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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heidegger adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This rigid, reactionary clinging in search of pure facticity and the arbitrary susceptibility we are subject to thereby, requires a second liberation - from mere facticity: the word “mere” is crucial; we are not seeking a divorce from factual verification, we are seeking a divorce from the arbitrary happenstance of empirical observation adrift from the guiding, working hypothetical coherence, [accountability, agency, warrant and ecology, human and otherwise] of broader patterns by which to make sense, including as a group - as Bateson says, “I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns; that is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.” He is talking about systemic correction; that pursuit of individual liberation and self maximization, or even group imperial maximization as opposed to delimitations of group patterns (such as nation) is going to meet with correction (stasis from without the system, if you won’t take up homeostasis within); and that unlike the mountain lion, we have awareness and agency over the matter of correction and systemic homeostasis - “there can be other” and we know it; we are not innocent.

[Tillich, 1961, noted the irony of the reactionary pursuit: “The existential protest against dehumanization, together with its courage to be oneself has resulted in the most elaborate and oppressive forms of collectivization ever known to man.”]

Our human nature is of praxis, and if we are to maintain our group homeostasis we have necessity for a second liberation, from mere facticity and of focusing, paying especial attention to our social and moral order to that end.

While there must be clearing away of the false indeed, and has been regarding terminology and conceptual misunderstandngs, after that we must provide for a basic hypothesis of social homeostasis. A chronic problem that I have been having at MR is that my differences are not being treated as such, but as the same old stuff pushed by Jewish academia. This is totally wrong and an obstruction to our marked detriment.

Classical liberalism was liberal in the sense that it would compel the “have” class to share resources with the less fortunate; but that would, following the union idea, be curtailed, basically extending liberalism within the union (paradigmatic conservatism), recognizing shared social resource to be accounted-for internally, within the nation as a priority; while other nations would be coordinated with and assessed in outreach primarily at their parameters and how they impacted beyond. I suppose that a weakness of classical liberalism was that it did not emphasize and structure two-way accountability within the nation enough, nor recognize the concept of group boundaries and membership quite enough - its stance in effort to “liberalize” the Aristocratic bounds in interest of the rank and file were over-extended (probably in large influence by YKW taking advantage of Enlightenment blindness) to those who would not be natives to the national union at all.

With Marxism, what I call red leftism, the powerful and inspiring union idea was taken and proposed as a world-wide internationalist workers union - racially, sexually and nationally ambiguous - “workers of the world unite” (and as the YKW applied that, and then cultural Marxism: unions of women, people of color, gays, etc) more and more in alignment against White (non-Jewish) men, who were all proposed by the YKW to be privileged in all ways; and with Jewish crypsis and the “left wing” contingent of their overall pattern providing additional cover for their group agenda, they were able to diffuse attention that might come against their own growing privilege. It is left internationalism thus, not left natonalism. We all know, YKW, whose national union is the only one allowed to care for its bounds at the end of that internationalist leftist scheme - of course, Israel. In the meantime they’ll deek and dodge, having some of their people getting on both sides, some on the other, nevertheless amounting to liberalism for everyone else; but just enough liberalism to put their compradors in place in the third world. And to send scurrying to the west those fleeing these regimes of their feudalistic war lords…hoards sent to western nations to abet the liberalization of their borders, to scab them and prevent effective ethno-unionization in the west as well.

Their having extended acute state accountability to provide obsequious charity beyond state bounds, encouraging coalition and individual activist transgression of our history and patterns, phrasing Whites in entirety as the ultimate privileged group to be targeted and taken down for their privilege in the language game contrived by international Jewry (hiding in crypsis, making their way into White institutions, bribing some Whites to join in right wing exploitation, then to be left along with some token old goat like Soros to take the fall), along with the fact that our own unionization - our own White left social union bounds - have been prohibited as “racism”, has caused the term liberal and left, as applied to (our would-be unionized) White interests, to become fused in our thinking. While left and liberal, which should be an oxymoron, became interchangeable; any group identity for Whites, particularly after Hitler did his (rightist with left nationalist cover) thing, has been called right wing. In shifty YKW manipulation, the “marginals” that the right wing shunned, were not “marginals”, those just within our boundaries, people who knew where the shoe pinched and who could serve as early warning and systemic homeostaic correction, but people from without the group, who could help the YKW in their liberalization of White bounds, to break our systemic homeostasis down.

Social unionization was both prohibited and made didactic by the YKW and their minions as they took, distorted and completely misrepresented what would be the correct terms and means of social group homeostasis of Whites.

GW asks what I will do when “the White Left”, “White Class” “White Left ethno-nationalism” don’t catch on as terminology.

But the terminological perspective that I take-up is rather like a polio vaccine that’s been tested and works.

By simple analogy, like a polio vaccine, the way that I deploy the terms “right and left” works to make consistent sense. You may not like the idea of identifying with “left”, or “the right or left paradigm”, I didn’t either, and if push came to shove, prior to my independent judgment in taking what we need from the survey of ordinary language and its wisdom, I would have identified with “the right” as well, even despite the obvious foolishness associated with the right - e.g., Christianity and irresponsible, disingenuous objectivism, if not ruthless supremacist pugnaciousness - having observed the liberal destruction, by contrast, that had been associated with “THE left.” That is, until I observed and thought about what was going on, the organizing and activist utility that lay beneath the ordinary language of “the left” - that it was about social unionization (an ethno nation will do as an example of unionization). It is liberal in the classic sense, in the paradigmatic conservative sense, extending its liberal charity primarily within national bounds, when national boundaries were taken for granted), but where international Marxism and cultural Marxism broached those bounds, liberalism reached beyond, say, benevolent responsibility of the Aristocracy to the lower classes of the nation, and became an expression of feral, less rigid and constrained, more actively and individually expressed wish to be free of accountability to group interests, as it transgresses collective borders and bounds - the “tyrannical rubric under which we met” after WWII and the supposedly ultimate individual liberal virtue by contrast.

The concept of White Left ethnonationalism as I deploy it works - it makes consistent sense.

It makes consistent sense of what our antagonists are doing, what they don’t want us to do, and in bringing forth our requirements, affording our capacity to define our terms, particularly of White Leftism for ourselves - for example, there would still be private property, free enterprise, opportunity for considerable wealth, a high degree of individual liberty, varied and largely free ways of life, and so on. However, we’d have a means of accountability to our genetic an social capital, an eye on potential elite betrayal and in maintaining the loyalty of rank and file.

Further, and crucially, national bounds, union bounds (same thing on the level we’re talking about) would establish a moral order.

The most practical and most universalizable moral principle is that which allows group survival (including characteristics of the group - e.g., individualistic nature - James) along side other groups (and nature).

Those groups or belief systems which do not allow for other groups to survive where they do not otherwise impinge, where it is not a matter of self defense, are immoral - included in practical defense against such impositions would be isurvival of group habitat and environment as part of the equation.

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

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

In service of our innocent, erstwhile accountable ends…

Since an adherence of pure nature is not going to reliably sort out our racial, ethnonational defense in a post modern world - especially when there are other groups either sophisticated enough to negotiate post modern group requirements against modernity and manipulate those performance requirements against us; or too primitive in their ethnocentrism to be held up by modernist concerns - it is necessary to structure our socialization, its rule structures ourselves i.e., to do White post modernity for ourselves, in our interests - of course conforming to what is more merely factual, but nevertheless, recognizing that that is not enough given our human nature in praxis.

Revisiting the hierarchy of needs

I have proposed that over valuation of individual self actualization at the expense of under valuing being - and why not value being? we survived this far, after all - a crass expression of America’s Carteisan ideal taken to extreme, which also devalues routine/sacralization and most fundamentally, is an at the expense of socialization of our group interests which has resulted in our doing our (negative) part in the continual rupturing of our group patterns, homeostasis thereof. It is characteristic of right-wing self righteousness and reaction: it is not all the fault of Jews; it is another example of where we have been asleep at the wheel.

We can deploy these four facets -1. classification/unionization of socialization 2. being (dasein/midtdasein) 3. routine/sacrament 4. individuation in manifest fulfillment of one’s nature, achievement, farther reaches in realization/self actualization - expressive of our European ways and interests, managing them as specificatory structures to prevent their going into runaway, to rather maintain our group systemic homeostasis by a re-assessment, revaluing these topoi - taking these four parts into a more circulating relation, optimization individual actualization, gender differentiation in socialization.

In this regard, and against all rigors thus far, I have seen no reason to do away with this working hypothesis: that a placing of our ethnonational classification and gender relations within a reworking of Maslow’s hierarchy of Self Actualization based instead on an optimal circulation of Socialization, Being, Routine/Sacrament and Self Actualization, would be of prime utility for the advocacy of European interests, and in maintenance of our emergent qualities of group systemic homeostasis.

If anything would serve as “foundational” for a bio-social group, it would be working hypotheses operationally verifiable as “check points” and specificatory structures, serving to guide correction of the bio-social systemic praxis from runaway, to re-direct it into stasis and homeostasis.

Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis being better than no working hypothesis, the conceptual essence of the matter as I have long (and singularly observed to this point) on a theoretical level is an issue of social classification - marking differences that make a difference in distinguishing the system as genus and species.

As we have gone far enough in our working hypothesis to recognize the interactive nature of praxis, our working hypothesis would preferably structure and encourage the deliberately participatory - as social ethno national justice warriors lol, if you will, but seriously why not? - as a means to the end of social - ethno national justice. We would be activists, engaged in relation and negotiation of ours and other groups and environment. Activism is proper also in the sense that we are always in interaction. Passivity is in the eyes of the beholder. Data is as data does.

Now, a mentally retarded person will try to opportunistically seize upon that, still handing on white knuckle in reaction to say that they are “deeper”, as if this platform does not concern itself with DNA, emergence and is profound expressions.

Inasmuch as we could take our unionization for granted it would liberate from the Cartesian anxiety, feeling as if we must cling white knuckle to empirical foundations, affording instead the capacity to leave for instants and moments of attention, to move beyond episode, beyond a particular relationship in order to attend and collate the intermittent patterned interests, trusting that the pattern, our most important pattern, will not be at risk in that very moment (a “shallow concern?” I think not).

This hypothesis of classificatory bounds, inasmuch as these bounds can be taken for granted, can liberate us from the feeling that we must cling white knuckle to empiricism, to foundation, to facticity at all times, no matter how much that facticity (for its denied interactive flux, and the pil pul, casuistry in antagonistic word-smithery that it affords) may subject us to arbitrary throes away from the homeostasis of our group systemic pattern; so that we might rather take it for granted and move into circulation beyond a moment (“the Cheddar man’s factually dark skin means that we are not very different from blacks”), an episode, beyond relationship even, as necessary to participate in conceptual liberation from riveting to Cartesian reifcation, in forgetfulness; this way of conceptualization by contrast would encourage engagement in inquiry and the hermeneutic process of accountable survey of our homeostasis.

Despite the objections of right wingers then, that “a people” is not a “union” for the “unnaturalness”, the lack of facticty of that concept, and for the historical abuses and vastly distorted union implementation (largely by YKW), they provide a structure for liberation from mere facticity and a means to justly harmonize commensurable niche abilities within the human ecology of the union - marking and difference that makes a difference in distinguishing the system as genus and species. Wise men see lines and therefore draw them. In further end of this sufficient working hypothesis of social systemic homeostasis, it would preferably structure from its onset the concept of process and a kind of circulation, if not circularity, of need requirements - specificatory structures to prompt our engaged relation and participatory negotiation of ours and other groups and environment.

Coming back to our critique then, of Maslow’s hierarchy, to transform it to optimal negotiation of ethnonational socialization of gender relations and self actualization…

Along with the unionized concept of process, circulation and circularity as it were, compensatory reward for routine menial/and sacral upkeep needs to be structured, so that singular pursuit of self actualization (Cartesian in its disregard of group interactivity) does not continually disrupt our erstwhile homeostatic pattern, but rather serves to reconstruct it, as it is recognizing from the onset its indebtedness, interactivity and the necessity to participate in homeostasis of the social systemic pattern.

Socially unionized delimitation, accountability thereof and willing suspension of disbelief in its relative merit would also be beneficial in allowing for the relaxation of attitudes about sex (for relief of fear about being left behind) within its bounds - both providing for more security in concerns less and more about monogamy - although the latter option, I argue, is crucial for group systemic homeostasis. Freedom and choice is tyrannically limited without that option. So, too, is a concept of sacrament necessary to invoke the commemoration of the broad pattern, its homeostasis through the moment, episode and relational connection, to the systemic pattern time in memorial. So, too, does it afford re-evaluation of the western concept of self actualization and its maximization at the expense of systemic optimality and social systemic homeostasis. With that, a recognition that a re-negotiation of Maslow’s hierarchicization of needs toward self actualization is necessary; taken now foremost in a broad basis of unionized socialization (as the over valuation of self actualization lends to disruption of social systemic delimitation) with processually alternatable positions in concern of self actualization, being, routine/sacrament; and with that, a re-negotiation of gender relations, providing for modern and traditional options for both men and women. Further, a critique and re-evaluation of how “alpha’s and betas” should count: alpha adulation famously heading toward the path of hypergamy, feudalism and R selection, while broad base Beta’s provide social systemic homeostasis - they make relationships and K selection whereas Alphas make bastards and R selection (the trajectory of alphas being r selection and bastards; the trajectory of beta’s being k selection, family and social stasis). And, a re-evaluation of marginals as potentially early warners as to where the social systemic shoe pinches, having perspective on the system and representing sentinels of a kind, also owed sufficient account, compassion and respect for their part in social systemic maintenance.

In his concept of the circulation of elites, Pareto was proposing something like this circularity, although I wouldn’t say that elites or other positions should be changed as a matter of routine, they should be changed when it is organic and correct in our circulatory homeostasis; but our people should have the capacity to circulate among these needs so that the system may remain dynamic and rejuvenating.

Something like “the circulation of elites” that Pareto named, doesn’t have to be moment to moment and arbitrary, but should function as need be, indeed, elites may actually need to step “down” into more ordinary practical terms at given times in their life or in a given generation in order to return to their senses and gain basic skills, to relax into being and gain organic orientation; they might nevertheless be secure that whatever elites occupy at the particular time, they are serving the same systemic interests, and their time to move out of less humble roles and into ones more responsible but more stressful will come again.

As with most all of what I write and say in advocacy of our peoples, it’s been prompted by those who would misguide our people either deliberately (as moles) or accidentally (as fools), and in correction of that I give particular focus to the theoretical level.

Against Universal Maturity - and Anti-Coming of age for that maturity, but for European maturity, viz. its level sublimation instead

Prior to my being offered to start a “real intellectual” platform called ‘RadRight, i.e., on that was so “deep” that it would have to rely on strawmanning my platform as merely activist and political - and thus the necessity to foray into vast digression despite trying to overcome this gaslighting - the issue that I most needed to address was the misguidance of certain Alt-Right, manosphere orbiters. Nevertheless, because I am operating on a systemic world view, the issue that I’d intended to address does fit in. It has to do with gender relations and the manosphere’s take on that as opposed to White male being.

I was specifically triggered by something that Matt Forney said, paraphrasing him closely (I will find the exact quote), to the effect that ‘these White male crybabies’ want to be treated as if they have value of themselves just the way that females have; that’s not the way it is, males have to prove themselves.

This would crassly misrepresent and distract from one of the most profoundly lacking requirements of our sociality as Whites - as I’ve uncovered in hermeneutic survey, the recognition of the intrinsic value of White male being - a motive that has been buried by Jewish politics, with their advancement of blacks, feminist quest of actualization - depicting all White men as privileged and deserving of ridicule from the day one, to be tested according to universal, liberal maturity as opposed to the maturity schedule difference, say, that Rushton observed for Whites as opposed to other racial groups.

I am not saying that classificatory differences to acknowledge different behavioral pattern requirements for males and females should not be observed - I am not saying that males should not be expected to prove themselves somehow worthy of mating. What I am saying is that the tests, the rites of passage as it were, should no be crass, of another culture’s values, universal, and not likely to be lethal unless it is necessary to defend our people from clear, identifiable immanent thereat, but requirements of manhood particular to our European nature and social systemic requirements.

“Naven ritual rites of passage produced harsh, overcompensating males.” - Naven 1936

More broadly, along with Forney, Nowicki, recent posts/videos from Roosh V., Anglin and Weev “triggered” the initial motive for the post as well, along with logical fallacies from the rest of the Alternative Right crew; pretty much all of the Alt Right people; lately Warski, JF and apparently anybody they will let past their gate keeping.

And a note regarding Luke Ford’s statement that he doesn’t pay attention to anyone who calls Richard Spencer controlled opposition. Luke is misunderstanding the different forms “control” can take. In the case of Spencer, he is dutifully reacting into a right wing, “alt right”, altercast maneuvered and coddled by the YKW: he is controlled in that sense and his language game is vulnerable in many ways as such.

But the original idea for this article was meant to answer misdirection from Nowicki and Forney.

Nowicki, a part of the (((culturalist underpinned Alterantive Right cadre))) is constantly saying stupid things like “we shouldn’t pay so much attention to Jews” or “the way to handle your concerns about miscegenation is to ignore it, not be bothered by it.” False. The way to handle miscegenation is develop a social rule structure which will observe and protect the protracted value of your place within social capital; that rule structure will include Bowery and Renner’s way for handling misgegenation - ostracism. Miscegenators and their offspring should not be a part of your goverment, they are not owed your allegiance. Stupidly, Matt Forney, in response to Pill Eater, says that only guys who are not getting sex care about miscegenation, and then he goes and moves to the ethnostatically coherent White nations of Hungary and Ukraine. Further, in his right wing natural fallaciousness, such a man that he is, supposedly, cross contextually and independent of nation - he says that we White males who might seek justice want to be treated in the exact same way as females, as if having intrinsic value because we have the nerve to want this recognized as well - “we don’t want to prove ourselves.”

Rather, we don’t want to prove ourselves in lethal tests instigated by ignorant overseers; e.g., puerile girls - particularly not in this topsy turvey modernity, where they are so prone to hypergamy with so called alphas, superficially assessed as such, more on an episodic basis rather - made possible with the YKW liberal-state guarantor - not exactly people looking after the patterned justice of our social capital as opposed to pattern anyway.

In service of stasis and homeostasis of the social unit of analysis thus, I critique Maslow’s very Americanized version of Aristotle’s story of Self Actualization, and place it in a four way system to organize its hermeneutic circularity. Not clunky. As its interfaces are both too supple in elegant simplicity and too complex to be clunky in reification. These are specificatory structures, or topoi, as it were.

Within the disorder of modernity, the objective truth of feminine and masculine roles becomes problematic - particularly as our characteristic masculine sublimation makes for a naturally more thoughtful people, less aggressive and less stereotypical in gender differentiation as opposed to the toxic (sorry Andy, but the word is used for exact reasons) extremes that would be incited-to by puerile females, particularly as they are pandered-to within the classificatory disorder of modernity - i.e., absent the stabilizing effect of unionized ethnonational bounds. Gender differentiation is made crude and taken to runaway as it is the last defacto classification (almost allowed, now gender is getting to be quite problematized too) in a world where classification has been disallowed by the YKW’s didactic exaggeration of Locke’s enlightenment rule, applied didactically against Whites; and the endless atomization of gentile classification by the YKW, as GW observes.

Of course, follow the alpha’s, Forney says, only guys who aren’t getting laid care about miscegenation, only beta’s want fair treatment (that’s why the asshole has fled Chicago and gone to Hungary and Ukraine, where social homeostasis for Whites still holds).

But we should take umbrage to denigration and clear designation of “betas” - a reification and denigration of the apparently the ordinary, inbetween men, and their potential “uprisings.”

For it is “alphas” and the quest of alphadom which will put the system into runaway, particularly without beta correction.

A dirty secret of liberal feminism, which would be known to manoshere types but not so deeply as to get beyond their natural fallacy, is that outside socialization within group norm unionization, in their raw puerile form, feminists, for all their complaints, are inclined the same alpha males as are traditional women, the kind of men that they legitimately complain about; and with the charmed loop of modernity locked in as such, it almost becomes a necessity to perpetuate the runaway, since in this disorder, what women can afford to have her life force left behind? Males, too, are forced out of being and into this systemically toxic competition. And dirty little secret of traditional females is that they can be just as unfair and unjust as feminist females regarding our social capital - hence the need for Post Modernist reordering, not Neo-Traditionalism.

However, the genders could find that with unionized bounds the acceptance of betas can be viable and a critical stance toward alphas is greatly increased. That is, gender relations can be a lot more fair and secure.

How, otherwise, without unionized group bounds and the criteria of accountability that it affords, are you going to feel comfortable and secure that you are not putting your legacy at risk; when the topsy turvey of modernity as perverted by YKW puts it a risk to being prey for savages; how are you not going to be concerned that you are not going to be left behind by no-account “that’s just the way it is-ness” of alpha male pursuit of pseudo warrant in naturalistic fallacy (you can pretend to not be unconcerned, like Forney, that “these concerns are just for men who aren’t getting laid”, then flee to a stable social order and the compassion it affords.

To have a group at all, to protect and honor our freedom and actualization it is necessary to protect and honor our providing for the basis of any such possibility.

How about to protect and honor our providing for the basis of any such possibility?

Ah, we’ve come to the crux, social being, praxis as opposed to thrownness.

And why we cannot stop with a mere critique of the negative possibilities of socialization -

I’m all for critiquing negative socialization.

...the “Enframing” that we are up against now as reactionaries hanging white knuckle onto facticity and Judaic religious principle - the god we’ve known.

There needs to be a platform and a means for beta males to perform, that means a concept of the social that readily explains how the “beta” is not so beta, and how the “alpha” as many females find out after getting off of the cock carousel, is not so “alpha.” ..how the alpha may get bent and relax, replenishing its basic sympathy, while the beta may have opportunity to stretch and practice the farther reaches of his/her ability.

Sublimation is an underestimated consideration in collective intelligence (Africans less, Europeans in the middle, east Asians more); it needs to be protected against declassification and pandering to puerile female incitement to genetic competition.

I propose this knowing Jews as I do and knowing what they’re up-to in this thing about marshaling our people against “the left”, now, in their problem reaction solution bit, against “social justice” against “sociology”, “equality” against “anti-nature” - having made social heuristics didactic through their abuse.

We can’t let them relegate the negotiation of gender relations to the hands of primitives, the Anglins, the Forney’s the Roosh’s… all of them operating on naturalistic fallacy, with Roosh in particular, teaching R strategy predation to interlopers on European human ecology. Abrahamic religion, the yoke of Noahide law their ultimate “solution” to the rough shod of naturalistic fallacy.

We cannot leave the articulation of corrective platform in the hands of right wing reactionaries, such as the missing link Anglin and his Jewish cohort Weev, et al. who would impose Abrahamism, “White Sharia” (typical alpha, not beta response, “solution”); or leave it to swarthoid Middle Eastern invaders, spewing from the bowels of their gutter religion, with R selection strategies, the likes of Roosh V., overcompensating ugly men like Forney, who pander to naturalistic fallacy, nor hapless kosher orbiters like Nowicky - “if you are bothered by miscegenation, what you should do is not be bothered by it.” I thought you weren’t supposed to try to copy alphas, Andy? She fooled them when they wanted to see her underwear, wasn’t wearing any. And yes, now that he came here to say how I’ve killed the site, Matt Parrott is a White Knight for mudsharks that I’ve long ago stopped taking seriously.

The gang at Alternative Right are not natural to forefront a position of racial advocacy. These are writers looking for a a niche and having found it backed by Jewish interests, so long as they go soft on Jewish interests, and promote them in fact with the likes of (((John K. Press)))‘s “culturalism”; along with the paleoconservative Judeo-Christianity - Noahide law.

You can usually tell who is not organically suited to our defense if they are overly tolerant of blacks - “Father Francis” is an example of that - these are largely stem nerd types who can “rationalize” Africans and put at risk White males who have skill sets which can be made redundant by Africans - skill sets nevertheless necessary for White systemic homeostasis - they are aware of where the shoe pinches whereas a “Father Francis” type doesn’t feel it - he rationally nerds out.

Sex as sacrament and monogamy (outside of Abrahamic religion, but with empirical structuring rather) is not mutually exclusive to other treatments of sex within the ethnostate, but it is not just another choice, it is very important to establish for a control variable - i.e., systemic homeostasis; it is a difference that makes a difference that needs to be institutionalized as a provision, outside of traditional religion, based in genetic pattern accountability to facilitate a moral order of our racial homeostasis; particularly necessary given our natural level of sublimation, in service of that and our more protracted sphere of concern. The choice is a big advantage over right wingers (e.g., Islam) and a large part of why we can have a much more liberal disposition to women, and more relaxed disposition regarding men - not having to be hide-bound in pugnaciousness, motive and creativity for both genders are freed to participate in our systemic homeostasis.

There are many ways to look upon sex but “sex as celebration and sex as sacrament”  is an optimally balancing dichotomy - and both are possible side by side and, I hypothesize, necessary for group homeostasis - even if only 5% of the people opt for the sacral option it needs to be there to establish protracted accountability and authentic choice. I’ll hear accusations form from the likes of Uh, that I’m trying to ensconce sacrament only; that I’m trying to control people, when in fact I am trying to promote a structure which is necessary to facilitate free choice; over the most important matter of all.

This option, an assurance for both genders, would re-moralize our people where they have been demoralized; it would counter the cynicism of natural fallacy and provide incentive for loyalty and to fight; with pride for its sophistication and liberality distinctive of our European treatment of gender as compared to the Abrahamics and the naturalistic fallacisicts.

As a marked difference in our evolution, it marks a place for White male being - midtdasein - intrinsic value recognized in White males as the lesson below the Vietnam war protests for being.

When I talk of this difference that makes a difference that is White male being, they - right wingers - will say that I am denying the isness and corresponding duty of inherent gender roles. Typical of this kind of asshole, a remark by Forney, in fact, was the initial prompt for this post - that these “beta males want to be accepted as intrinsically valuable the same way that a girl is, when “it is not that way, a male has to prove himself.”

This would terribly misrepresent what I mean. It is not that you would not have a different quality and quantity of expectations as a male, but nevertheless you would have a right below rights acknowledged; in contrast to the ignominious bullying of Naven Rites of Passage that produced, harsh, overcompensating males, it would test males on a broader arc of binary contingencies - inherent value acknowledged from the onset as a surviving creature - innocent until proven guilty as one who harbors if not advances social capital. You do not have to prove yourself in lethal genetic variables, e.g. being relegated to eusocial desexing as a result of hypergamous female selection, because that’s how it “naturally is” - i.e., within modernity - if your people are not under direct threat; and where your people are recognized, and not being put at risk unnecessarily, you have the makings of White Post Modern order.

This is not pacifism that I’m advocating - being is a verb; and males do have more of a natural/practical responsibility to defend our peoples against legitimate threat.

But the relaxing of these tests for manhood should correspond with less pathological over compensation in men upon quest for actualization - certainly there would be less excuse, with bounds and resource secure. Women would not only be as secure and protected as ever, but more so, subject to less resentment, the rules of their justice more clear as they are not obfuscated by the natural fallacy of gender relations; moreover, like males they would have the option to focus on the circulating aspects of the hierarchy of motives that they need to focus on, like their male counterparts, without losing their traditional place either - females would retain the option to pursue actualization, only being subject to some rigorous testing and critique so that they do not take for granted satisfaction on the basic levels, socialization, being, routine/sacrament and subject them to untoward liberal competition.

Just as it would apply to any democratic implementation that there are certain things not up for vote - e.g., our borders and genetic presence protected as such, therefore their vote would not being a great danger to us, so too, neither males nor females in power would be authorized to change some basic principles of social systemic homeostasis and bounds - hence, their occupying power positions would be innocuous.

While there should be a re-balacing in allowance for optimization in valuation of gender differentiation, individuation, being, actualization and socialization, I am not saying that there should be no differentiation between male and female requirements.

In fact, it is better to encourage females to be more soft, thoughtful and cooperative than to encourage White males to be more like black males.

There needs to be a platform for White male self defense, in correction to the errors of feminism and bad habits of traditional women,the radical atavism of modernity but they’ll carry on as if I’m saying that it cannot be amenable with the more distinct concerns of women and girls. Not true, in fact, it is not mutually exclusive at all.

A proper “beta” uprising would not lead to abuse of women. It would lead to their justice, rightful place and contentment. Males can be tested without lethality as the necessary result. The test, rather, can indicate direction of niche disbursement of abilities.

Among false either/or’s that I’ve been up against: That if I think that an option to protect monogamy is a realistic and serious concern that should be protected for delicate negotiation of genetics, that I am denying the option for people to treat sex in a more celebrative way, a rougher test and robust expression of health - that I’d deny people that option, or deny them reinclusion into one of the grayer levels of the monogamy club if they wanted a change.

Ethnonational boundaries can solve most of the “control” problems - if that’s not enough for you and you want to go outside of the race, to intermix with others, ok - but you’ll be a part of their nation.

I can’t prove my innocence - that if we are concerned for a moral order, we are not tying to “control” people in any unreasonable way, that this is different from Christianity, Islam, “White Sharia.” That it is an effort merely to control women.

But it is not an effort to control for the sake of unjust self righteous aggrandizement, it is a concern for fairness, justice and responsibility to social/genetic capital.

Females and male coming to maturity is not to be treated the same and valued in the same way.

Eggs remain precious while sperm are cheap.

Nevertheless, take a given male and a given female, who’s DNA is more precious? Evaluation on the momentary and episodic basis that modernity and Jewish rupturing of our classificatory bounds would leave as the setting of criteria for the massively pandered to (from all directions) and exponentially empowered puerile female one up position there, surely is not respectful of the more sublimated and protracted manifest form of our male qualities.

Hence, the requirement - not only for classificatory, unionized bounds of the group, but of recognition of some basic intrinsic value to White males as well - respect for having survived, as harborers of social capital, that female incitement of genetic competition be called back from runaway that the combination of Jewry and Modernity has instigated - but also for voluntary congregations for those who would opt for monogamy - and the serous treatment of that option, as sacrament, representing the vested interest of pattern maintenance - social systemic homeostasis.

Eggs being expensive and sperm cheap, one way to begin to operationalize this option to make it appealing to both genders is the following:

First, one may opt for non monogamy with the understanding that you may be in for a rather insensitive rough and tumble. Not so insensitive that you would be subject to the indignation of race mixing and its offspring however. Not that people wouldn’t have that option as well, but they’d be in line to lose their citizenship.

On the other hand, for those females who prefer the option of choice for monogamy, the club for that option, so to speak, because eggs are more expensive and require more investment of her to bring to maturity we begin with hypothetical scales, say, of one to ten - she could have choices to interview potential partners one below or two above her numbers; while males could have choice to interview potential partners two below or one above his number.

Both genders would also have the option to try their luck, for better or more, outside of these stated monogamy clubs, but operationalization would somehow provide a bit more assurances to those in the monogamy club and a bit more disincentive for those outside of it.

Now, it has been said that you can’t just start a religion in your garage. And that’s true, especially if you are alone there, alone you can’t. But with other people, you certainly can, as that is how all religions have been started.

And a sacred treatment, i.e., a religiosity toward our genetics, especially, as it would guard the hidden, mysterious aspects of our genetic system, is almost assuredly necessary as a part of or our systemic maintenance.

These principles have a more sacred status because they are vigilant of broader patterns harder to maintain and thus precious; while the reality testing of empiricism can be readily invoked, the principle of sacrament and monogamy can be broken and is difficult to re establish once flouted by consensus.

Augustinianism remains our crucial concern, characteristic of our nature, pitted against the rigors of nature, ill-suited to the inter tribal competition that middle easterners and Africans are evolved for, and what our alpha’s might be legitimately concerned about in beta’s - manichean revenge as a way of overcoming Augustinian advantage. That’s one reason why Alphas would be overly suspicious of betas, for fear of Manichean revenge but they should have no truck with the option - or they are tyrants.

“Methuselah” displays profound emergent qualities, but not in a distinctly human way.

Moreover, the concept of betas, alphas and marginals would be more at ease and more fluid, circulating as natural and need be - that would be a more intelligent assessment of European praxis and our requirements as such.

Again regarding the issue of “as need be” - there is a keen distinction to be made between accounts requested and accounts offered - if a guy is like the human version of the Methuselah tree and his emergence simply spawns nationalists then fine; but we, as humans can intermarry nevertheless with other races and have shown some propensity to do so even in what appear to be healthier specimens.

Morals do not exist on an objective level but rather on an important relative Practical social level of praxis - it isn’t practical to genocide other groups as they have agentive reflextive effects, they have memory and can learn. Hence the practical rule of universal ethno nationalism - i.e., your sovereignty provided you do not violate others’ sovereignty: this goes beyond mere moral nihilism and libertarianism.

Coming back to homeostasis on our broader pattern:

Bowery calls attention to the abnegation of the deal of civilization, to guard our borders - rather than borders being looked after as the deal holds, interlopers are allowed to compete for European females with the benefit of being included in the same governmental system. Individual White males in fact, are being prohibited from jumping in and defending our EGI, as that would be “racist” (it’d invoke classificatory bounds); again, ostracism is the answer where we don’t wish to maintain ourselves without forgoing the capacity of free choice. If that’s what you want, you go there, with them and live with the consequences of their life. Don’t impose it on us.

With White post modern accountability invoked, tests to prove your merit and your appropriateness as a partner would be fair enough, but Austinian devils (you die of natural causes) would be the prime selector, as befitting our European nature - but spare us pair-wise duels and their refined manicheanism as the sine qua non proof of individuated virtue.

In critique of systemic runway, and effects such as eusociality, we may question what it means to win - episodic individual ability and technical skill would be an invaluable part of our pattern, but taken alone prone to myopia and deficiency of ecological survey.

We may come back to the unit of survival, as Bateson saw it, unlike Darwin - individual + group, rather, he proposed individual + group + habitat.

If one wants foundations, we should be thinking rather in terms of check points on the surveying process of homeostasis - including of indiduality and its interactive indebtedness - to keep it on track, but always mindful that there are many ways to divide up the story and that we are in interaction - there are different ways that we can evolve.

“There can be another way” but we don’t want the basic pattern of our homeostasis ruptured (as it is wont to be with modernity in tandem with group manichean antagonism, markedly of the YKW). We like the caring way that we treat one another and we value our peoples.

....

Notes:

Two typical problems that I’ve had in how the ideas are received at MR:

1) False either/or

2) Habits of the transmissions model of communication - that is the problem of how I’m taken - not interactively as a would be interlocutor - but s if I’m presenting myself as the authority according to the model of communications that is apparently still operating - at least for most people who’ve been attending to Majority Rights - the transmissions model. I’m taken as if presenting myself as Moses taking commands from god and transmitting it to a passive audience. They don’t address what I say in correction, they prefer to curse “god” - me.

This creates problems, because instead of correcting and or refining and applying ideas, people tend to criticize me (or ignore me as “non-authoritative”) or to attack the reasoned basis that I have established in order to bring back this non interactive, reactionary kind of thinking; because they can’t understand that there is another way, they naively or disingenuously go along with the authorities (e.g., The Orthodox Nationalist and Carolyn Yeager and those who orbit in her genre would no doubt present themselves as authorities who would say that I am trying to present myself as an authority and that people shouldn’t listen to me), they are used to the “leader” or the “teacher” in front of them, a passive audience.

One wants to scream, “hello!, We have the internet now, we can interact to correct our knowledge, theory and practice together.”

A problem with taking interactivity to the extreme of the outdated notion of modernist communication that has been operating at MR (‘keep deconstructing, we’ll surely reach foundation!’), is that it does not recognize the post modern requirement of cultural delimitation, willing suspension of belief in a hypothesis - it invites the Jesus trolls, the Hitler-heads, scientistic dolts, the Jews and conspiracy theorists, saying that I am denying their free speech. I am not denying it - they can go elsewhere if they want to participate in the inclusion and redemption of Hitler Jesus, and. Jews those who would confound us once again with the charmed loop of modernity… but here? clearly, no, not that, not here - we’re out of that loop.

On the other hand, if commentators want to tease apart the nuance of scientism as opposed to authentic being in the world then this is an ok place for them..that’s a step above those 101 level lessons - no basic nonsense here.

The framework that I really need to overcome is false either/or.

E.g., if I talk about hermenteutics and its correction of scientism I am “anti science” nor “anti-nature.”

These are idiotic charges that I expected my interlocutors to be beyond long ago.

The heremeneutic circle, circles back to nature and scientific inquiry whenever need be.

Another example: If I talk about social constructionism, I am denying the reality of race or saying that people can just make things up out of whole cloth; that there is no emergentism or evolution. To suggest that I have said that is an idiotic and false either; it would violate the very anti-Cartesianism that I advocate.

The idea of social constructionism is of course to sensitize perspective to one’s social connection, indebtedness and accountability to participatory responsibility- which is precisely what we need - it does not deny one’s emergent qualities nor a certain degree of independent capacity and psychological interiority.

There is no necessary confection or mere construction in hermeneutics - stories told and autobiography can be highly non-fictional, but as means of authentic coherence, necessary stories told nevertheless.

If I talk about (“White”) post modernity,  the people of the Alt Right, Trads and so on, try to say that I am either totally denying the value of modernist ways and modernity or I am totally denying the value of all inherited ways and forms - the latter accusation being even more idiotic, since the idea of post modernity is to protect inherited life forms from the arbitrary ravages of modernity (and those right wingers who might naively or disingenuously apply it against our EGI).

That if I propose that given our situation, it is best to start with a group (social) hypothesis, as if it is a valid working hypothesis, as if our race is real, and not the Lockeatine premise of free floating individuals and their perceptions, that I am somehow denying individuality, or trying to impose artificial concepts and constructs upon nature. this is, of course, complete and utter horse shit. The heremeneutic system provides for natural correction.

That if something doesn’t appear perfectly “new” or “original” it is not good, not important.

- idiotic, a prime clue of a modernist’s appraisal, it’s charmed loop.

..................................................

At this point let me place some of these ideas against a Warski “hangout” with JF and “Academic Agent”

It is a discussion about moral nihilism featuring the well tutored opinions of JF, the libertarian ruse runner -

JF mentions:

That he’s been influenced by the morality of John Haidt (who in turn has been influence by someone that I have some familiarity with).

That moral pluralism displays moral preferences (showing agency and linked in turn to behavior)

Morality is primarily about matters that impact others; perhaps some that doesn’t - which JF maintains are artificial.

Moral preferences are signaled by behavior and words - words are all moral signals.

JF calls himself a moral nihilist (probably since he can gain profile from the Jewish palm greasers in this fashion, allowing for their smoke and mirrors though the Warski ghetto and so on).

He recognizes agency and in regard to agency, talks of that which is not “transitive”, by which he means that which is not lineally transmitted to the next concern, the next action or not….he goes to a relativist extreme by contrast.

The fundamentally disingenuous claim he makes in the context of criticizing those who would try to invoke moral orders on grounds of objective truth, and he argues in true sophistry on that basis, is that you cannot fully objectify morality, therefore moral nihilism is justified.

But you can say in response to him that while an absolute objective warrant may not be found in the reflexive, agentive nature of humans in praxis, there are matters relative but having sufficient practical warrant over nihilism - will to survival, by contrast, is a practical rule that can be recognized in all groups and peoples; he acknowledges that significance but then over relativizes it.

He says:

Once you have more than one binary choice you are stuck with the problem of transitivity;

He says, the problem of transitivity goes: “I will be a moral agent when I prefer a to b..and if I prefer b to c, I will always prefer a to c. If I prefer a to b then I will always prefer b to c so that’s what we call an ordered transitive agent. It is someone who sees some things that are better than others and will see it as following that these things that are better than the things that are worse than the secondary choice.

But you can imagine a system of choice that is not transitive.

Because the universe is almost infinitely complex, there are always differences between any situation, you can always invoke reasons why you are not a transitive agent.

It is just that because the world is relatively stable and predictable we’ve tended to evolve toward transitive preference..

The nut for the squirrel is going to be good today and good for tomorrow, but of course some days it’s going to be less needed, and we do have non transitive preferences expressed then - for example, if I eat MacDonalds for a week, the seventh Big Mac that I eat will probably not be as satisfying as my first Big Mac; so here you have the same object, but being in a state of satiety, I am satisfied and I am looking for another type of food.

That’s not necessarily irrational but it violates transitivity from a strict perspective looking only at the Big Mac.

Now if you understand that you are a biological being trying to diversify your food intake that makes sense and you are back into a rationale framework, but one that considers higher complexity binary choices.

Academic Agent comes to this “morally nihilistic position” with the example that hierarchy of preferences can shift when moving through particular choices. You might go along thinking that you prefer this kind of partner and then find that your preferences shift in relationship.

[The Augustinian “the truth is relational not relative” may be invoked, your being allergic or sated of a food does not mean that it is not nourishing]

“I’m reminded, he says, of this game that I used to play called ‘who would you do?’

...and all you do is you list two people (and ask a woman, for example) who would you do? JF or Warski?

...and you just keep on going….. and what used to fascinate me about this is that you end up building a hierarchy.  I choose JF, ok. JF or coach Red Pill? I choose JF again. JF or Sargon? Oh, I choose Sargon in this case

...and then you’re like ok, well what about Sargon verses Warski?  Oh, I choose Warski.

So it’s like, hold on a second, Sargon beat JF, so you’d expect him to beat Warski, but… this is one of those things that used to happen a lot to show that its not so strict as to who beats who. ... its not always going to be the case that one thing beats another.

...is that what you (JF) are saying when you say that you can’t make a moral stack in the way that you’re suggesting?

JF: I do suggest that you can build a moral stack but if you build your moral stack, it will be not precise enough and you will encounter little details in the universe that will have you say oh, my moral stack will need refinement.

So yeah, I don’t like killing people but in a zombie apocalypse its ok “

People then frame their moral categories that allow them to kill people.

But you can indeed play on moral semantics until your moral stack is precise enough to account for the complexity of the universe, and then there is no choice that can violate your moral stack, which I call transitive preference and neuro economics.

AA brings up a dilemma between two equally good choices (or bad choices).

JF articulates “the point of indifference” ...lowering the cost until the choice is makeable when the point of indifference has not been reached.

Preference for status quo… you’re going to have tendency to indifference for the status quo until the point of indifference been reached and broached - until then, we have a psychological status quo only…..loss aversion as opposed to gain.

We don’t go for a coin flip even if the win would be as much as loss.

We choose between what would lose less.

But any living being will prefer its own existence to the rest.

[This would provide another reason to organize an option of sex as sacramental ensconcement of monogamy vs celebration: without the recognition of those clearly demarcated options and the protection of differentiated choices within those options, it would be much harder to broach indifference.]

There is no objective criteria to say you are wrong you are right, they might prefer themselves to be replaced ...

[so what?]

There JF gets disingenuous. “there is nothing that I can tell these people, here is the criteria by which I can say you are wrong”

“That stems from my principle to not harm people, not from my meta political framework of moral nihilism.”

I would contest JF by saying that the argument of competence and conscientiousness is one criteria that can be invoked as tipping the balance of “what you can say” and what judgements you can make in these circumstances.

What if the suicidal have been cajoled, coerced, tricked into suicide - have a false consciousness as we leftists say?

There can be ways of telling whether a person’s groups capacity to maintain a barrier against imposition is being violated, that can be assessed on behalf of other groups as well.

AA argues virtue ethics, tells us that it’s a bad thing to be jealous.

I (DanielS) would say that jealousy is kept in check by ethno nationalism - “this is my brother” (recognized as such by classificatory rules)  and we will ultimately work things out in fair manner. Speaking of the wisdom language, take the word class, as in “you have class” - that is to say, you recognize your membership in a class of people and therefore you pass up an opportunity for something petty, momentary, or competition in interpersonal relationship in order to maintain the integrity of your social group rule; you suspend disbelief in the reality of the group classification and are liberated from the factitious contentions of these moments. And again, it is this capacity which the YKW want to take away from us - first by the internationalist “left” means of depicting our unionization as “racist” and then by their rightist coalition depicting it as “unnatural”, unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky re-distributism and oppression of natural liberty.

AA holds that you should not reward someone with a house for being homeless. But it depends upon what you want to consider unionized group and basic provisions. That a member of our European nation should have a warm place to sleep, a shower and basic food on the basis of their having brought our DNA this far is certainly arguable. They’re accountable and must do more if they want more than the basics, of course.

JF agrees with AA that you should not reward homeless behavior… adds that you shouldn’t be rewarding mediocrity in general

Here I’d call attention to the criticism I made of Simone de Beauvoir and her mockery of the Aristotlian golden mean of optimal balance. This language game of chiding “mediocrity”, labeling and inciting erstwhile optimal function as such is is the road to toxicity and social systemic destabilization into runaway.

JF adds..“but there’s nothing wrong with trying to manipulate others into giving them stuff.”

Nothing wrong? There’s a lot wrong with that Manicheanism, it is the means by which our European peoples have been taken advantage of.

“Nothing right or wrong”, he says, just a bunch of people trying to manipulate each other until they come to some state they feel preferable - the convergence of transitive purposes that kind of clash together.

This is a kind STEM nerd epistemic blundering over praxis and its proper, competent White post modern conceptualization. In suggesting that humans are more complex than sheer transitivity for their binary choices, and the agency it would provide, I presume, he goes overly relative for his maintenance of “objectivity” - satisfied to say “I cannot judge because I cannot make an ultimate claim” - this is to ignore the fact that praxis is a realm of relative practicality, as established by the relative interests as socially delimited; it can be assessed prior to an actual point of indifference having been reached (you don’t just act like a passive, “objective” and detached observer, letting the point be reached when it may be too late).

Like GW he has grounded our being first in survival, but unlike GW, does not see that as a universally incontestable right.

I concur with JF, although it, particularly on group levels, should be looked upon in agreement as a fundamental right. Where JF goes wrong, most likely as a reflexive upshot of objectivism - is to be overly relative, and not recognize the stabilizing relativity, which is the relative importance of praxis.

That’s because morals are fundamentally a matter of practicality.

You don’t kill as a rule because it is impractical to go around killing in a world of creatures evolved to survive. You can’t hope for it to be a practical course to go around wiping out creatures that have reflexive capacity and can learn to learn as humans can.

Echoed near end of this talk, is the merit of my cosmological framework of pervasive ecology for the reason that adaptation always seeks optimization yet, it is not something that can be foundationalized. A trajectory of diversification, not integration, follows.

Recognizing the complexity of human nature endorses Aristotle’s assessment that rules (incl. both descriptive and moral rules) of the social world are to be negotiated in practical judgment.

A question for JF, perhaps Molyneaux, as libertarians: how would they propose that their libertarian obejctivism deal with problems like the Pacific garbage patch and other plastics that have inundated Pacific islands? Will the free market take care of this, its invisible hand motivating human correction in any sort of timely fashion?

Objectivism provides corrections of stasis - that is, corrections from without the system; in this case, of counter-biology coming back to “correct” our own counter-biological homeostasis, by killing us. But does the kind of objectivism and “moral nihilism” to which he subscribes allow for human judgement to see these broad patterns and intervene upon this “freedom.” Perhaps while the nerds invent a more biodegradable packaging for the supply side, they might devise a state jobs program to pay students and others to clean up their mess in the Pacific?

Similarly, “stasis”, correction from without the group would be the corrector where ethno-national homeostasis is not operative to delimit its social systemic patterns from runaway.

A problem of libertarianism occurs in that it does not recognize “the tyranny of (biological) patterns” - the rubric under which we meet - as something which you “have to accept” - correct or be corrected. This “rational blindness” stems from Cartesian detachment from patterns of relation. JF’s non-aggression principle is too de-ontological. It doesn’t take the violation of biological patterns into account (social capital either).

On the other hand, JF says that he doesn’t believe in group evolution - not recognizing group and biological interactive patterns.​ That’s too “ontological”, showing either disingenuousness or inept resource in negotiation of post modernity.