” (which occurs, I suppose, when resonance with a relative concern is particularly acute), from momentary concerns to a broad systemic view based in the relative interests (inter esse) of one’s folk (social group/midtdasein) within the emergent world - that is another description of midtdasein; and if the subject is centered not in objectivity, but within the purview of the folk, in praxis; and folk leaders share this view to their relative interests, the calibration of the group should feed back to serve the authentic interests of the subjective starting point which the subject will come back to inevitably in resonance - a resonance that should meld with the group’s interests, in the moment they seek to re-orient anew, to call back from estrangement their authentic position of caring. But if the subject is not getting sufficient feedback from the system, marginalized as such, their authentic concern would bring to bear their subjective perspective on the system’s inauthenticity, acting as a homeostatic corrective (I believe it was Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, who fostered this idea).

Thus, First - subject - isn’t the same as most Essential (inter-esse) - Midtdasein - subject ensconced in a world view of relation within the folk. In fact, the first subjective relation is not to this third person (Cartesian) point of view, but rather, the subject acting into relation of second person address - parental relation, as biological creatures with reflexive capacities unique among biological creatures. From that starting point, it moves into emergent and third person relation (us) to calibrate midtdasein - if the social system is correctly oriented - which it presently is not (because it is estranged, all too Cartesian: objective/subjective, all too moved into the third person “they”) - hence the need for centering not rigidly stuck in the Cartesianism of the psychological perspective, but in the communication perspective, in interaction, its affordance of a view confirmed and delimited by the relative interests of the human ecological system, beginning with the first to second person relation and then prompting engagement in non-universal maturity, to socialization in midtdasein - a worldview gauged against the relative interests of the social group. The interests of the subject as participant in the social group, its authentic being, are held fast as they naturally resonate in emergent delimitation against material reality, including its own affordances and constraints, matters of physics; and for the need to coordinate caring activity/existence in relation to the emergence of other authentic social groups, biological creatures, the necessities of their organic systems in emergent relation to our systemic organic necessities.

Heidegger does advise or describe as authentic then, a holding fast of this essence, the resonance of emergent qualities of the subject, the people, the MidtDasein and its world setting taken to heart.

The holding metaphor is interesting because it implies two separated appendages, or at any rate, the capacity to embrace and coddle that which is inbetween and captivate it to one’s subjective attention.

Adding

GW: Cartesian epistemology, then, is dangerously self-referential, and that applies to the Cartesian sum as well as its cogito ... to what the model can say about the subject.  Subjectivity truly is a chalk circle.

To break this, Heidegger proposed that every thing from a single particle to the universe has a being of its own and, therefore, a truth thereof which discloses itself to an action or state or site (depending on one’s interpretation) called Dasein.  Now, to overcome the difficulty of representation in the Mind, because thought, emotion and sensation are each, in their own way, representational, Hiedegger proposed essential thinking as the mind-activity which is active in Dasein’s way of seeing what is disclosed.

This is good in that it helps supply a much fuller understanding, encourages attention to where our subjective emergent qualities resonate with the emergent qualities beyond the subjective; but you are sweeping aside other aspects that Heidegger suggests for relieving Cartesian rigidity, viz., the idea of Caring, there-being (taking attention out of one’s head), the folk and their delimitation as such - these are not an affectation to Heidegger nor an arbitrary application.

You have reminded me of the aspect of Heidegger in which he calls attention to “spreading out what is interesting - inter esse - and taking to heart what is most essential - then holding fast” - that would be a Heideggerian means for subjective emergence resonating with emergent qualities of the objective…

The holding metaphor is interesting because it implies two separated appendages, or at any rate, the capacity to embrace and coddle that which is inbetween and captivate it to one’s subjective attention.

What you may not be respecting in what I am getting at is how Heidegger’s system would assign being to the folk - and how the subjective would have a different qualitative relation to it, within it, in midtdasein, than to the rest of the “site of disclosure”... it would be a relative quality and a Caring which goes beyond and then delimits the subjective perspective from The They and The The which would make a non-Cartesian difference. The holding metaphor which you remind me of in your attention to emergence is interesting.

Heidegger does advise or describe as authentic then, a holding fast of this essence of resonance of emergent qualities of the subject, the people, the MidtDasein and its world setting taken to heart.

GW: Only by fitting the two realms together may one reconcile false Dasein to “midtdasein” ... may one reconcile the formed personality, with all its error, to the “site” of disclosure of the thing which is the people.  That is what my Ontological Transit, in all its gauche simplicity, is designed to do.  Understand it before you criticise it.

Well, you can put it that way, its implied in what I’ve said, but rather than its being incumbent upon me to “understand” a reification like “the personality”, you might be open to understand before criticizing the reason why autobiography will provide a better means of fitting predilections of the corporeal self to the “site” of disclosure - which includes one’s folk.

I can appreciate that you want “personality” to fit a closer reading of the corporeal and its genetic expression, but the concept of autobiography is not mutually exclusive and will, rather, facilitate “the fitting together” of authentic expression of the personality and the “site of disclosure.”