Posted by Richard Rorty on Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:34 | #

Note: Subverting the “final grammar” was apparently a part of Richard Rorty’s philosophical strategy to force people to accept a more relativistic, tolerant, less absolute position.

Rorty, a Marxist, knew that this humiliated.

It is important for the general public to understand that there is an important difference between the modest relativism of group interests, amended with objective inquiry and subjective accountability, accountability to group interests as opposed to the hyper relativism that stems from the kind of rupture of group interests that Rorty would instigate.

Rorty was the one who promoted the horrific and shallow association of Post Modernity with “irony” and the “ironic stance.”

Like any normal person, I always hated this man, the moment I knew anything about him.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:01 | #

As I understand it, irony was central to postmodernism’s period-initiating appearance in architecture, which dates from some time in or before 1959, when Derrida was first challenging the core assumptions of structuralism.  Exactly where the root of postmodernism is I do not yet see, but it isn’t in the French philosophy of the second-half of the 20th century, which (marginally) came after.  It may simply be, as claimed, a reaction - sealed within and specific to architecture - to internationalism in the built environment.  But that may itself be an outcrop of a wider, prior sense among thinkers, artists and creators in Eisenhower’s America that there was an assault in train by the forces of dehumanisation and uniformity upon the particular and local, and that this was broadly an elitist and corporate action (to which Eisenhower himself referred in his farewell address to the American people).

Art was lost entirely to elitism.  But for a time architecture fought back against internationalism’s universalism and modernism’s reductive thrall to the machine.

It is a long-standing claim among Europeans that irony is absent from the American mind.  Postmodernism, in its attempt to find a basis for re-connecting buildings to their surroundings, surely disproved that assertion.  I have lived in a genuine postmodern house, built in 1975; and it was full of ironic marine gestures to the great wave of rolling land on which it “sailed”.  The victory of modernism since the 1990s is a negative, but it is a victory wrought by technological improvements, not philosophical superiority.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:23 | #

Derrida, being a motivated Jew, with antagonistic reasoning as such, cannot be granted any claim to define Post Modernism where European interests are concerned; and there are incredibly important interests at stake, particularly requiring the capacity to acknowledge the possibility and logic to the end of modernity, for the pernicious aspects of its logics of meaning and action.

Rorty is some kind of Marxist fuck-head and cannot be trusted either.

As opposed to hyer-relative, da-da, ironic, deconstructionist erasure of White interests, its confusion, the task of post modernity proper is to manage the best and worst of modernity, tradition, inherited ways and forms, for the big reason firstly, so that for the seductive clout for the advances that it has yielded, modernity is not permitted to run rough shod in its worst aspects, e.g. over ecological concerns, including over the human ecology of traditional/inherited forms and ways where they are benign and good; destroyed in the name of modernity’s “necessary experiment” and “progress.”

The proper management of Post Modernity we may refer to as White Post Modernity in order to distinguish it from the ironic, hyper relative, da da nonsense the antagonists of White interests would like to mire White interests within by definition in order to keep us disorganized, without proper understanding as such; within the hyper relativism of what is really late modernity’s reflexive effect.

White Post modernity is not a reaction; it begins with Vico’s response to Descartes as re-structured by the Aristotlean epistemology, centering praxis; viz. a non-Cartesian world view which not only centers praxis but engages praxis in a process of inquiry; a project followed through by Nietzsche, Heidegger, and any thoughtful person concerned with the well being of European peoples.

Architecture, and the dehumanizing, nightmarish edifices called “post modern”, does create an additional challenge of negative association (among the all too abundant pejorative associations let run rampant by our enemies for the sake of deliberate red cape confusion) to challenge White post modernity proper, as architecture is less a matter of process than ways of life. As opposed to the worst of both world sarcophagi called post modern architecture, White Post Modernity would seems thus to usually require a more stark choice between modernity or tradition in order to succeed aesthetically; in which case it is hard to distinguish as post modern architecture, except that it may have more modern functional advances than otherwise apparently traditional architecture; and take traditional and inherited concerns more into consideration than the modern stuff.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 18 Sep 2020 16:31 | #

One of the reasons I dislike this line of advocacy for our cause is because it is non-optimal in its bearing on structure as opposed to existence and its agent, essence.  Postmodernism, however unstructured it may strive to be, is still about structure (just not much structure); in the same way that relativism is still about fixity, just not much of it.  By finding that even at its genesis the existent must be structured, and cannot be a single entity, postmodernism could really only extend structuralism.  Likewise, in rejecting singularity (as, for example, the subject of phenomenology’s limited attempt to “live” experience) its trajectory was bound for relativism.

I don’t think you can escape these trajectories, however thickly you draw your lines and rename your boundaries.  You are always stuck wasting time and energy doing it all over again, insisting on your analysis, perhaps striving to install your communicationism in our advocacy as your primary concern, and without there actually being any obvious need for it.  There may be value in it but there’s a lot of work involved to find out, and there’s the problem of applying what is a structuralist filter to an existential crisis.  Finally - another reason for my conservative position on it - who is there among the mass of our people who will understand, anyway?

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:35 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:31 | #

One of the reasons I dislike this line of advocacy for our cause is because it is non-optimal in its bearing on structure as opposed to existence and its agent, essence.

Yeah, I know. You are against concepts, working hypotheses, no matter how necessary. You want everything to be as empirical and natural as possible.

I am sure that you are mistaken in the singularity with which you attend to this but even more for the mutual exclusivity that you see in this and my preferred angle.

However, you do fall in line somewhat with the British analytic school of Bertrand Russell in this predilection of yours.

It may be a bit less obvious that this kind pure empricism won’t work in a situation like Nationalism for the English as opposed to Nationalism for White diaspora. But it should be obvious enough that its not enough, even for the English; and its quite selfish to not be more empathic to its still greater unnecessary peril for diasporic Europeans

GW: Postmodernism, however unstructured it may strive to be, is still about structure (just not much structure);

There is nothing wrong with hypothesizing one’s group structure [systemic calibration]; it is necessary and that working hypothesis is the point.

GW: in the same way that relativism is still about fixity, just not much of it.

Who said? That doesn’t make a lot of sense that that is what “relativism is about.”

GW: By finding that even at its genesis the existent must be structured, and cannot be a single entity, postmodernism could really only extend structuralism.

Your claims about post modernity, what its various components can and cannot do (at least as they are suggested to also imply White Post Modernity as otherwise distinguished) are not something that I can lend any credence to, because I’ve seen too much productive sense making by its means and I’ve NEVER known you to suspend disbelief in the many instances where I show how these ideas function when in service of White/European interests. You are determined to maintain the red capes to serve as the foil for your autobiography, Don Quixote against the artifice of academic humanities on behalf of natural man and his nation.

GW: Likewise, in rejecting singularity (as, for example, the subject of phenomenology’s limited attempt to “live” experience) its trajectory was bound for relativism.

Balking against “relativism” as you are doing now, is a sure singn of philosophical, not amateurism, but ineptitude. It’s hyper-relativism, too much relativism, disingenuously deployed, that is the problem. On the other hand, acknowledgement of some relativism to one’s subjective and group outlook provides for all the good things that I like to underscore: accountability, correctability and coherence, agency and warrant.

We don’t go around objective all the time. Can’t, shouldn’t. Occasionally, we engage in objective rigor to learn what truths we need to know that are irrespective of our subjective and relative interests, but we bring these findings back into service of our subjective an relative interests.

In fact, Modernity/Cartesianism’s adulation of objectivism has a major reflexive effect of hyper-relativism.

That is why I posit as the practical world view (Praxis) the working hypothesis of our relative group interests as the calibration and objective inquiry as feedback. This is an original suggestion on my part, having traced it as a logical function of White Post Modernity proper; and I will pat myself on the back for it among MANY good ideas that I’ve brought forth (which YOU will never give me credit for…maybe can’t even, simply don’t know enough to know the difference). The subjective position that you may like to start with finds its place in this world view (Calibration) and is Cartesian when it it is not conceived as a species of relativism within the group relative.

GW: I don’t think you can escape these trajectories, however thickly you draw your lines and rename your boundaries.

I am not trying to escape anything. Here is the big problem with you: my perspective can accommodate, even welcomes your concern for empirical verification and rigorous inquiry.

For whatever fucked up reason (appears largely to be an old fashioned power game) you will not accept this and will not work to put your concerns into accord with the broader unit of analysis that I attend to - of necessity, because, despite what you may like to believe, I am attending to the deeper, preliminary philosophical matters.

What your project does at its best is provide feedback and refinement. Your retarded ontology project can play its role as feedback where it is accurate and honest - problem is, you are not usually honest.

GW: You are always stuck wasting time and energy doing it all over again, insisting on your analysis, perhaps striving to install your communicationism in our advocacy as your primary concern, and without there actually being any obvious need for it.

No, you are a stupid asshole. And I have demonstrated many important uses. The lack of use - to you - is that it is not in service to your gargantuan, unmerited ego, the manifestation of narcissistic personality disorder. You suck.

GW: There may be value in it but there’s a lot of work involved to fund out

There is plenty of crucial value in it and the only work for you is to get your goddamn ego off it, stop trying to shut it out of your consciousness.

GW: and there’s the problem of applying what is a structuralist filter to an existential crisis.  Finally - another reason for my conservative position on it - who is there among the mass of our people who will understand, anyway?

Well, NOT IF YOU CAN HELP IT, but Most people WILL understand it because it has Aristotle (the most esteemed of Western thinkers) and common sense behind it - placing our groups of people at center, while working out non conflictual (or less conflictual coordination) ways of dealing with other groups, which cannot quite be said of traditional ethnocentrism and modernity’s oblivious quest for progress.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with “structuring” our groups with Nationalism, its boundaries and borders providing the structure for accountability, coherence, correctability, agency and warrant.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 18 Sep 2020 23:00 | #

I am sure that you are mistaken in the singularity with which you attend to this but even more for the mutual exclusivity that you see in this and my preferred angle.

The question, within the terms of this conversation, is whether one extrapolates structure from the kernel of truth in us at the outset or whether truth is simply not attended to (ie, taken as relative), and in its place is structure, ex nihilo and free-standing.

Perhaps this question draws from the old view of the perceptual difference between science and art.  It’s a bit corny to state the fact, but not untrue that some people quite automatically perceive by focusing down on a point.  It is the way of the ontologist, the mathematician, scientist, engineer.  Others automatically look out to the horizon, which is the way of the artist, the historian, the sociologist, the linguist.  In the old contest between existentialism and structuralism I would expect that the preponderance of existentialists, mode-wise, to be point people and the preponderance of structuralists to be horizon people.  For me, mode means the former because that produces clean conceptual lines; and cleanness allows depth, and depth creativity.  Breadth ... scholasticism, for example ... can be impressive, of course, and perhaps as much as four-fifths of properly competent people will automatically function in that manner.  But a fifth will have no patience for it.  The appeal of clean lines is too great.

There is nothing wrong with hypothesizing one’s group structure [systemic calibration]; it is necessary and that working hypothesis is the point ... Who said? That doesn’t make a lot of sense that that is what “relativism is about.”

No, there is nothing wrong with structure, or with the relative, after their fashion.  But then one wouldn’t need emergence as the explanation for structure and the plural.

Balking against “relativism” ...

Don’t interpolate.  There is no “balking”.  There is only placing the point beside the horizon to expose the postmodern method itself, and its implications for truth, certitude, and originality.  Beyond postmodernism’s non-optimality for addressing the principles of nationalism we are not making value judgements.

I’ve seen too much productive sense making by its means

Again you are going beyond what I said, which was not that there is no product (for example, sociological product) but that postmodernism is non-optimal in its address of ethnic nationalism’s existential core.  Postmodernism is plainly a way of critiquing modernism.  Nationalist writings today are full of all manner of analytical work, large parts of which deal with the problem of the modern in one form or another.  But analysis offers only a negative freedom.  Going forward to the positive, world-making politics of ethnic nationalism is another matter.

Here is the big problem with you: my perspective can accommodate, even welcomes your concern for empirical verification and rigorous inquiry.

Obviously.  Your mind limbs the contours of the land while you gaze out at the horizon.  It’s how you orient yourself.

For whatever fucked up reason (appears largely to be an old fashioned power game) you will not accept this

It is incumbent on me to connect your thinking to the point of origination, which means we have to make quite sure you are not attempting to originate from a pre-existing structure (viz-a-vis you claim to be “attending to the deeper, preliminary philosophical matters”).  Of course, it leaves us the problem of emergent forms, which I will address later on; but once we have cleared all the lines and got everything in its proper place we can see where we are.  I am not that hopeful, but I am committed to seeing this through.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 02:08 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 18 Sep 2020 18:00 | #

DanielS: I am sure that you are mistaken in the singularity with which you attend to this but even more for the mutual exclusivity that you see in this and my preferred angle.

GW: The question

Is it THE question, or is your asshole badgering largely a means to try to find anyway to put me off track in a moment as if it disproves the value of my perspective, the resource that I bring and its trajectory…

Is it to badger me for your own autobiographical conceit which requires the foil of red capes which I do not represent, but which you want to project onto me anyway, on behalf it, your autobiography, STEM reactionism and the scientistic, including Hitler heads such as Al Ross and Carolyn Yeager, who don’t want the view of their god exposed for its limitations and foolish destruction.

GW: within the terms of this conversation, is whether one extrapolates structure from the kernel of truth in us at the outset or whether truth is simply not attended to (ie, taken as relative), and in its place is structure, ex nihilo and free-standing.

False either/ or.

A working hypothesis, White Post Modern hypothesis, is not a one way process, simply unaccountable to the more rigorous empirical end, truth and verification. And were it to deny interaction and evolutionary emergence, its truths, as sourcing the means of working hypotheses, then it would be violating the non-Cartesian mandate of Post Modern philosophy, as anything proposed as ex-nihilo and free standing would be, a red caping as opposed to the accurate form, which I distinguish as White Post Modern.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 02:39 | #

GW: Perhaps this question draws from the old view of the perceptual difference between science and art.  It’s a bit corny to state the fact, but not untrue that some people quite automatically perceive by focusing down on a point.  It is the way of the ontologist, the mathematician, scientist, engineer.  Others automatically look out to the horizon, which is the way of the artist, the historian, the sociologist, the linguist.  In the old contest between existentialism and structuralism I would expect that the preponderance of existentialists, mode-wise, to be point people and the preponderance of structuralists to be horizon people.  For me, mode means the former because that produces clean conceptual lines; and cleanness allows depth, and depth creativity.  Breadth ... scholasticism, for example ... can be impressive, of course, and perhaps as much as four-fifths of properly competent people will automatically function in that manner.  But a fifth will have no patience for it.  The appeal of clean lines is too great.

DanielS: As with any of your overdrawn distinctions, it is apparent to serve you as “the deep one” as compared to “scholasticism”...

...but a penchant for clean lines corresponding necessarily with creativity? Your either/or aside, that penchant is normally going to correspond to rigor, not imagination and creativity. Perhaps not always, but more characteristically. It is a penchant especially ill suited for the creative problem solving of praxis, the messy, interactive and agentively reflexive social world which requires a different philosophical epistemology, an Aristotelian epistemology to be handled responsibly.

While this proclivity for cleanliness can perform an invaluable service and has its vital place particularly at empirical and abstract ends of inquiry (in service of examining problems and postulating important distinctions), e.g., marking distinctions in genetics and identifying patterns that hold up cross contextually, it too must bear the rigor of social concern. Not to deny truths, facts and biological patterns, but to gauge them in relevance.

Failing to deal with the necessity of phronesis - the necessity of practical judgment/working hypotheses - as the necessary means to handle the more messy, agentive, reflexive, interactive social world, the rule-following clean line penchant is forgetfully prone to be taken into runaway uncorrected by reality.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 02:50 | #

DanielS is quoted: There is nothing wrong with hypothesizing one’s group structure [systemic calibration]; it is necessary and that working hypothesis is the point ... Who said? That doesn’t make a lot of sense that that is what “relativism is about.”

GW: No, there is nothing wrong with structure, or with the relative, after their fashion.  But then one wouldn’t need emergence as the explanation for structure and the plural.

The redcapers of Post Modern conceptualization might wish to deny emergence along with its interactive relevance as an explanatory source of structure, but to deny the rigorous concern for emergence, verification of its implications within interactive relativity, to try to uphold pure speculative relativity, is to deny the non-Cartesian mandate of post modernity, thus cannot be called White Post Modern.

In fact, Modernity/Cartesianism’s adulation of objectivism has a major reflexive effect of hyper-relativism.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 03:04 | #

DanielS (you are): Balking against “relativism” ...

GW: Don’t interpolate.  There is no “balking”.

DanielS: You are indeed balking against relativism in the most common - “they think its all relative, we need to come to Jesus” - way.

GW: There is only placing the point beside the horizon to expose the postmodern method itself, and its implications for truth, certitude, and originality.  Beyond postmodernism’s non-optimality for addressing the principles of nationalism we are not making value judgements.

Where you are a colossal asshole is in continually invoking “post modernism” knowing that you can have an audience which draws upon the redcape misunderstandings of it while you try to associate me, altercast me with those red capes, ignoring the White Post Modern corrections that I have made in service of White/European EthnoNationalism. You gaslight me and force me to repeat myself exhaustively on pain of people walking in here and perhaps thinking indeed, that you are honest (and you are not), that I represent the red cape of your autobiographical fantasy foil.

Thus,you do not expose THE post modern method itself. You expose its red cape method at best and chase after the Jewish red cape, against White interests - which are centered in praxis, as optimal position, not in right wing reaction into quests for pure, ideal warrant.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 03:38 | #

DanielS: I’ve seen too much productive sense making by its means

GW: Again you are going beyond what I said, which was not that there is no product (for example, sociological product) but that postmodernism is non-optimal in its address of ethnic nationalism’s existential core.

DanielS: Well you are wrong. White Post Modernism is optimal indeed as it moves back and forth as need be (optimally) between working hypotheses of broad patterns and verification of finer points of distinction; and provides much resource to keep this manner of inquiry on course, optimally, in gauge of White ethnonational interests.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 03:53 | #

GW: Postmodernism is plainly a way of critiquing modernism.  Nationalist writings today are full of all manner of analytical work, large parts of which deal with the problem of the modern in one form or another.  But analysis offers only a negative freedom.  Going forward to the positive, world-making politics of ethnic nationalism is another matter.

No, it is not reduced to that in its proper, White Post Modern form (maybe not even in its red cape critical race theory form but who cares).

White Post Modernity provides the proactive ways in response to Modernity’s Cartsianism, its susceptibilities to destructive implications for the erstwhile homeostatic management of human ecologies, group systems among ecological systems. It also facilitates moving past traditions where they fail to serve our human ecologies, and inherited forms as we see fit.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 04:20 | #

DanielS: Here is the big problem with you: my perspective can accommodate, even welcomes your concern for empirical verification and rigorous inquiry.

GW: Obviously.  Your mind limbs the contours of the land while you gaze out at the horizon.  It’s how you orient yourself.

DanielS: For whatever fucked up reason (appears largely to be an old fashioned power game) you will not accept this

and I add, in addition to GW’s non-acceptance that my view can accommodate, is his endless determination to trivialize if not destroy anything that I bring to bear, ESPECIALLY if it is important, as it apparently threatens the importance of his self appointed status…

GW: It is incumbent on me to connect your thinking to the point of origination, which means we have to make quite sure you are not attempting to originate from a pre-existing structure (viz-a-vis you claim to be “attending to the deeper, preliminary philosophical matters”).

DanielS: There is a difference between deeper philosophy and deep, rigorous, microscopic analysis of biology and behavior.

GW: Of course, it leaves us the problem of emergent forms, which I will address later on; but once we have cleared all the lines and got everything in its proper place we can see where we are.  I am not that hopeful, but I am committed to seeing this through.

So far, your commitment to clearing the lines means destroying anything that is not of your retarded ontology project and recognizes that that is NOT the deeper philosophy or pre-requisite. That is to say, what IS, is known enough already for us to proceed with deeper philosophical concerns of our defense, maintenance and proper advance, while ontological corrections are not rejected, but looked upon as feedback upon that proper philosophical calibration.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 07:02 | #

White Post Modern hypothesis, is not a one way process, simply unaccountable to the more rigorous empirical end, truth and verification

This is where your mind hits the conceptual buffers and stays there, juddering, progress impossible. The native principle, the essential principle, the natural identity: these are point things, fundamental, generative singularities in ethnic nationalism.  Emergence and accretion, interest and coherence, what I call ontological consonance:

Consonance is the parallelism of emergent forms.  It is a verifying force.  It lets us speak in the same breath of multiple developments which, though quite separate in themselves, set off from common ground, remain mutually sympathetic in form, and attenuate to mutually sympathetic ends; and do so whether or not some are material considerations and others abstract ones.  For the purposes of this essay, we can find consonance between an ontological reading of Man’s circumstance, a second reading centred on Mind, a third centred on the physical body, and a fourth centred on human evolution, each reading opening in its own context to stations bound by their relation to one another as well as to the generative influence below. (From an essay in production)

... these are structural factors in nationalism, but still concerned with truth.  When we look at nationalism as a whole as a patterned, progressive force with world-making potential, we are always looking at origin going out through structures, carrying its truth to the furthest tips of its creative reach.  Thus:

Descriptively, ethnic nationalism is holistic, naturalistic, existential and authenticising, universal (in the sense of true of all peoples), defensive before it is expansive, and preserving before it is conserving.  As well as being the politics of the native principle, it is the politics of ethnic genesis on the soil and so of right on the soil.  It is the politics of genetic interests, of the kin relation.  It is the politics of consciousness of being.  It is the politics of the authentic in us individually and, therefore, collectively, because consciousness in a people, like wisdom in a crowd, is accreting.  It is, ultimately, the politics of collective human creation. (From the same essay in production)

The world made by that creativity is what you would call “white post-modernity”.  My concern is not to crush your take on that but to situate it in the whole scheme.  That does involve some pairing down of superfluities which lie outside the emergent lines.  If you would just find a way to step back a few paces from your own certainties and look at the whole, you might if not work at the process as such (though you could) at least allow for the rigours of its operation.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 08:05 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 08:02 | #

DanielS: White Post Modern hypothesis, is not a one way process, simply unaccountable to the more rigorous empirical end, truth and verification

GW: This is where your mind hits the conceptual buffers and stays there.

DanielS: You don’t know my mind asshole and do not accurately assess where it goes and why.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 08:08 | #

GW: juddering, progress impossible.

DanielS: No, this is a projection and any necessary progress not made in this context is due to your obstruction, gaslighting and strawmanning.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 08:14 | #

GW: The native principle, the essential principle, the natural identity: these are point things, fundamental, generative singularities in ethnic nationalism.

DanielS: Nothing of what I say is particularly adverse to this inquiry but would add the interactive context which makes it more complex and more human than you are prepared for in your retarded, reactionary position.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 08:28 | #

GW: Emergence and accretion, interest and coherence, what I call ontological consonance:

Consonance is the parallelism of emergent forms.  It is a verifying force.  It lets us speak in the same breath of multiple developments which, though quite separate in themselves, set off from common ground, remain mutually sympathetic in form, and attenuate to mutually sympathetic ends; and do so whether or not some are material considerations and others abstract ones.  For the purposes of this essay, we can find consonance between an ontological reading of Man’s circumstance, a second reading centred on Mind, a third centred on the physical body, and a fourth centred on human evolution, each reading opening in its own context to stations bound by their relation to one another as well as to the generative influence below. (From an essay in production)

That is not necessarily a problem to the platform I’ve set out. What is a problem is that you necessarily see this “ontology project” as prior to what I say and what I say as things which must be swept aside as artifice.

This is where you suck and suck very hard.

GW: ... these are structural factors in nationalism, but still concerned with truth.

They might be taken to use as structural factors of nationalism, but in truth, they are more like factors of biological patterns looked after for the sake of identity - could be tribal or regional, not that ethonationalism proper would neglect these factors.

GW: When we look at nationalism as a whole as a patterned, progressive force with world-making potential, we are always looking at origin going out through structures, carrying its truth to the furthest tips of its creative reach.

Well that’s one story to tell, not very bad but a bit of a strain, and perhaps more than a bit toxic.

GW: Thus:

Descriptively, ethnic nationalism is holistic, naturalistic, existential and authenticising, universal (in the sense of true of all peoples), defensive before it is expansive, and preserving before it is conserving.  As well as being the politics of the native principle, it is the politics of ethnic genesis on the soil and so of right on the soil.  It is the politics of genetic interests, of the kin relation.

Again, no necessary conflict with anything that I’ve been saying and no reason for pitting what I am saying as necessarily averse to it other than your being an asshole.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 08:34 | #

GW: It is the politics of consciousness of being.

LOL. Did you go with the Beatles and Brian Wilson to visit the Mahareesh and get fried?

... or did you rather go to Esalin and hang out with Fritz Perls?

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 08:42 | #

GW: It is the politics of the authentic in us individually and, therefore, collectively, because consciousness in a people, like wisdom in a crowd, is accreting.  It is, ultimately, the politics of collective human creation. (From the same essay in production)

Well, like I said, I can subscribe to the idea of group genetic emergence. While your grandiose way of putting it is off putting and your psychological focus is theoretically substandard - limited and outdated.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 09:03 | #

GW:

The world made by that creativity is what you would call “white post-modernity”.

Not necessarily, because it would be too largely arbitrary, absorbing too many unnecessary casualities to be sustained beyond the shards surviving through your modernistic myopia.

For example, you are prepared to write off mudsharks as inherent genetic defectives; playing into a modernist game that can create more bridge heads into our system, breaking it down and ultimately destroying it (or some of its most worthy memebers) while you are being congratulated by Jew for helping to align with their elites and fuck our people over through your own stupid autobiography which insists upon their Jewish red capes as opposed to the manner in which post modern concepts are supposed to work in the interests of Whites/Europeans.

GW: My concern is not to crush your take on that but to situate it in the whole scheme.

You’ve got it backwards, your take is the one that needs to be situated and regulated through the calibration of praxis.

GW: That does involve some pairing down of superfluities which lie outside the emergent lines.

I do not speak in a decorative way nor propose superfluous concepts. It is rather the wish of your gargantuan and unmerited ego to suggest that I do.

GW: If you would just find a way to step back a few paces from your own certainties and look at the whole, you might if not work at the process as such (though you could) at least allow for the rigours of its operation.

Listen idiot, nobody is standing in the way of your “rigorous operations”. I treat of the whole, you do not. It is YOU who needs to stand back from your certainties and look at the whole.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 09:25 | #

That is not necessarily a problem to the platform I’ve set out. What is a problem is that you necessarily see this “ontology project” as prior to what I say and what I say as things which must be swept aside as artifice

1. The Ontology Project is/was a project to establish the foundation for the most basic level of a people’s nationalism, in the sense that the native principle is beyond nativism, and the essential principle is beyond the native principle.  Essence is prior to existence while its confines are defended against the mechanical universe without.  In that original order is the seed of structure (I might be wrong but which I believe is something that Derrida never grasped in his own attention to foundation).

2. “Artifice” is a product of enworldment, because Time and Place exist as creative sources, and their content is not owned by the enworlded subject.  The enworlded subject, through its tragic exile, is open and suggestible to that content, and thus artifice is produced within it; which artifice I associate with the formation of personality.  The action of what we call awakening is to cause a certain detachment from that, or the most egregious aspects of it, which is followed by the emergence of other authenticising processes.  Our politics leads from artifice to authenticity - not the whole way, plainly, but enough to re-found the philosophical system on an holistic and vivifying basis.

So this is over-arching structure.  The Ontological Transit is structure and it is process, not foundation.  Its positive turn of detachment → unconcealing →  affirmation → appropriation must be proceeded by stages I have termed intention → attention, and it is there that the revolutionary work of critique and advocacy is done, and there that your own contribution resides.  It does not reside in foundation.

the interactive context which makes it more complex and more human than you are prepared for in your retarded, reactionary position.

There isn’t an “interactive context”.  This is only you, jargonising again.  Ask yourself whether you are tending to your personal circumstance here, rather than that of our people - who cannot “interact” and go back and forth and whatever.  That’s an intellectual parlour game for sociology lecturers.  It might be fitted to the phase of intention → attention, though (or, rather, what these stand for, because in themselves they are only labels).

There is a large difference between water-carrying, philosophically speaking, and hermetics.  To save you and this blog from your tragic paradigm of exile I am trying to change the latter into the former ... to fit it to (how I see) the structure of revolutionary or paradigmatic nationalism.  This is my choice for how we might together correct the decline of majorityrights.com and make it relevant as the medium giving due form to ethnic (or even ethno-) nationalism, which was always my desire.  But you are resisting this, and trying, from your place in isolation, to make nationalism fit to you.  Re-assess, please.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 10:53 | #

1. The Ontology Project is/was a project to establish the foundation for the most basic level of a people’s nationalism, in the sense that the native principle is beyond nativism, and the essential principle is beyond the native principle.

DanielS: Now think about this for three seconds, GW. Tracing ontology can observe the function of a genetic system, and be instrumental to a healthy nationalism, but to try to force “nationalism” into sheerly natural, ontological terms, and something which is bound by natural law to uphold a political, not derogatory, but political term, is retarded and not borne out by history and experience.

GW: Essence is prior to existence while its confines are defended against the mechanical universe without.  In that original order is the seed of structure (I might be wrong but which I believe is something that Derrida never grasped in his own attention to foundation).

DanielS: First of all, I don’t give a fuck what Derrida thinks.

In this, I’ll give you credit for a nice turn of phrase:

GW: Essence is prior to existence while its confines are defended against the mechanical universe without.  In that original order is the seed of structure

DanielS:...as opposed to this:

GW: “Artifice” is a product of enworldment, because Time and Place exist as creative sources, and their content is not owned by the enworlded subject.  The enworlded subject, through its tragic exile, is open and suggestible to that content, and thus artifice is produced within it; which artifice I associate with the formation of personality.  The action of what we call awakening is to cause a certain detachment from that, or the most egregious aspects of it, which is followed by the emergence of other authenticising processes.

DanielS: Those are a lot of words and jargon indeed for a process of coming into alignment with one’s nature and identity with one’s people, that is more natural than this assessment surprisingly reveals for one so big on naturalism.

GW: Our politics leads from artifice to authenticity - not the whole way, plainly, but enough to re-found the philosophical system on an holistic and vivifying basis.

DanielS: Fine.

GW: So this is over-arching structure.  The Ontological Transit is structure and it is process, not foundation.  Its positive turn of detachment → unconcealing →  affirmation → appropriation must be proceeded by stages I have termed intention → attention, and it is there that the revolutionary work of critique and advocacy is done, and there that your own contribution resides.  It does not reside in foundation.

DanielS: You do not have the philosophical orientation, nor philosophical skill to delegate where my contributions reside and to propose your obsolete, scientistic reaction as the super-ordinate priority.

DanielS: the interactive context which makes it more complex and more human than you are prepared for in your retarded, reactionary position.

GW: There isn’t an “interactive context”.

DanielS: LOL. Like when do we exist outside of interaction and relationships? How about NEVER.

GW: This is only you, jargonising again.

DanielS: No,this is you gaslighting, saying that I am “jargonizing”, on “the they” advice of Tanstaafl’s Jewish wife by way of Tanstaafl again.

GW: Ask yourself whether you are tending to your personal circumstance here, rather than that of our people -

DanielS: No, YOU ASK YOURSELF THAT. That is your egomaniac malfunction and its self obsession that does that.

GW: who cannot “interact” and go back and forth and whatever.

DanielS: Why don’t you just shut up, you fucking idiot? We don’t go back and forth “whatever”... you interjected “whatever” in place of as need be, and imagine that its a clunky process as opposed to graceful in order to soothe your own clunky, STEM mechanicitiy.

GW: That’s an intellectual parlour game for sociology lecturers.

DanielS: Here we go again; because Jews have abused the group unit of analysis against us, nobody is supposed to use it (sociology), everybody is supposed to be as stupid as GW and dutifully walk away from the “game” that matters most, our group defense, which is at the heart of the attack in anti-racism.

GW: It might be fitted to the phase of intention → attention, though (or, rather, what these stand for, because in themselves they are only labels).

DanielS: Not in your personality, education or motivation are you suited to the philosophical task of providing the resource necessary for the defense, maintenance and advance of White/European peoples.

GW: There is a large difference between water-carrying, philosophically speaking, and hermetics.  To save you and this blog from your tragic paradigm of exile I am trying to change the latter into the former

DanielS: Oh, you stupid asshole. Take your conceited power game in which you try to relegate me to a secondary status to your mental retardation and shove it up your ass.

GW: ... to fit it to (how I see) the structure of revolutionary or paradigmatic nationalism.  This is my choice for how we might together correct the decline of majorityrights.com

DanielS: majorityrights has not declined in its content. It is vastly improved. Vastly. and because we not loner appeal to Jesus freaks, Hitler heads, Jews, scientistic reactionaries, right wing dupes of the Jewish red caping, is not a sign of decline nor an indication of anything but the willful denial of this platform by enemies and idtiots.

GW: and make it relevant

DanielS: It is eminently relevant but your incessant antagonism on behalf of our fucking ego and your Hitler friends or whatever, does not help; my constantly having to defend myself against your stupid straw man may not look good to the casual observer but then, who could suspect that one could be an impervious, ego maniac blockhead as you have been for eight years.

GW: as the medium giving due form to ethnic (or even ethno-) nationalism, which was always my desire.

DanielS: It has due form and the best resource of any website, right here, right now. That you refuse to recognize it is your malfunction.

GW: But you are resisting this, and trying, from your place in isolation, to make nationalism fit to you.  Re-assess, please.

DanielS: This is a projection; you are resisting what I have said, in truth, in the last sentence. And you are trying from the place of your sick narcissistic personality disorder, the isolated egomania that serves it, to render nationalism as some absurd, purely naturalistic affair. Re-assess how you can make some of your better ideas work with the better philosophy on order if you could just find it in yourself to be honest, not so conceited, not so grandiose and willfully ignorant.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 21:07 | #

Now think about this for three seconds, GW. Tracing ontology can observe the function of a genetic system, and be instrumental to a healthy nationalism, but to try to force “nationalism” into sheerly natural, ontological terms, and something which is bound by natural law to uphold a political, not derogatory, but political term, is retarded and not borne out by history and experience.

You are only demonstrating your own conceptual limits.  In his conclusion that nothing is prior that is not already structured, Derrida (no doubt intentionally) did violence to foundation’s essential singularity.  By that means he could install his own relativist Weltanschauung in its place.  Sure enough, and whether or not you care about Derrida, it had historical agency ... it had a real-world effect at the same point as always: the point where the emergent whole we might understand as authentically, normally human can be traduced, and that we might understand as reductive and artificial raised up.  We could, if we were minded, connect the former to essence’s will to continuity and the latter to the blind and universal forces of disintegration, or we could connect it to the struggle of the authentic and artificial which characterises the essential subject’s enworldment.  Always, the outlines are the same.  So, there is quite a large field of operation in which, in very broad terms, what tends to life is caught in a manichean struggle with what leads away from it; and there, in due course, we have the shift into the conflict of world systems represented, respectively, by nationalism and liberalism.

Or, to put it another way ...

As I stated in section 3.2 of the PA paper, “In contrast to ... top-down ideological dictate, ethnic nationalism uniquely functions on the principle of emergence.”  Emergence preserves the essential in its own developmental path, not at all unlike gene expression preserving the nucleotide sequence in cellular production.  The human body is not reducible to DNA, but not one cell of it would exist without it.  So we arrive at your conclusion that the essential principle cannot, by something you call natural law, “uphold a political, not derogatory, but political term” because that would be be contrary to “history and experience”.  Do I really need to explain why this is wrong?

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 22:33 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 16:07 | #

DanielS: Now think about this for three seconds, GW. Tracing ontology can observe the function of a genetic system, and be instrumental to a healthy nationalism, but to try to force “nationalism” into sheerly natural, ontological terms, and something which is bound by natural law to uphold a political, not derogatory, but political term, is retarded and not borne out by history and experience.

GW: You are only demonstrating your own conceptual limits.  In his conclusion that nothing is prior that is not already structured, Derrida (no doubt intentionally) did violence to foundation’s essential singularity.

DanielS: No, you will demonstrate your own conceptual limits…

First of all, You are talking about Derrida again. Insisting upon interposing his red capes. I don’t defend Derrida.

I would not say that nothing is prior that is not already structured.

GW: By that means he could install his own relativist Weltanschauung in its place.

Well, you’ve just attempted to install Derrida’s ideas in my place.

I won’t let you.

GW: Sure enough, and whether or not you care about Derrida, it had historical agency ... it had a real-world effect at the same point as always: the point where the emergent whole we might understand as authentically, normally human can be traduced and that we might understand as reductive and artificial raised up.

Derrida is not the determiner of the source of authenticity as in the possibility of staying faithful and coherent to one’s human nature and historical trajectory as such as opposed to getting re-directed and misdirected onto another course as is possible, given at least the modicum of arbitrariness to our situation, the thrownness where. for example, we can breed with other races, species of humans as it were; or direct our concerns to Christian service to other races, etc. To achieve this authentic coherence, requires a heremeneutic liberation from mere facticity and into coherence, which provides accountabililty, agency and warrant for both individual and group…and where emergent form is identified as essential, it is given thanks, and held fast to heart (at least bearing the sacred episode in service of the (biological) pattern.

GW: We could, if we were minded, connect the former to essence’s will to continuity and the latter to the blind and universal forces of disintegration, or we could connect it to the struggle of the authentic and artificial which characterises the essential subject’s enworldment.

DanielS: You have not only dressed-up in Heidegger jargon, a problem the solution to which I have already shown (by Heidegger’s terms as well),just above as in many places before, but you are attempting to place Derrida as a straw man in my place instead of acknowledging anything that I’ve said. And like I said, this is just another expression of your dishonesty.

GW: Always, the outlines are the same.

Maybe in sex, not perfectly in gender; and regarding race the lines are at least a modicum ambiguous by the fact that we can breed with others, though I am satisfied that you may come to a reasonable consensus as to where to draw lines that only disingenuous people would try to contest.

GW: So, there is quite a large field of operation in which, in very broad terms, what tends to life is caught in a manichean struggle with what leads away from it; and there, in due course, we have the shift into the conflict of world systems represented, respectively, by nationalism and liberalism.

Yes, and I have done an excellent job of showing that struggle and where and how our people have gotten misdirected and what they need to keep on course of their own interests, in systemic self correction (homeostasis), coherence, autonomy instead.

GW: Or, to put it another way ...

As I stated in section 3.2 of the PA paper, “In contrast to ... top-down ideological dictate, ethnic nationalism uniquely functions on the principle of emergence.”

Inasmuch as you try to suggest that what I am doing is top down artifice and dictate, it is a strawman.

DanielS: Emergence preserves the essential in its own developmental path, not at all unlike gene expression preserving the nucleotide sequence in cellular production.

Emergentism is NOT reductionist, while essentials may be preserved, they may also be re-directed by their non-Cartesian situation in interactive context. That is why Heidegger is compelled to suggest that thinking, “thankian” takes to heart and holds fast where the emergent essential is come upon.

GW: The human body is not reducible to DNA, but not one cell of it would exist without it.

I wouldn’t care to argue with that.

GW: So we arrive at your conclusion that the essential principle cannot, by something you call natural law, “uphold a political, not derogatory, but political term” because that would be be contrary to “history and experience”.  Do I really need to explain why this is wrong?

You are dishonest in this quote and it is typical of your own disingenuous, Derrida-like deconstructionism, the childishly dishonest way that you try to simply turn arguments around….

I said that the essential principle cannot, by something that YOU call natural law…

and you tried to make that YOU refer to myself.

Now then. To clarify further and straighten your bullshit out.

It cannot be assured by sheer, natural law, outside of at least a modicum of social reconstruction any more than a baby can raise itself.

Yes, there is genetic trajectory and emergent forms behind a nationalist movement, of course. But what you are not acknowledging is that those genetic and emergent forms may also be diverted and misdirected, and it requires at least a modicum of social interactive, political accountability (what Bowery might like to call artificial selection) to keep it from being misdirected.

What I refer to as “the natural law” that you would like to believe requires nothing of the important sorting out and means of holding coherence is retardedly overstated; not that my perspective as much as any is not extant within natural law and solutions to national fidelity do not also stem from natural law as well, but natural law in the overall is more ambiguous in social biological interplay than you are apparently prepared to admit, even though Heidegger does acknowledge that a liberation from the arbitrary aspects of mere facticity requires hermeneutics and the verbs dasein (there being) (and of being, as you like to add) and midtdasein (there being among our people) (and of being, as you like to add, while running the risk of the cartesian position if remaining fixed there and missing Heidegger’s point), to survey and to take to heart and hold fast where an essential emergent form is recognized as worthy for its authenticity (deeply historical coherence).

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 11:12 | #

you’ve just attempted to install Derrida’s ideas in my place.

I am opposing Derrida.  I am not opposing you.  Do you not see that that is the whole point of what we do?

For the record, I have never opposed, nor will I ever oppose you; something you have been told countless times but just cannot seem to grasp - probably because you are yourself so dedicated to oppositionalism.  Accordingly, I have refrained asking whether someone who re-works his uni modules into a system dotted about with the semiotics of condemnation, where he alone is the one who is not “red-caped”, not “right-wing”, not “Cartesian”, not “epistemologically blundering”  et alia, and he alone understands “white post-modernity” (by which the direction of the nationalist struggle is re-specified and co-opted) and “the white left” (by which the movement itself is likewise re-specified and co-opted) ... whether such a person is doing anything more than seeking self-redemption.

For heavens sake, look in the mirror.

Yes, all men seek to be relevant, and some may seek redemption thereby.  Yes, a time of great crisis provides opportunity for such men, and some may use politics like a child uses a climbing frame.  But they will not bend the frame into a throne for one.

For the record, I have never used the term natural law, nor seen it used until you put it into your comment above.  I have, however, used the term natural right in respect of the struggle to exist, in part because it is a commonplace for liberals to claim that there are no human rights that are not contingent on unfortunate social circumstance, and I think there is that one natural right.

Another trope you like to raise is my supposed denial of “the social”.  What do you think my perfectly Heideggarian references to enworldment are?  What is the decline into absence and habituality (mechanicity) via human suggestibility and immersion but an extension of Heidegger’s critique of “the they” and false Dasien?  You seem to think that the social is a respectable domain.  It is flawed in so much as men are existentially flawed ... given to psychological weakness in the struggle to be.  I have included the flaw in my approach to the social, because it contains the possibility (in Nature, oddly enough) of a redemptive turn in the lived-life of the people.  This approach is rooted not in the sociology of liberal academics, which I do indeed suspect to be of little worth, but in Heideggerian ontology and the existential understanding of Man.  What, after all, would be the point of ontology if its existential truths ... its DNA ... were only gestured toward and then forgotten about, never to rise into the structure of practical politics?

All you have to do to set aside your ethno-nationalist party of one is to adapt your Shotterism to the existential.  That will require you also to un-distance your nationalism from the people so, for example, the bloodless and unloving dictum of “white post-modernity” becomes a minor comment on history rather than an all-important destination.  Ours is a politics of blood and love and Nature.  Connect to it.  That’s already your personal redemption.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 12:44 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 06:12 | #

you’ve just attempted to install Derrida’s ideas in my place.

I am opposing Derrida.  I am not opposing you.  Do you not see that that is the whole point of what we do?

Oh, so now you are going to gaslight me by trying to pretend that you do not antagonize, strawman or otherwise try to trivialize everything that I bring to bear, not matter how important in reality.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 12:48 | #

GW: For the record, I have never opposed, nor will I ever oppose you; something you have been told countless times but just cannot seem to grasp

How many times have I been told this? I can’t think of any. The invariableness of your antagonism and dismissal of what resource I bring to bear, on the other hand, has been invariable for over 8 years.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 13:03 | #

GW - probably because you are yourself so dedicated to oppositionalism.

No, that’s a projection. Contrarianism is your thing. I actually look for things to agree with and I say so when I do. When I agree with something, I go with it. Your agreements with others are rare and limited, with me, almost non existent.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 13:07 | #

GW: Accordingly, I have refrained asking whether someone who re-works his uni modules into a system dotted about with the semiotics of condemnation, where he alone is the one who is not “red-caped”, not “right-wing”, not “Cartesian”, not “epistemologically blundering”  et alia, and he alone understands “white post-modernity” (by which the direction of the nationalist struggle is re-specified and co-opted) and “the white left” (by which the movement itself is likewise re-specified and co-opted) ... whether such a person is doing anything more than seeking self-redemption.

GW, if that’s your construal of these ideas that I discuss, you are only demonstrating what a dishonest man that you are but really, a bad man that you are.

For heaven’s sake, GW, look in the mirror.

Your gaslighting is sadistic, dishonest to the point of evil in its disregard for what is necessary for our people (and as far as the credit that I deserve, closer to a Nobel prize and a million dollars than your incessant gaslighting and strawmanning); and furthermore, your antagonism has been unnecessary from the start.

I am not stopping you from writing your articles on ontology.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 13:23 | #

GW: Yes, all men seek to be relevant, and some may seek redemption thereby.  Yes, a time of great crisis provides opportunity for such men, and some may use politics like a child uses a climbing frame.  But they will not bend the frame into a throne for one.

I have not bent it into a throne for one, asshole, YOU have done that. GW, “the king and sole proprietor of theory.”

And all that has happened over the years is your providing more and more evidence with your misreading (strawmanning) of important ideas that you are totally un equipped for such self importance.

I welcome other opinions and criticism where they are accurate and well meaning. That cannot be said of your particular criticisms, however.

The “isolation” of me, that you try to capitalize on in service of this throne of yours, in self appointment, is one that is in part organized by right wingers - certainly those who advocate Hitler, Jesus, inclusion of Jewish right wingers, sundry scientistic block heads and popular conspiracy nuts will boycott me and this site ..and this will be encouraged by Jewish power and interests as well, because I have created the best platform for White Nationalist advocacy.

It doesn’t matter to me anymore if you acknowledge it.

You have proven to me that you are dishonest.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 13:25 | #

GW: For the record, I have never used the term natural law, nor seen it used until you put it into your comment above.  I have, however, used the term natural right in respect of the struggle to exist

“Natural Rights” would only make your argument more stupid, GW.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 13:39 | #

GW: in part because it is a commonplace for liberals to claim that there are no human rights that are not contingent on unfortunate social circumstance, and I think there is that one natural right.

Bizarre. We are born with “a right to survive” ?

Could it be more obvious that any kind of right, whether you think it is good or not, comes from some sort of social agreement?

GW, I’ve come upon an analogy of you and it begins with the fact that I have never known a person who was not intelligent in some ways and stupid in other ways.

In your case, yes, you are very intelligent in some ways, such as your critique of Christianity, your seizing the importance of holding fast to emergentim and nationalism, and other examples that I could come up with…

Picture a piano keyboard.

There are a few clusters of keys that you play brilliantly. There are others that you don’t play much, but they are there and not really defective.  But on your keyboard, there are some keys in a cluster, which are broken, and you are utterly tone deaf to the fact that they are not playing. Here, you are utterly stupid and it clusters around theoretical/philosophical matters:

For example, where you say, “because it is a commonplace for liberals to claim that there are no human rights that are not contingent on unfortunate social circumstance, and I think there is that one natural right.”

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 13:58 | #

GW: Another trope you like to raise is my supposed denial of “the social”.

It is not a trope. Each and every time that I speak of the social in positive terms and utility, you antagonize this with strawman, saying that I am putting forth top down artifice, like a sociology lecturer or whatever shit you will say. I did not say that you deny the social.. but rather I see that you have a stupid, reactionary response to social concerns for the combination of 1) reaction to Jewish abuse of sociology against White group interests; 2) your STEM predilections 3) Your autobiography which does not want important theoretical matters coming by way of anyone but yourself 4) Christians, Nazis, STEM-head reactionaries and Jews who want you to antagonize the resource that I bring as well because it is indeed, the most relevant and frees WN from their voodoo.

GW: What do you think my perfectly Heideggarian references to enworldment are?

Enworldment can have negative connotations, like the “the they” of social. That’s not to say that there are not negative aspects of the social which need to be guarded against and shaken off in the hermeneutic circuit, but in short, I see your use of the jargonish (and you have some nerve to complain about terms that I use) term enworldment to represnt the social in negative terms, largely artifice to be shaken off for the natural emergent expression.

In a word, I don’t care much what you say, because you don’t care what I say, or rather, only care enough to grossly misrepresent and mischaracterized it like you did in that sick cluster paragraph above… and I know, on the contrary, that what I bring to bear is important and preliminary. So, if you don’t care, that means to me that you don’t care about what is important and I don’t need to be beholden to the details of your bullshit.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:03 | #

GW: What is the decline into absence and habituality (mechanicity) via human suggestibility and immersion but an extension of Heidegger’s critique of “the they” and false Dasien?

Like I said (easily predicted). What else were you going to say about the social group realm but that it is negative?

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:05 | #

GW: You seem to think that the social is a respectable domain.

LoL! What the fuck are you doing here then?

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:20 | #

GW: It is flawed in so much as men are existentially flawed ... given to psychological weakness in the struggle to be.

That is an inarticulate way of expressing what true philosophers (as in NOT YOU), have been saying from Aristotle to Heidegger.

As Aristotle said of the social world of praxis, and I have paraphrased many times, and you ignore just as many times, the social world is on a different epistemology from the hard sciences. It requires a bit more feel and practical judgement (phronesis) than the hard sciences because it is a bit more messy and hard to predict as people have some agency; and people will adapt in their biological requirement for optimal, not maximal need satisfaction and in concern for their mammalian concern for relationships; and with that there are reflexive effects in the realm’s interactive nature, compounded by the fact that humans can learn and learn to learn, extended with hermeneutic capacity.

This is not not a “flaw”, this is the circumstance of social reality; it may be most off-putting to STEM types for its messiness, particularly when they are in reaction and want to “solve problems”.....but it is a reality that can be dealt with and improved with some art of prhonesis and indeed some scientific rigor as well (but just not only by hard science; that would be the epistemological blunder).

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:30 | #

GW: I have included the flaw in my approach to the social, because it contains the possibility (in Nature, oddly enough) of a redemptive turn in the lived-life of the people.

Have you really? well I do this all the time when I speak of the possibility for correctivity, accountability, coherence agency and warrant in individual and social systemic homeostasis. Your ignoring that for 8 years won’t change that - EVER.

Pragmatism has its reward in that has a way to deal with fallibility without skepticism.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:36 | #

This approach is rooted not in the sociology of liberal academics, which I do indeed suspect to be of little worth, but in Heideggerian ontology and the existential understanding of Man.

Well, my approach is not rooted in the sociology of liberal academics either and I have experience hundreds of examples now, that your opinions of the resource that I bring to bear are worse than worthless, they invariably rely upon strawmen misrepresentations and the support of Nazis behind the scenes who can get behind your retarded understanding of Heidegger, because at least he joined the Nazi party a few times

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:44 | #

GW: What, after all, would be the point of ontology if its existential truths ... its DNA ... were only gestured toward and then forgotten about, never to rise into the structure of practical politics?

Indeed, we don’t know enough to defend ourselves and to analyze what is going on, what is being done to mislead our people and how it is that we need to get on course.

We are supposed to wait for you, in your fart infested armchair - thone - to render proclamations: “Here ye, all worthy theory is GW’s and his alone, any talk that appears to have passed through the halls of academe, except for Heidegger approved GW readings, are banished from the realm and we shall now commence to defend our natural rights.”

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:50 | #

GW: All you have to do to set aside your ethno-nationalist party of one is to adapt your Shotterism to the existential.

First of all fuck you, you stupd asshole for trying to characterize and reduce what I do as “Shotterism”...

...and more importantly, everything that I do is adapted to the existential.

As usual, this a projection of yours, it is you who is not dealing with the reality, the existential and real concerns there in your armchair, throne, navel gazing Heidegger and theory of pure nature.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 15:14 | #

GW: That will require you also to un-distance your nationalism from the people so, for example, the bloodless and unloving dictum of “white post-modernity”

It is not bloodless and unloving nor at any distance from nationalism just because you try to proclaim it so in service of your gargantuan, unmerited ego, in service of your sick narcissistic personality disorder; though you would try to proclaim it so as it contains many important ideas that you cannot construe as having emanated from your self absorbed skull.

GW: becomes a minor comment on history

This is your ultimate fantasy and all you ever try to do in your narcissitic personality disorder, to try to trivialize the offers of others, on the basis of vastly distorted business competitor model/framework that you function within, in interplay with your puerile autobiography as “slayer of academic pretense” (which requires you to believe that things that are not pretense, but useful and important, are pretense) on behalf of “natural nationalistic man.”

GW: rather than an all-important destination.

The centering of our world view in praxis, for the purpose of governing the autonomy of our peoples, our systems, human ecologies, biological and otherwise, in self corrective homeostasis, the sovereignty thereof, is the all important destination, and no amount of your stupidity, nor your incessant (going on 8 years now) antagonism will change that.

GW: Ours is a politics of blood and love and Nature.  Connect to it.  That’s already your personal redemption

I don’t need you to think I am redeemed. Your opinion doesn’t matter to me. You have demonstrated that it is worthess, not honest and not well meaning.

I was not looking for any redemption. That was not my motive. Just another straw man of yours. My motive is to get theoretical matters of WN corrected and up do date, and I have done my part; I have summited the mountain and that’s all I could basically hope for - the vista allows me to see that you are full of shit. I would have expected you to be more intelligent but you’ve got to fix those broken keys in your personality. If my perspective has not caught on just yet, that’s well, its a messy and nasty social world. There are people with their tongue up Uncle Adolph’s asshole priming it for a nice brown French kiss with you.

...on a more positive note, some WN are paying attention to the problem of consumerism and liberalism’s lure away from the profounder concerns of our people’s survival and group interests and that is a worthy inquiry as well, where I have not focused much attention there but nevertheless, provide means for its redress. I have in many places discussed means to improve the incentive structure and to provide options for group members that will help reduce the case for cynicism and improve motive for loyalty… but these are “social concerns” so what do you care.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 16:38 | #

so now you are going to gaslight me by trying to pretend that you do not antagonize, strawman or otherwise try to trivialize everything that I bring to bear, not matter how important in reality.

I am trying to arrest the decline of the site when the only alternative is to ask you to go elsewhere.  But that is not what I want.  Shortly, we may have a golden opportunity to become relevant again, but it’s not going to help when you are filling the place with all this self-isolating sociology that nobody ... absolutely nobody ... agrees with or is ever going to agree with.  It needs paring right back, and whatever is left needs harnessing if possible (and it may not be possible) to the standard dicta or, if you have the talent, connecting up to the base Heideggerian model - not necessarily as I have presented it - which is, if things work out, quite likely to become the standard model in ethnic nationalism in this country over the next few years.  The latter would be my preference.

How many times have I been told this? I can’t think of any.

Then you do not listen.  The psychological evisceration of opponents is a speciality of mine but you are not an opponent.  You are a nationalist and I do not eviscerate nationalists, not even the many American ones who I have found to be not only wrong in ways you know only too well, but graceless and habitually aggressive to boot.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 16:43 | #

By the by, do you really not realise that all living things possess one natural right ... one inalienable recourse in Nature, a definite and positive claim on life ... to struggle for existence rather than to give up life for fate’s sake?

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 05:04 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 11:38 | #

DanielS: so now you are going to gaslight me by trying to pretend that you do not antagonize, strawman or otherwise try to trivialize everything that I bring to bear, not matter how important in reality.

GW: I am trying to arrest the decline of the site when the only alternative is to ask you to go elsewhere.

The site has not declined in quality, on the contrary, it has gained by far not only the most normal and sane, but the best platform by far.

It has declined in popularity because it does not serve the Nazophiles, Jesus freaks, Jews, right wing scientistic and conspiratard reactionaries.

While the lack of popularity is partly my fault it is also partly yours because you neither have the wherewithal nor the personality to see that it could serve you quite well to take a positive look at what I am bringing to bear and make it work with those details that you like to attend to.

Among the reasons that it is not entirely my fault is that I am willing to take the time to work with others on preparation for audio presentations and on corrections, afterward. For reasons of time and misunderstanding - because you may not have the time and because the level that you are functioning at is not quite so difficult and doesn’t require as much prep and correction…. you just may not understand, viz., given those broken keys of yours (e.g., trying to sort out the means of epistemology with Greg Johnson got completely botched for these reasons).

GW: But that is not what I want.  Shortly, we may have a golden opportunity to become relevant again, but it’s not going to help when you are filling the place with all this self-isolating sociology that nobody ... absolutely nobody ... agrees with or is ever going to agree with.

We are relevant, the most relevant and anybody honest and reasonable enough (and intelligent enough to not say things like we need to get Jesus instead) to be bothered to look at what I have brought to bear will agree with it fundamentally, even if electing to represent it with different words in different contexts for the sake of situational tact.

To say that “nobody, absolutely nobody agrees with me”, is just another expression of your egregious dishonesty, hideous gaslighting which receives the brown tongue of the Jews and Hitler heads into your mouth.

GW: It needs paring right back, and whatever is left needs harnessing if possible

No it doesn’t. That’s just more of you trying to “clear away” ideas that are better than yours.

GW: (and it may not be possible) to the standard dicta or, if you have the talent, connecting up to the base Heideggerian model - not necessarily as I have presented it - which is, if things work out, quite likely to become the standard model in ethnic nationalism in this country over the next few years.  The latter would be my preference.

Here is the bottom line. I have never tried to stop you from writing what you want to write. And I am already connected to Heidegger in the most relevant ways.

GW: How many times have I been told this (that you are not against what DanielS am saying)? I can’t think of any.

Then you do not listen.

Not true. You are dishonest. There is droves of antagonism to what I’ve said and almost nothing else (you came to the defense of the DNA Nations concept once, as I recall).

GW: The psychological evisceration of opponents is a speciality of mine but you are not an opponent.

So stop treating me as an opponent because you will not psychologically eviscerate me, all you will do is continue to waste all of our time for the purpose of your conceit.

GW: You are a nationalist and I do not eviscerate nationalists, not even the many American ones who I have found to be not only wrong in ways you know only too well, but graceless and habitually aggressive to boot.

Well this is the basic foolishness of your antagonism to what I have brought to bear as a nationalist, and one who believes in England for the English, even if you think that you have not stepped up your antagonism to the level of “evisceration.”

44 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 11:43 | #

By the by, do you really not realise that all living things possess one natural right ... one inalienable recourse in Nature, a definite and positive claim on life ... to struggle for existence rather than to give up life for fate’s sake?

LOL. GW, as I said there are a few keys on you mental keyboard that are broken. And they are not keys that can be played around, they are necessary for sound theory.

An instinct for survival is part of nature which applies to group/species as well, not just individuals. However, any “right” to that survival comes from social agreement.

GW, if you really want to resolve what you see as a crisis in this site all you have to do is write the things that you want to write. I have never tried to stop you. And when you do write something I try my best to support it and I’ll tend to leave it as the central post for more than a week.

The next thing you need to do is to realize that you don’t need to antagonize what I am bringing to bear, because it is not at odds with ethnonationalism (or ethnic nationalism if you insist) on the contrary.

The problem is apparently that there are aspects of your personality and probably persons who you feel a loyalty to who are antagonistic to me, so you don’t feel that you can allow the resource that I bring to bear (anything remotely like) the credibility it deserves.

I don’t expect you to stop doing that, unfortunately, but you must realize that I’m going to defend the resources that I bring to bear against your strawman misrepresentaitons and conceited, attempted trivializations. Because these ideas are more important and necessary to the interests of European peoples than your conceited autobiography as sole bearer of theoretical merit and certainly more important than the epistemological blunders of the Nazis, Jesus Freaks and Scientistic reactionaries who egg you on…

This site is the best and most relevant by far for European/White advocacy - RIGHT NOW. It does not matter what your friends from the above list have to say. It is difficult, very, to be tactful and diplomatic when one is being antagonized viciously by the people that one is defending (think of the treatment that I’ve gotten from some of the Nazis and Jesus freaks…or your eight years of needless gaslighting for that matter)  But even so, all this platform needs is people with tact, diplomacy and good will to carry it forth…marketing and promulgation.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 08:57 | #

The site has not declined in quality, on the contrary, it has gained by far not only the most normal and sane, but the best platform by far.

You have done much good but also much harm.  The good I regularly wheel out in these discussions because I don’t want you to think you are only ever criticised.  But good is also to be expected.  Harm, plainly, is not.  The success of any site like ours depends upon (a) the promulgation of, in water-carrier terms, “potable” ideas, and (b) lively, informed debate below the line.  That’s what works.  It is harder for us because, as you say, we are interested in creative solutions than the endless analysis elsewhere in WN.  As you will recall, it was my hope that, having decided to keep the site open, we could develop it as a journal of such creativity ... to do the job that TOQ and OO might have done had the will been there.  Although we had lost James Bowery, with Kumiko’s arrival that did look like a possibility for a time.  But it has not worked out.

On the readership front it’s been a disaster.  We are subsisting in a wasteland, not least because we have relinquished the usual WN fayre of “thoughtful commentary on news and events” a la Counter-Currents, but failed to establish an identity as a genuine intellectual journal of 21st century nationalism.  However, an equally damaging factor has been that you are wedded to certain ideas which are rejected everywhere, and which nobody wants or needs to come here and read ad finitum.  You simply will not take responsibility for the mass rejection of these ideas.  You will not look at them again except to find them excellent after all, and will not step back from them one inch.  They have become holy writ in what is, for MR, an intellectual suicide pact.

Enough now.  In simple terms, nationalists are not striving for communicationism’s postmodernity.  Postmodernity cannot be re-defined and changed into a nationalist cause celebre.  The Derridian take-over, if that is what it was, began sixty years ago (to be honest, I am not apprised of any prior anti-modern intellectual movement after the Revolutionary Conservatives, because Heidegger was so subdued politically after 1945 as, indeed, he was also much quietened after his departure from the rectorship of Freiburg).

Anyway, Derrida’s stratagem worked spectacularly well, and so nationalists only see postmodernity today in the critical sense that Morgoth employed the term in some notes he posted at his site yesterday (ie, as another Jewish-dictated historical turn against our people’s life and culture, which has worked itself out in various destructive ways).  That sense has been in circulation in WN for decades now.  It won’t change.  Our people have no idea why you even want to try to change it because they are striving, primarily, for the fourteen words, not a new non-modernist or anti-modernist era, and see any such era as a by-product of the struggle for the fourteen words, not the other way round.  For nationalists it’s about blood and belonging.  That’s the rallying cry, not “we want postmodernity”.  You are making far too much of an interesting but peripheral comment on history.

Then we come to the business of right and left, which we have debated at countless times, and which I do not propose to re-visit.  You know it’s not saleable.  You have been given that message by all sides.  But, like many intelligent people, you have your logic-chain which tells you it is correct, so it must be advanced Borg-like in the teeth of complaints from your bored-silly audience.  How long do you propose to keep this up?  How much more irrelevance and isolation can you take?

The site cannot afford such intellectual self-indulgence.  It has no commentariat left!  I do believe that we have a new chapter opening for us, but this dead-wood thinking has to go.  We have to re-build on a new vision, and make it work.  You must lead in that, preserving the best of MR and developing the new.  It will be good.

Will you please think about that, and not respond in the usual graceless and petty way?

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:13 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 03:57 | #

The site has not declined in quality, on the contrary, it has gained by far not only the most normal and sane, but the best platform by far.

You have done much good but also much harm.

No harm to anything that should not be harmed in order to send it away and turn it off.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:16 | #

GW:  The good I regularly wheel out in these discussions because I don’t want you to think you are only ever criticised.  But good is also to be expected.

You virtually never “wheel out the good” I’ve done; at best you will make some trivializing and condesending remark which will be part of a strawman setting up your “however”....

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:21 | #

GW: But good is also to be expected.  Harm, plainly, is not.

This is a projection, GW. I could not have anticipated your incessant antagonism. It is the opposite of normal. And if I harmed your ego with cruel words, it is because you cannot be persuaded, and so I have to be sure that onlookers know that there is something very wrong - harmful - with what you are doing.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:30 | #

GW: The success of any site like ours depends upon (a) the promulgation of, in water-carrier terms, “potable” ideas, and (b) lively, informed debate below the line.  That’s what works

.

Your water carrier thing is a mere sign of the power game that you are playing, trying to put people in roles below you. Whereas I look upon myself as colleague, not a water carrier.

Now then, debate, preferably nuanced argument, preferably expository discussion is fine, but we don’t need to debate Hitler/Nazism, nor particularly do we need to debate Christianity or the inclusion of Jews in our group .... don’t even really need to debate why scientism should not replace better philosophy…

There are other ways to make this site “work” in terms of getting its word out.

Yes, some of the rhetoric should softened ... e.g., referring to adversaries broadly in instead of Jews in some contexts would help a public face ... it would include antagonists who are not Jewish and not over focus on Jews where they are not acutely antagonistic.

However, I have come into a situation here at MR that was rife with Nazis sympathizers, so it was not an option to relax on the issue of the J.Q. - I had to show that it could be taken most seriously without Hitler/Nazism.

This is not harm. This is a step in a process.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:41 | #

It is harder for us because, as you say, we are interested in creative solutions than the endless analysis elsewhere in WN.  As you will recall, it was my hope that, having decided to keep the site open, we could develop it as a journal of such creativity ... to do the job that TOQ and OO might have done had the will been there.  Although we had lost James Bowery, with Kumiko’s arrival that did look like a possibility for a time.  But it has not worked out.

There are reasons why it didn’t work with Bowery and Kumiko.

In Bowery’s case, his perspective is similar to yours at your worst, in that he wants to subsume everything to too much of a STEM perspective; he doesn’t understand or appreciate the difference between what I am doing and what the YKW are doing with the humanities. He sort of wants yes men (water carriers) in that regard. His philosophy is not rounded out well enough to merit that. He is overly focused on defending the individualistic characteristics of “Euro man” (and almost all WN would agree that libertarian type of preoccupation with individualism is about the last thing that we need) and he is concerned with this to the point of paranoia, almost, as if we cannot introduce corrective measures into praxis, where individualism is threatened; no, we will turn into insect like eusocial creatures if we do not adopt a culture of pairwise duels. I want to be kind, because he had many important contributions to make on the way to this absurd conclusion.

In Kumiko’s case. The issue is simple. She is not White. She is Asian and these are the people she wants to defend (and women, more broadly). So, she was put off by the audience that is concerned with WN as they run contrary to her interests, sometimes with rough antagonism.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:48 | #

GW: On the readership front it’s been a disaster.

I’ve already explained why this has happened, and if we are not serving a readership who wants Hitler, Jesus and Jews, this is no disaster.

What I did not anticipate his how wedded this site’s history was to the Nazi perspective, and how unsupportive and antagonistic that you’d be to better theory… as it could, should be brought to a more reasonable, normal, intelligent audience.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:57 | #

GW: We are subsisting in a wasteland

We are not subsisting in a “wasteland” ... we have site replete the most fertile ideas and important platform. Its unpopularity has mostly to do with Jewish antagonism, of course, and because it does not go along with the right wing reactionary altercast as the only White identity that they allow for; and which many stupider WN revel in as “rebellion”

GW: not least because we have relinquished the usual WN fayre of “thoughtful commentary on news and events” a la Counter-Currents

Greg Johnson is doing the right wing thing and coddling the Nazi perspective.

GW: but failed to establish an identity as a genuine intellectual journal of 21st century nationalism.

This is where you are full of shit. This here is the genuine intellectual journal for 21st nationalism, and any reason that it is not recognized as such, is largely your fault, because you don’t have the breadth of knowledge, experience of academia nor the good will to see the quality that is here.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:59 | #

GW: However, an equally damaging factor has been that you are wedded to certain ideas which are rejected everywhere and which nobody wants or needs to come here and read ad finitum.

No they are not, that is a gaslighting lie that Jews, Christians and Nazis would try to put across.

And the only “everybody” you know are a few Nazophiles and dinosaurs.

...the only ad finitum is your strawmanning and gaslighting. That’s what no normal person wants to see.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:06 | #

You will not look at them again except to find them excellent after all, and will not step back from them one inch.  They have become holy writ in what is, for MR, an intellectual suicide pact.

There is no suicide pact, the ideas are excellent (as opposed to your strawmen) and this is the fertile way of the future for the autonomous functioning of European peoples and systems.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:14 | #

GW: Enough now.  In simple terms, nationalists are not striving for communicationism’s postmodernity.

Why do you use the term “communicationism” ... don’t answer, I know, you want to try to say that one discipline that I draw upon with fecundity is a mere sterile ideology…and as with anything that has passed through the halls of academe your pathetic ego has only one concern in its regard, and that is to use, but to destroy.

Same with you plain interjection of post modernity absent all the explanation that I’ve made of how it is supposed to function in White interests as opposed to the misrepresentations meant to misdirect White people against their interests, you are relying on people coming here with the popular misrepresentations, thinking that I am representing those and you are trying to make me and others tired by with an incessant need to defend against your lies and misrepresentations.

What you are doing is sadistic, profoundly dishonest and evil.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:27 | #

GW: Postmodernity cannot be re-defined and changed into a nationalist cause celebre.

I am not re-defining it as a cause celbre.

I am showing how it is supposed to function as a concern (viz. for Whites) preserving the best of tradition and inherited ways while defending against the worst aspects of modernity and also adopting its positive changes where we should.

It’s proper understanding is vastly different from the popular misrepresentations, and it doesn’t matter that you want to retain those - like Derrida - as foils to your autobiography. If you want to criticize Derrida, fine what you won’t call him represented of Post modernity proper, not White Post Modernity. Not by me.

For fuck sake, you really don’t read what I write.

GW: The Derridian take-over, if that is what it was, began sixty years ago (to be honest, I am not apprised of any prior anti-modern intellectual movement after the Revolutionary Conservatives, because Heidegger was so subdued politically after 1945 as, indeed, he was also much quietened after his departure from the rectorship of Freiburg).

I’ve explained already, that the first major opponent of DesCartes was Vico. Nietzsche was a famous critic of modernity and Heidegger was, in great part, following up on Nietzsche and the anti-Caresian project, the hermeneutic turn of re-centering our world view in praxis… Heidegger’s student, Gadamer (philosophical hermeneutics), also made some very important contributions to the post modern turn.

To the the extent that Jews and liberals have tried to obfuscate this project, it is not something to be accepted. Nor do you have better ideas than the proper form.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:34 | #

No harm to anything that should not be harmed in order to send it away and turn it off.

You turned off comments in toto because prospective commenters had nothing to oppose!  People don’t post on a site, or even read it, where every article has zero input below the line.

I used to say here that it would be better to publish Abe Foxman and let the commentariat get at him than to have no effervescence below the line.  When this ceased to be a free-speech site it became a no-speech site.  And this was your intolerance doing this, Daniel; nothing else.

And the only “everybody” you know are a few Nazophiles and dinosaurs.

But my solution was to broaden MR’s intellectual base again, and make it more serious.  In such an intellectual environment your communicationism would have found its place.  People could come here and say, “Oh there’s a piece by the white-left guy”, and read something else if they were not interested.  But too much of the “white left” guy relative to the rest has been shown not to work.  It’s simply a fact of our situation.  The market has spoken.

So the product must be withdrawn and re-designed to sell!  Not to the old MR base, because even at the height of the site’s activity that was too eclectic for what we can actually succeed with today; and anyway the essay format as an attraction for a mass audience has been replaced by the talking-head on video format.  We are primarily essayists.  But then, all serious work begins in the written form and only proceeds to chit-chats on camera so the generalities can be communicated to a wider audience.

I agree with your assessment re: James and Kumiko.  I liked them both, and much regret that we could not provide them with what they wanted in terms of a platform.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:35 | #

GW: Anyway, Derrida’s stratagem worked spectacularly well, and so nationalists only see postmodernity today in the critical sense that Morgoth employed the term in some notes he posted at his site yesterday (ie, as another Jewish-dictated historical turn against our people’s life and culture, which has worked itself out in various destructive ways).

I don’t care if Morgoth can’t be bothered to learn the difference between a Jewish red cape and important ideas that they are trying to obfuscate.

You can’t expect Jews to make clarity easy, but it is necessary because there are important ideas here; they are also not that hard to understand, or it shouldn’t be, but there is something very wrong with you to contend with, which causes you to continually strawman and distract from what I actually say; there is something very obstructive in your personality.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:39 | #

GW: That sense has been in circulation in WN for decades now.  It won’t change.

Those red capes are in circulation, yes.

But people will learn the difference, and much quicker if you do not strawman, misrepresent what I say with the red cape misrepresentations of postmodernity, lazily calling what I advocate as “post modernity” relying nastily on people coming here without the time and inclination to know the (important) difference between what I say and your strawmen.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:44 | #

GW: Our people have no idea why you even want to try to change it because they are striving, primarily, for the fourteen words, not a new non-modernist or anti-modernist era, and see any such era as a by-product of the struggle for the fourteen words, not the other way round.

Defending the fourteen words requires knowing the difference between red cape misdirection and White Post Modernity proper as its proper understanding and functioning facilitates the means for our group autonomous functioning.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:53 | #

GW: for nationalists it’s about blood and belonging.  That’s the rallying cry, not “we want postmodernity”.

There is not conflict, in fact, WHITE Post Modernity facilitates ‘blood’ and belonging. I never proposed a rallying cry of White post modernity and will not back off because my discussion of these ideas threatens your gargantuan, unmerited ego; or because your straw men tickle the fancy of your Nazi acolytes.

GW: You are making far too much of an interesting but peripheral comment on history.

You assessment is idiotic; re-centralizing our nationalist world view in praxis is a central concern; and it is reasonably called White Post Modern. But if you don’t like the words, don’t use them; write you fucking ontology posts, but don’t tell me what to do when you don’t know what you’re talking about…. the four people you talked to, all of them Nazi sympathizers, “don’t like this kind of talk and zo”....

Same as ever, your seedy businessman’s game of trying to trivialize the “product of your competitor” is transparent: “interesting but a periphery issue”  ..what an asshole.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:06 | #

GW: Then we come to the business of right and left, which we have debated at countless times, and which I do not propose to re-visit.  You know it’s not saleable.logic-chain. You have been given that message by all sides.

What did I tell you about your seedy businessman’s worldview - lol.

I’ve already explained this (and no, I haven’t been given a negative response from all sides).

I will continue to use the term white left ethnonationalism because it navigates what our enemies are trying to do to us, how they are trying to misdirect us, and where we need to be going. Perfectly.

Inasmuch as I cannot “sell” it to people I will observe that what they are referring to as “The Left” is either the Marxist internationalist/anti national left or the Cultural Marxist, anti-White Left; and I won’t worry about it too terribly much if they are advocating nationalism (as it forms left nationalism naturally) but when opportunity presents, that arguing against “the left” is part of a marketing campaign promulgated by our enemies which is meant to misdirect our people against our own interests (which are well looked after under the rubric that I refer to as White Left Ethnonationalism).

In many places, I have discussed important reasons to not let them do this.

You don’t have to use the term if you can’t get over your aversion to the word left and connotations that come up when it is lazily set off from its qualifiers, White and Ethnonationalism. I understand, shared in revulsion to the term. It Took David Lane and Tom Metzger to bring me around from my own reactionary position, to even consider that some social ideas could be deployed in our favor.

But I am relatively satisfied for people to call themselves nationalists/anti globalists ...while it does bother me when they fall into the Jewish marketing campaign against a characterology of “the left” because it is what Jews want Whites to argue and react against.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:13 | #

GW: But, like many intelligent people, you have your logic-chain which tells you it is correct, so it must be advanced Borg-like in the teeth of complaints from your bored-silly audience.

The only thing boring is your Borg-like strawmen which force me to repeat myself lest you succeed in you obfuscation.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:22 | #

GW: How long do you propose to keep this up?

How long do you propose to keep your strawmanning and gaslighting up, GW? I suppose that you will not stop until someone comes with a straight jacket and forces you to undergo therapy for your narcissistic personality disorder.

GW: How much more irrelevance and isolation can you take?

This platform is the most relevant and any isolation is the work of people who have an agenda counter productive to WN: Hitler, Jesus, Jews, Scientism, Conspiritardism (and Secular Koranism - lol).

GW: The site cannot afford such intellectual self-indulgence.

Again, a projection GW. The self indulgence is all yours. What I do is in purpose of our people’s interests (can hardly be said about your navel gazing ontology and endless strawmanning of important philosophical ideas.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:25 | #

I’ve explained already, that the first major opponent of DesCartes was Vico. Nietzsche was a famous critic of modernity and Heidegger was, in great part, following up on Nietzsche and the anti-Caresian project, the hermeneutic turn of re-centering our world view in praxis… Heidegger’s student, Gadamer (philosophical hermeneutics), also made some very important contributions to the post modern turn.

... and Hegel was a famous and early critic of liberalism.  Carl Schmitt a late one.  But neither had any lasting effect on liberalism’s stately progress to hell.

Likewise, even if it was the right target (it isn’t), modernity cannot be replaced by “white postmodernity” by talking about postmodernity - that’s the equivalent of sympathetic magic.  In reality, it requires money and capital to be addressed reformed, the experience of human being itself to be ripped away from its liberal, Christian, and Judaic moorings, and the natural within us to find expression accordingly, and shape our political appetite for the future.  It is not for intellectuals to specift that future for the people.  It is for the people to take hold of life and create.  That is the turn.

You are being asked to moderate your communicationist supremacism.  It is making you see nationalism’s struggle through a narrow ideological lens.  Didn’t Vico place experience and discovery above abstraction and ideology?

Defending the fourteen words requires ...

We are, as a movement, not defending the fourteen words but advocating for them (or at least their meaning).  We face an existential crisis, we advocate on an existential basis.

... knowing the difference between red cape misdirection and White Post Modernity proper as its proper understanding and functioning facilitates the means for our group autonomous functioning.

What red cape misdirection?  As for the people’s autonomy, see a few lines above.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:28 | #

GW: It has no commentariat left!

A few good commentators have not reappeared, but only a few…as for the rest…

I’ve already explained why that is, and it doesn’t matter if their coming back is contingent upon acceptance of Hitler, Jesus and Jews as an integral part of our interest group.

Why we have not attracted new commentariat is in large part your fault as you are not able or willing to see the potential (which is vast) in the resources that I bring; and so my having to fight off your strawmen consumes the comments and gives the place a bitter feel. It is your fault. You can’t get over your antagonism; I seriously think that you would need therapeutic intervention for narcissistic personality disorder in order to maybe stop doing this.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:34 | #

GW: I do believe that we have a new chapter opening for us, but this dead-wood thinking has to go.

Yes, YOUR dead-wood thinking has to go, GW. Maybe you need to consult a therapist.

GW: We have to re-build on a new vision, and make it work.

The new vision is here and the platform is better than anywhere else proposing to advocate White/Europeans and their nationalisms.

GW: You must lead in that, preserving the best of MR and developing the new.  It will be good. Will you please think about that, and not respond in the usual graceless and petty way?

I am and all the good that you have done, which is much, will be preserved, incorporated and elaborated upon.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:38 | #

Why we have not attracted new commentariat is in large part your fault as you are not able or willing to see the potential (which is vast) in the resources that I bring; and so my having to fight off your strawmen consumes the comments and gives the place a bitter feel. It is your fault. You can’t get over your antagonism; I seriously think that you would need therapeutic intervention for narcissistic personality disorder in order to maybe stop doing this.

Jesus H Christ, for long periods I have been immersed in other demands on my life.  You had free run of the place.  What you see is what you did.

Do you not think narcissistic personality disorder might better describe someone who has completely failed to convince anybody of his novel communicationist scheme for European kind while continuing to insist on the “vast” potential of the communicationism he studied at uni?  That’s enough.  Your personal endeavour has demonstrated its value, and it is time for us to move on.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:43 | #

The new vision is here and the platform is better than anywhere else proposing to advocate White/Europeans and their nationalisms.

Let’s suppose you are a chef running a restaurant that nobody comes to, yet continues to insist that the menu is the best in the land.  Is that a sustainable business model?  Well no, obviously not.  So let us change the model.  That is all I am saying, and it is not a request.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:56 | #

Edit58 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:34 | #

No harm to anything that should not be harmed in order to send it away and turn it off.

You turned off comments in toto because prospective commenters had nothing to oppose!

It could be that I turned away commentators because there is not enough to oppose; and that’s fine, we don’t need to foster contrarianism for the devil of it; we have moved beyond and have elaborative work to do. Commentators are more than welcome…and if they have honest criticism, for that too.

GW: People don’t post on a site, or even read it, where every article has zero input below the line.

It’s their loss.

GW: I used to say here that it would be better to publish Abe Foxman and let the commentariat get at him than to have no effervescence below the line.  When this ceased to be a free-speech site it became a no-speech site.  And this was your intolerance doing this, Daniel; nothing else.

GW, it became impossible with the Jesus people, the Hitler people, the people who wanted Jews here doing their subversive thing. That had gone far enough and you know that; it was time to open an new chapter. No, we don’t need people coming here promoting Hitler, Jesus and Jews and disrupting a cogent platform attending to their mess. Anybody who is not doing that sort of thing - pushing these agendas, abusing those who don’t subscribe, is more than welcome to come; and if they won’t come because this platform provides the one reprieve from that stuff, then they are not worthwhile anyway.

DanielS: And the only “everybody” you know are a few Nazophiles and dinosaurs.

GW: But my solution was to broaden MR’s intellectual base again, and make it more serious.

I have to wonder what you mean by broadening the base, but GW: I am not stopping you from writing articles, or posting those of others, do you understand? So your beef with me is absurd; however, if you do bring Nazis, Christians and Jewish submeters here, yes, they might get some rough treatment from me.

GW: In such an intellectual environment your communicationism would have found its place

.

Would you please stop using your neologism, “communicationism”? My communicology and social constructionism has a participatory place with commentariat in the instant that you don’t turn people away with your determination to isolate me on behalf of what, Nazophiles like Tanstaafl, or whatever.

GW: People could come here and say, “Oh there’s a piece by the white-left guy”, and read something else if they were not interested.  But too much of the “white left” guy relative to the rest has been shown not to work.  It’s simply a fact of our situation.  The market has spoken.

Not true. The Jewish marketing has spoken and you are prepared to let it.

GW: So the product must be withdrawn and re-designed to sell!

No deal. Write your own posts as you like; don’t tell me what to do in order to not hurt your ego project; because I know that my ATC is the absolute best.

GW: Not to the old MR base, because even at the height of the site’s activity that was too eclectic for what we can actually succeed with today; and anyway the essay format as an attraction for a mass audience has been replaced by the talking-head on video format.  We are primarily essayists.  But then, all serious work begins in the written form and only proceeds to chit-chats on camera so the generalities can be communicated to a wider audience.

Again, I am not stopping you from writing and posting articles, or going onto podcasts; so your complaint with me as largely absurd: you want me to do what you want to do. If that’s what you want to do, well then you do it.

GW: I agree with your assessment re: James and Kumiko.  I liked them both, and much regret that we could not provide them with what they wanted in terms of a platform.

It’s good that we’re agreeing on some things. I really don’t like fighting.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 12:19 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 12:25 | #

DanielS: I’ve explained already, that the first major opponent of DesCartes was Vico. Nietzsche was a famous critic of modernity and Heidegger was, in great part, following up on Nietzsche and the anti-Cartesian project, the hermeneutic turn of re-centering our world view in praxis… Heidegger’s student, Gadamer (philosophical hermeneutics), also made some very important contributions to the post modern turn.

GW: ... and Hegel was a famous and early critic of liberalism.  Carl Schmitt a late one.  But neither had any lasting effect on liberalism’s stately progress to hell.

Let me make quick work of that by saying that I am neither an advocate of Hegel nor Schmitt.

GW: Likewise, even if it was the right target (it isn’t),

Yes, it is a modernity is a major target and all important Western philosophers since have made it a central point to correct this wrong turn.

GW: modernity cannot be replaced by “white postmodernity” by talking about postmodernity - that’s the equivalent of sympathetic magic.

If “Post Modernity” is being misrepresented to Whites in order to misdirect them and the underlying purpose of post modernity is, by contrast, to these red cape obfuscations, to allow people to sustain their group systemic patterns, then setting that project aright is certainly what needs to be done and there is no sympathy for its misrepresentation.

GW: In reality, it requires money and capital to be addressed reformed, the experience of human being itself to be ripped away from its liberal, Christian, and Judaic moorings, and the natural within us to find expression accordingly, and shape our political appetite for the future.

You don’t seem to be able to get out of the habit of your business model of trying to devalue a “competitor’s product” so that you can have a monopoly on the market:

GW: It is not for intellectuals to specift that future for the people.  It is for the people to take hold of life and create.  That is the turn.

Said the intellectually jealous man, whose autobiography since adolescence, apparently, has been to tilt against the red capes of humanities departments.

GW: You are being asked to moderate your communicationist supremacism.

“Communicationist supremacism” - lol. Write your own damn articles if you’d like to see things expressed differently.

GW: It is making you see nationalism’s struggle through a narrow ideological lens.

No it isn’t.

GW: Didn’t Vico place experience and discovery above abstraction and ideology?

Maybe, but you are presuming that my abstractions and “ideology” are prior to experience and discovery (which isn’t true).

GW: Defending the fourteen words requires ...

We are, as a movement, not defending the fourteen words but advocating for them (or at least their meaning).

Face palm, you know what I mean for F-sake.

GW: We face an existential crisis, we advocate on an existential basis

That’s right and a White Post Modern platform does just that.

GW: ... knowing the difference between red cape misdirection and White Post Modernity proper as its proper understanding and functioning facilitates the means for our group autonomous functioning.

GW: What red cape misdirection?

Have you ever read this article: https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/white_post_modernity_corrects_reactionary_chase_of_red_capes_fucking_u1

You might begin to understand why I took such great offense when a few days ago you tried to characterize the concept as “something that might be good if I didn’t just use it as an insult term.”

GW: As for the people’s autonomy, see a few lines above.

My concept of autonomy, its limitations and constraints is fine.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 12:32 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 12:38 | #

DanielS:

Why we have not attracted new commentariat is in large part your fault as you are not able or willing to see the potential (which is vast) in the resources that I bring; and so my having to fight off your strawmen consumes the comments and gives the place a bitter feel. It is your fault. You can’t get over your antagonism; I seriously think that you would need therapeutic intervention for narcissistic personality disorder in order to maybe stop doing this.

GW: Jesus H Christ, for long periods I have been immersed in other demands on my life.  You had free run of the place.  What you see is what you did.

And the articles are fantastic! And I’m not the only one who says it!

GW: Do you not think narcissistic personality disorder might better describe someone who has completely failed to convince anybody

No I don’t think it better describes me because a narcissist likes to gaslight and say that “nobody has been convinced”, to try to isolate its prey ...

GW: of his novel communicationist scheme for European kind while continuing to insist on the “vast” potential of the communicationism he studied at uni?  That’s enough.

That enough of your bullshit, your autobiography against anything that looks like it might come from the university to your jealous chagrin.

Like I said, if you want to see things put another way, go to it.

You think that I don’t have better things that I can and should be attending to than shoveling your endless piles of horseshit?

You’ve delayed me from going to pay a hospital bill. I had an incident last night and there are some concerns about my heart. Back the fuck off and write your own articles to make yourself happy. Don’t dump your shit on me. I don’t need it and don’t want it.

GW: Your personal endeavour has demonstrated its value, and it is time for us to move on.

Think about seeing a counselor for your narcissistic personality disorder. In the meantime, write some articles yourself instead of trying to dump strawmen on mine.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 12:37 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 12:43 | #

DanielS: The new vision is here and the platform is better than anywhere else proposing to advocate White/Europeans and their nationalisms.

GW: Let’s suppose you are a chef running a restaurant that nobody comes to, yet continues to insist that the menu is the best in the land.  Is that a sustainable business model?  Well no, obviously not.  So let us change the model.  That is all I am saying, and it is not a request.

I’ve already explained why this, the “lack of popularity” is. Write your own articles and stop your incessant dump of strawmen onto mine as if I have not thought about these things carefully, because I have. And therefore, expect me to defend the resource that I bring to bear if you will not stop. I suggest rather that you busy yourself writing your own articles as you see fit instead.

I’ve got a hospital bill to pay, lay off stressing me for a while.

Posted by mancinblack on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 12:38 | #

The activity at all nationalist websites is down from where it was a few years ago. To learn why, go to, for example, PA’s website, where you will find very few, if any, comments below the articles. Then use this link to Laura’s most recent YouTube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccdCZfAtZWU

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:22 | #

Manc, the general mass of nationalists have moved to YouTube and are in the process of moving again to the “AltTech” sites.  But MR was never a site for the general mass of nationalists.  It was always a thinking person’s medium, like OO and, latterly, C-C.  Those two have kept their readership.  We have vanishingly few readers now, and no commentariat.  There are doubtless multiple reasons for it, but one is that thinking nationalists ... the most individual and independent-minded people of our entire race ... have zero interest in being “left” merely on the basis that the left = unifying.  They already have a fixed opinion about what they are, and don’t tolerate being “corrected” by Daniel.  In the same way, these folks ... our folks ... don’t want to be told that academics in communicationism doing hermeneutic interpretations are going to hand down to them instructions for how to proceed, or that their struggle is not actually for blood and kind but to reach a nebulous state called postmodernity.

Daniel was warned that he was running risks at the outset - not just by me and Kumiko but by everybody he tried to engage with.  But he ignored that advise.  Five years later, or thereabouts, the market has spoken.  We can say that Daniel’s theories have indubitably failed to attract the support of a single person, and will only continue failing - at the expense of this site which I pay for and, not surprisingly, wish to see succeed.  He must now take this on board, and even if in his heart of hearts he still believes himself to be correct with it, he must listen to the judgement of the market.

What is the point of yet more denial, anyway?  What joy is there in failure?

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:04 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Sep 2020 05:22 | #

Manc, the general mass of nationalists have moved to YouTube and are in the process of moving again to the “AltTech” sites.  But MR was never a site for the general mass of nationalists.  It was always a thinking person’s medium, like OO and, latterly, C-C.  Those two have kept their readership.  We have vanishingly few readers now, and no commentariat.  There are doubtless multiple reasons for it, but one is that thinking nationalists ... the most individual and independent-minded people of our entire race ... have zero interest in being “left” merely on the basis that the left = unifying.

You don’t know the lay of the land and have made zero effort to overcome the obvious Jewish Marketing program maintain White identity with the right and to steer White identity even harder against “the left”.

With that, the ‘lack of readership’ is due in large part to the same Jewish marketing program to which you are beholden.

GW: They already have a fixed opinion about what they are,

You have a fixed understanding, largely in service of your autobiography to maintain the Jewish provided red capes for you to tilt against.

GW: and don’t tolerate being “corrected” by Daniel.

I’m correcting Jewish misrepresentations and I have zero concern for what your Hitler loving backers in your campaign against me have to say about it, whether it is Tanstaafl and his Jewish wife, Al Ross, Nick Dean, Carolyn Yeager, Hadding Scott, Captainchaos, Ovfuckyou, Tom White, Tom Anderson or Melchy Zedek, Vivian Veritas, Millennial Warts, Fudge Johnson, Mark Collett, Morgoth, Nativist Concern, Mike Enoch, David Duke, etc.

GW: In the same way, these folks ... our folks ... don’t want to be told that academics

I’m not telling people what to do. Among other things, I am showing how academic resource is supposed to work in our interests.

GW: in communicationism

Your trying to turn communicology into an “ism” and me its ideologue is retarded.

GW: doing hermeneutic interpretations

It’s more like showing how the hermeneutic process of inquiry is supposed to work in our interests.

GW: are going to hand down to them instructions for how to proceed,

You are the one who is trying to hand down instructions as to how to proceed. I make suggestions for whom it may concern.

GW: or that their struggle is not actually for blood and kind but to reach a nebulous state called postmodernity.

I didn’t say that what I do isn’t for blood and kind. And White Post Modernity facilitates that .... unlike your ‘naturalism’ which on the order of expecting a human infant to raise itself into adulthood on the basis of its emergence.

GW: Daniel was warned that he was running risks at the outset - not just by me and Kumiko but by everybody he tried to engage with.

Kumiko did not “warn me of this” asshole. She was the one who shored up my thinking on left ethnonationalism, calling attention to the fact that Japan was an example of left ethnonationalism (and more specifically, on the right side of left ethnonationalism).

GW: But he ignored that advise.

 
So any advice from her was to the opposite of what you say; and any advice from you has to be looked upon as coming from a man with narcissistic personality disorder, who’s primary concern is his ego, his autobiography as “slayer of academic pretense” which requires the red capes that he doesn’t want corrected.

GW: Five years later, or thereabouts, the market has spoken.

No it hasn’t. Jewish marketing and the Hitler heads and Jesus freaks who are happy to go along with it has spoken, not anybody with any sense, judgment and decency to look at what I am saying and the reasoning behind it.

GW: We can say that Daniel’s theories have indubitably failed to attract the support of a single person, and will only continue failing - at the expense of this site which I pay for and, not surprisingly, wish to see succeed.

My theories have not failed, they make consistent and perfect sense.

By your own admission, the site is not expensive to maintain, and I have worked for free, doing outstanding work, despite what you say, and have taken next to nothing but deranged abuse from you. I’m closer to deserving a Nobel Prize and a million dollars than your endless gaslighting/strawmanning.

GW: He must now take this on board, and even if in his heart of hearts he still believes himself to be correct with it, he must listen to the judgement of the market.

What is the point of yet more denial, anyway?  What joy is there in failure?

I will not listen to Jewish marketing, because this “market” is no more clear an indicator of what is good, worthwhile and true than the many Youtube channels, voices, websites that have been silenced and muted - as this one is, of course. It is not a “fee market speaking.”

I know what I do is good, I don’t care what you say. But if you don’t like what I say, write your own goddamn articles, post news stories and articles that you like.

I don’t recommend that you bring Nazis here and try to chase me away on their behalf.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:01 | #

Daniel, please do not re-frame my request to you as “bringing Nazis here” and “trying to chase you away on their behalf”.  If that was ever what I wanted I would never have arranged for you to be an equal to me here.  I wouldn’t treat you so solicitously now.  You are valued, and as the owner of this site I am trying to maximise your value to it.  Hence I must ask you to be honest with yourself and re-assess your work in the areas where it has been plainly and undeniably negative for MR, and then make the necessary changes.  This is not for no purpose.  It is to make it possible for the site to develop a role in determining the future course of nationalism in Britain then in the US.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:03 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:01 | #

Daniel, please do not re-frame my request to you as “bringing Nazis here” and “trying to chase you away on their behalf”.  If that was ever what I wanted I would never have arranged for you to be an equal to me here.  I wouldn’t treat you so solicitously now.  You are valued, and as the owner of this site I am trying to maximise your value to it Hence I must ask you to be honest with yourself and re-assess your work in the areas where it has been plainly and undeniably negative for MR, and then make the necessary changes.  This is not for no purpose.  It is to make it possible for the site to develop a role in determining the future course of nationalism in Britain then in the US

.

GW I am honest. And I honestly cannot say that same of you, in your “assessment,” which is part of the problem ...because a marketing phase of what is the most normal and viable platform (this one) which we have here has only begun: Most people are not Christians and need to work on a new moral order; Jews are not European, they are middle eastern and not part of our advocacy group; people have to learn how to deal with their shenanigans - Nazism was a reaction gone into runaway disaster on an epistemological blunder and people who try to redeem it will only play into divide and conquer of Europeans. The market viability of this platform is obstructed some, probably significantly by the fact that you either don’t know the positive difference of what I bring to bear or do not want to know. The latter seems possible in that you want me to do what you want to do which is absurd. If you want to write articles in a certain way, go to it! I am not stopping you. I’m not stopping you from posting central or news items; from talking to others on Youtube or Bitchute.

But it is also the case that I do not jump into popularity with both feet, unprepared and neither should you, especially given some of MR’s history. You see all the problems that high profile people are having. You don’t need that and neither do I. Popularity is not the priority, the best and most viable platform is. We have that. It’s unfortunate that you don’t realize it yet (and may never).

I have explained several times now, that if you want to use the word “left” in the way (((marketed))) heavily (as a characterology) since 2008, my framework can accommodate that as understanding that you mean internationalist/anti-nationalist Marxist and Anti White Cultural Marxist. It leaves out some (what I am satisfied are very important) coordinates to track but I can deal with it (track it) through White Left ethnonationalism and White Post Modernity. The resources of White post modernism, i.e., post modern philosophy understood as it would properly function in White interests is not wrong, and I don’t need to reconsider it. It is most important.

Again, write and post articles to satisfy yourself. Don’t expect me to be a parrot of you, especially given your misplaced resentment of anything that looks academic to you…even when it is in service of your interests.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 03:45 | #

No PhD yet ?  A minimum requirement for an attempt at besting GW.

.....

What arguments of mine have been defeated?

And doesn’t your Hitler worship have somewhere else to go?

Posted by Dennis on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 22:48 | #

Here is a Dennis Dale stream: Dennis Dale is very articulate and aware of the BLM/Anti-Fa antics and who is behind it. He is situated in the epicenter of anti-fa antics there in Portland, Oregon (that’s where he lives). Dennis is taking the given, standard angle of White advocacy.

Dennis has 11 viewers for his stream, oh, 13 now (12:44 a.m. CET)

Oh, we’ve shot up to 14 by 12:47, wow.