Posted by Bill on Wed, 02 Nov 2016 06:14 | #

America’s Looming Brexit.

America’s Deep State is in deep doo-doo!

http://www.oftwominds.com/blog.html

We don’t live in Kansas anymore. 

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Nov 2016 07:05 | #

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

It isn’t a response to my social perspective, it is a strawmanning misrepresentation.

Readers may be familiar with my criticism of American White Nationalism as a reactionary but non-revolutionary ideology greatly compromised by the unacknowledged, vestigial liberalism of its advocates.

And that is a combination of two things - a projection of the libertarian philosophy that underpins your philosophical outlook (evident in the title of the post - a faith in near things); and a misreading of the American predicament which requires a liberal stage in order that Whites can extricate themselves from forced interaction with non-Whites - but the ultimate motivation is not liberal, but rather to be with and reconstruct EGI patterns closer to one’s own European kind.

Nor is it necessarily unsympathetic or uncomprehending of the European native nationalist agenda (though Richard Spencer is guilty of being uncomprehending of that) which does see this liberal step not as a voting with one’s feet but more a removal of imposed, affected rule structures.

  Yet nationalism’s struggle is not confined to the getting of power and the re-making of the polity, a bit like re-making a bed.

This is a straw man if you think it characterizes what I am proposing. Because I am talking about remaking the nation and rule strutcures of our peoplehood from the ground up.

It is more revolutionary and totalistic than that, requiring a change at an extra-political level that completely sweeps away the liberal order in the West, bed and all, and with it the life it generates and the very Mind in which that is even possible.

You are so addicted to this modernist project of radical skepticism, of “sweeping aside,” that you often sweep aside ideas which are in places much better than the ones you would offer (or rather, not offer).

Nationalism’s radicalism leaves nothing but Nature itself undisturbed.

This is where you show yourself to be a philosophical amateur. You have contributed many good ideas, important ones even, but this is an unacceptable epistemological error wherein you would try to deny the parts of humans and their social being which distinguish them from other parts of nature.

As I have said before, it is positively dangerous. That kind of aspiration is where Hitler went off track.

 
Perhaps you want to get back to the “innocence of mood signals.” ... a Boweryesque contempt for that language stuff.

It seeks not a simple answer but a complete answer.

You aren’t going to get a complete answer pursuing it that way. The reason is clear, because you are wedded to modernist ideology.

This is so whether it is a self-exultant, heroic progressivism like the fascisms, or a reactionary, Evolian conservatism, or something more Volkish and identitarian ... or even existentialist and Heideggerian And so on..

Basically, you are just ignoring what I say and what commendable scholars say.

The point is that the mass of WNs, along with a probable majority of self-described European nationalists, are not willing to think through the consequences of such radicalism.

I’ve thought through it more racially than you: you are still stuck in modernity and psychology.

  They may claim to be 100% AltRight or National Socialist or even white left (a contested term, it seems).

It would be less contested if you weren’t so stubbornly determined to blind yourself to its truth and utility and not allow others to try to corrupt its definition - as in this case (first I’ve seen ...interestingly, the SPLC targeted for their “hate list” a relatively benign Muslim, one who is trying to do some good in encouraging Muslims to be more reasonable ...at the same time, they are obviously trying to subvert my White Left platform…as is “The Alt Right” with their Jew friendly “Alt Left” site (whose proponents go so far as to promote the oxymoronic definition of leftism as liberalism)...while you are more than prepared to allow them to do that, luckily Kumiko will help to maintain our capacity to define the White Left.

  But as reactionaries they have a conservative civilisational vision.

I am not a reactionary. It is far, far more characteristic of you, a wailing modernist.  ... you project your reaction.

In most cases it has little more ambition than for a return to where we were, ethnically speaking, two or three generations ago.

That definitely does not characterize my efforts. I doubt that you read my stuff; sadly you don’t see the advantages in it to the other stuff out there and that it can and does complement your efforts (where they are reasonable - I am not with the pure nature program).

Minus the Jews and blacks, of course, and the bad political choices, the bad life-style choices (especially the “mudsharking”).  Bolt on a few useful ancillaries like race-realism, no more brother-wars, and maybe some bits of honour code, and that’s rebirth, right …

Well, you may want to believe that what I am doing is such an exogenous approach, but it simply is not true.

that’s whites living and working and voting for and by their own collective interests, governed by men and women who understand that and are faithful to it.

You are conflating me with the Alt Right, who think they are going to vote their way out of this…in fact, you have a far more optimistic view of voting for change than I do. I have no belief in voting as a meaningful place to start.

Isn’t this all that white America really needs?

I certainly don’t think so. And if you read a few posts down, the false attribution of that to my efforts won’t hold up.

Oh, and the personal liberty, of course.  Got a constitutional right to that.

I don’t know anybody who is more steadfastly critical of the Lockeatine aspect of the US Constitution.

What free man wants government pushing him around?  Oh, and there’s Christianity.  Believers are always gonna believe.  Can’t stop that.  Shouldn’t even try.  And then there’s guns.  Didn’t the guy behind the bar just say that a well-armed populace is the best defence against tyranny?  Of course, the tyranny has tanks and aircraft.  And electronic warfare.  And the FEMA camps.  And your address.  But, hey, if you think your 9mm mail order popgun will help, we’re cool with that.  Just kindly point it somewhere else.

None of that is characteristic of me, not even the dominant strain of the WN contingent of The Alternative Right - which is down on the kind of libertarianism that Bowery is into, and you are still caught up in, unbeknownst to yourself.

And so on.

Well, a substantively conservative reaction can be fine in itself: non-ideological, populist, completely appropriate for those who value and, therefore, seek to hold on to a given dispensation.

That is characteristic of your position.

At some point, all successful politics (that is, all politics which succeeds in establishing a world-view) come to conservatism.  We need not deprecate it in respect to the common, righteous desire to preserve our race and our ethnicities – we would all wish it to have its time.

And that is what even American WN are going for, with more obstruction and complications in their way. They should adopt White Left Nationalism, but they are slow in getting help to see why that is.

But we do need to interrogate its claim to be an effective engine of change out of its time.  And it is out of its time.  In the American historical context, the predicates it would conserve may be less those of the America before Hart-Cellar and more those of the anti-bellum South.  Is such a world – a world of nuanced traditionalism which is so very lost today - still recoverable in its essentials?

Well, that is a clumsy cartoon, that would perhaps only characterize The Political Cesspool and Occidental Dissent.

WN’s clear expectation is both that anything, actually, is recoverable and recovery will occur quite mechanically, without any real philosophical steer.

Here is the problem. You try to say that what you are doing is “philosophy” and what I am doing is “not philosophy” but politics.

It isn’t true.

There is, apparently, some isostatic law by which the earth’s political crust, floating on its sea of natural history, must recover to a fit level when the ice of the modern era recedes.  When the north-west homelanders speak of an exclusively white living space on the American continent, created by internal migration, they do so from just such a belief, conflating white flight from urban areas with the self-will of a founding people.

The wish for an isostatic law is your problem. Nobody is more culpable of that than yourself. As far as Whites in diaspora trying to organize themselves, that’s fine ...

When Daniel speaks of homoeostasis as a naturally occurring corrective in the social body he does so from just such a belief, importing the active principle from the physical body’s processes of self-maintenance. You see, you are not to concern yourself with the categorical error of conflating the systems of the body, which exhibit homeostasis as a characteristic of continued functioning, and the systems of the perception, which don’t.

Absolutely not. That’s totally ridiculous. The body is not the only homeostatic system.

Species are homeostatic systems, etc.

You are not to concern yourself with the relation of sociobiologically-derived behaviour to personality-derived behaviour.

But I do, and I never discourage you from that focus. It is just not my major focus.

It is altogether too inconveniently complex and unpredictable, and stubbornly resistant to imposition from without.

That is overstating the contingency and complexity of praxis. I never said that one should not look for predictable rules of human behavior.

So ignore all that.

I never said that. That’s a straw man.

Just engage osmosis, scan for the negative social elements … filter out their influences ... and what’s left is the object of nationalist political desire.  Simple, really.

Straw man and a niggardly refusal to give me credit for having contributed anything worthwhile.

And how wonderfully fortunate that the social, as a medium bereft of the characteristically human and variant, can be pored over like a thing on a mortician’s slab.

I never said that it is bereft of a characteristically human element.. I never tried to do that…in fact with the Harre article that you ignored, you will see an effort to help animate the means to negotiate complexity of human individuality….and that is just one example to do away with your straw man.

Well, it is wonderful, and simple too, if you ascribe to the ideology of certitude, ie, an ideology which brooks no opposition because it cannot see beyond the strength of its own convictions.

I brook opposition where it is in good faith: people like Thorn, people determined to bring Jews, Christianity, Hitler, conspiracy theory or scientism are not operating in good faith.

We’ve all been there, I suppose.

Yes, and no need to go back to that very limited method of modernist free for all, where endless trolling is supposed to lead to pure foundations.

But, surely, on the crucial question of our people’s life the lack of intellectual rigour should raise an alarm somewhere.

So lets start having rigour applied instead of straw men and snarky trolling.

In fairness, no thinking of a conservative disposition intellectualises entirely successfully, not least because it is extrapolated from the instinct.  It is from here that there arises the sense that, in the main, societal stability is the most advantageous platform for the pursuit of common goods such as freedom and happiness.

You mean to say knowledge production is interactive and social in nature? You sound like a social constructionist, GW! Congratulations.

By contrast, the process of making the world anew from ideas demands a vigorous, creative intellectualism.  It alone is invested with the power to sound the bell and, through subsequent dissemination, extrapolation, discourse, and wider adoption, to usher in a new age.

I don’t ignore where you have done well, and I suggest that you extend the same courtesy my way (and Kumiko’s).

We will never see, say, the eponymous young AltRight enthusiast rushing to the racial barricades amid a hue and cry for such a European identitarian rebirth and destining.  He does not wholly know that this is what we need.

I don’t presume that he will hop-to. It takes the dissemination of accurate language and rule structures… and not your constant subversion.

He can see that to survive we must bind together.  But he is obviously and tragically unaware, since identity pre-figures community, and identity cannot be prescribed, that something more than reaction …

Identity can be confirmed and reconstructed. You are in love with this “anti-prescription” thing ..the idea that there is something uncorrectable in prescriptions. I doubt it. But then, if you would say that we have to get back to “pure nature” I have to question the basic judgment of what you call your “philosophy.”

something more than building back from our crisis, is required.  Building up from foundation is the way, and that, in turn, demands a creative act of thinking, audacious and radical though that has to be.

My thoughts are creative, audacious and radical ...your ignoring them does not make it not so. I do not deny, but insist upon the verity of the biological and physical end of human ecological systems.

This foundationalist aspiration of yours, with which you would blind yourself to social and philosophical considerations that need to be taken into account when evaluating and assessing our human circumstances, is clunky at best.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Nov 2016 10:59 | #

Daniel,

Though you don’t want to understand it, and I am not really interested in explaining it over and over again, I have falsified your social methodology: once politically as a conservative, non-revolutionary aspiration, and once intellectually as psychologically illiterate.  The latter is especially killing.  In two sentences it tells you that you and Mr Harre and all the rest of the sociologists do not know what you are dealing with.  There is no direct access through the social to that regulatory “something” you hope to draw upon.  Human nature does not rule over the personality (the behavioural result of socialisation to Time and Place, in which identity is ordinarily vested).  Actually, the pattern is for personality to rule over human nature, because the formative medium of ordinary waking consciousness conditions for mechanicity.  Attempts to sculpt personality with sociology could restrain some collective excesses, but they can never produce an authentic life.

If you want to find a place for sociological rule-making within a life in common lived under a philosophy of the authentic, then you would have to develop a sociology of the authentic so that the proper reference points are respected.  But filtering the life lived in a systemically liberal world through sociology is a completely different, almost gothic exercise, either ignorant of or negligent towards the generation of the authentic.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Nov 2016 18:51 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Nov 2016 10:59 | #

Daniel,

Though you don’t want to understand it, and I am not really interested in explaining it over and over again, I have falsified your social methodology:

No you haven’t. You think you have. You want to believe that philosophy and science are, or should be, one and the same, and that by making that claim that you have done something to “falsify” what I’ve said.

You’ll keep repeating it, but that doesn’t make it true.

once politically as a conservative, non-revolutionary aspiration, and once intellectually as psychologically illiterate.

Colossal horseshit.

It is not politically conservative, that is tantamount to a fucking lie.

It is revolutionary, but not in the idiotic sense of letting “nature” lead the way - which is your intellectually retarded position.

I’ll let you call it “psychological” .. it is your “psychology” which is philosophically illiterate.

  The latter is especially killing.  In two sentences it tells you that you and Mr Harre and all the rest of the sociologists do not know what you are dealing with.

No, you don’t know what you are dealing with. And you don’t know Harre’s work from Adam. He’s not a sociologist and I totally predicted that you would completely ignore and sweep aside everything he’s said as completely useless. Your MO has become that predictable.

  There is no direct access through the social to that regulatory “something” you hope to draw upon.

I don’t know where I have claimed direct access, but there is, in fact, the co-evoluton of internal relation of rule structures, some of which are ensconced in language, others in concepts, others in inborn behavior.

Human nature does not rule over the personality (the behavioural result of socialisation to Time and Place, in which identity is ordinarily vested).

It sounds to me like you are trying to claim something for the personality from the hermeneutic realm. At least you are trying to steal something worthwhile. Of course, you are butchering it with your scientism and niggardly refusal to give credit where credit is due.

Actually, the pattern is for personality to rule over human nature, because the formative medium of ordinary waking consciousness conditions for mechanicity.

You can say that…at least it can have some agency and homeostasis within the pattern, but it cannot rule over the pattern, it can only contribute governance; and will, to a large extent be beholden to the pattern and other patterns.

Attempts to sculpt personality with sociology could restrain some collective excesses, but they can never produce an authentic life.

So don’t attempt to “sculpt” the personality in a way that is removed from its more conservative or revolutioary-toward the authentic form. I don’t say that you have to or that you should.

If you want to find a place for sociological rule-making within a life in common lived under a philosophy of the authentic, then you would have to develop a sociology of the authentic so that the proper reference points are respected.

I pretty much do that but you ignore it, and merely assert that I am not doing that.

But filtering the life lived in a systemically liberal world through sociology is a completely different, almost gothic exercise, either ignorant of or negligent towards the generation of the authentic.

Bullshit. First of all, I don’t only look at it through the lens of sociology, that is just a median hypothesis of the group - I believe Europeans and their kinds do exist, for example, based on evidence and experience.. but I do not stay fixated on the group unit of analysis, as you would hope, in your desperate wish that I provide a convenient foil for you, but rather I use a hermeneutic process, which does not merely “filter” but engages and verifies…moves back and forth among units of analysis in a homeostatic process….unlike your gothic psychology, which is negligent as such and ignorant of philosophy.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Nov 2016 23:57 | #

Give the knee-jerk reaction a rest and actually examine the elegant knot with which are you currently trussed up.  How does rule-making by sociologists, which, by definition, involves a critical analysis of a world of inauthentic behaviours (because that is its ontology) ... an analysis, moreover, by people who are in and of that world but are quite unconscious of the fact ... how does such rule-making give rise to an authentic life?  If it doesn’t, really (and it doesn’t because it can’t), what does it actually do?  What do you have to offer in place of authenticity?  Only coercion?

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Nov 2016 04:21 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Nov 2016 23:57 | #

Give the knee-jerk reaction a rest and actually examine the elegant knot with which are you currently trussed up.  How does rule-making by sociologists, which, by definition, involves a critical analysis of a world of inauthentic behaviours (because that is its ontology) ... an analysis, moreover, by people who are in and of that world but are quite unconscious of the fact ... how does such rule-making give rise to an authentic life?  If it doesn’t, really (and it doesn’t because it can’t), what does it actually do?  What do you have to offer in place of authenticity?  Only coercion?

Rules do not only refer to your devil word “prescription”  (as if advising things is necessarily wrong and cannot be adjusted, where it may be off), but rules also refer to logics of meaning and action more descriptive of what people do, when they act incorrectly but also when they are acting correctly according to “authentic” logics.

Give your overwhelming propensity for “sweeping aside” a rest. If you had read what had gone before, what I had said, what Harre et al. had said, you would not have made the ridiculous claim that rules cannot follow what you consider to be authentic.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Nov 2016 05:07 | #

So you want to establish rules for evolutionarily adaptive, moral, responsible behavioural choices as well as maladaptive, immoral, and irresponsible ones?

Why?

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Nov 2016 09:49 | #

I want to describe adaptive and maladaptive rules, logics of meaning and action, so that people can partake of better choices, disentangle themselves, not otherwise be be hoodwinked or misguided by bad ones.

I might even “prescribe”, rather suggest, some positive choices (which I would certainly want to accord with their best nature) or commend the rules that they naturally follow, where they are adaptive and in accordance with their best nature.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Nov 2016 06:34 | #

I want to describe adaptive and maladaptive rules, logics of meaning and action, so that people can partake of better choices ...

Sociologists do not have the power to re-construct, no matter how much they instruct.

It’s no easy thing to control human beings.  It takes a vast power.  The Christian priesthood at the height of its power managed it for several centuries.  Jewish propagandists, through their power in academia, politics, finance, and the media have managed it.  But then, because of the nature of ordinary waking consciousness, it is a great deal more simple to generate negatives than positives.  I think it’s also accurate to observe that the Establishment generally, and the liberal-left in particular, has managed to piggy-back that Jewish effort, and exercise an impressive degree of thought control among its own cadres - but not among the people.  The relentless media correctness and the Establishment legal sanctions have really only succeeded in bringing the media and the law into disrepute.  People are sick of it.

I made the point in an essay a couple of years back that had the NSDAP listened to Heidegger in 1933 the SS would have been teachers, not soldiers.  To lead a people out of psychological darkness and into the light of the authentic is not work for soldiers.  Neither is it work for sociologists studying the inauthentic, but for a revolutionary cadre practising the authentic.  We need a popular movement properly grounded in an extant, vivifying philosophy, not a bunch of academic rule-makers whom not a soul will ever care about, never mind listen to.

You are trapped, Daniel, by the narrowness of your own discipline.  It can provide you with an opportunity to describe and prescribe to your heart’s content.  But it cannot sweep away the liberal thought-world and replace it with one that will light the way to Europa’s destiny.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Nov 2016 14:09 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Nov 2016 01:34 | #

  I want to describe adaptive and maladaptive rules, logics of meaning and action, so that people can partake of better choices ...

Sociologists do not have the power to re-construct, no matter how much they instruct.

Please stop trying to make me into your foil.

I am not a sociologist.

I have been chided by stupid people like Uh, to not talk in terms of sociology, and I don’t think you should take advice from such idiots who would imply that my also taking a view on the group unit of analysis is somehow never to be done - because, I guess, there has been a preponderance of Jews in sociology, or because, in a case like Uh’s, they don’t want you to get wise to the sociological perspective (because it is the most relevant).

Social narratives, their hegemony can and should be changed and people can change along with them…mostly by being guided into what is best and most natural for them.

It’s no easy thing to control human beings.  It takes a vast power.

You make a ridiculous assumption that I am trying to control them and effect change over night. I am working, hopefully together with you and others, to change the rule structures, incentive and then power arrangements. Showing people their best self interest is a part of that for sure.

The Christian priesthood at the height of its power managed it for several centuries.  Jewish propagandists, through their power in academia, politics, finance, and the media have managed it.  But then, because of the nature of ordinary waking consciousness, it is a great deal more simple to generate negatives than positives.  I think it’s also accurate to observe that the Establishment generally, and the liberal-left in particular, has managed to piggy-back that Jewish effort, and exercise an impressive degree of thought control among its own cadres - but not among the people.

Your stubborn choice of the oxymoronic term, “liberal-left”, confirms to me your determination to fit the square and obsolete peg of Austrian school philosophy into post modern circumstances.

The relentless media correctness and the Establishment legal sanctions have really only succeeded in bringing the media and the law into disrepute.  People are sick of it.

Good. They should be sick of Jewish and neo-liberal language games, be they cultural Marxist or Austrian school libertarianism.

I made the point in an essay a couple of years back that had the NSDAP listened to Heidegger in 1933 the SS would have been teachers, not soldiers.

Well, it’s too bad that they didn’t listen to Heidegger.

To lead a people out of psychological darkness and into the light of the authentic is not work for soldiers.

No trivial point, if you consider that right wingers often tend to put forth militaristic sorts as leaders.

Neither is it work for sociologists studying the inauthentic,  but for a revolutionary cadre practising the authentic.

Well you’ve got to get over this bullshit practice of false attribution.

For the millionth fucking time (and yes, I am mad now), I do not stay stuck on the sociological unit of analysis. I am a hermeneuticist, which means that I move back and forth between units of analysis as need be in order to facilitate systemic homeostasis - correction can entail (as it does now) advance and revolution.

  We need a popular movement properly grounded in an extant, vivifying philosophy, not a bunch of academic rule-makers whom not a soul will ever care about, never mind listen to.

Well, your friends Uh and Daniel A are not going to listen, Thorn and Haller are not going to listen.. maybe not Bowery either, as for the others, only inasmuch as you can continue to mischaractarize what I am saying because it does not suit the vanity of yourself as purveyor.

Look, you do many things well - your nationalism, a value which you extend to all peoples, your critique of Christianity, your critique of “national socialism”, your articulation of a natural and comfortable (authentic, if you will) mindset, a perspective ensconced and vivified in emergence ...all very very good, all revered and protected by me as true advances.

But your persistent contentious attempt to put me into the role of your foil and portray what I am saying as empty academic rhetoric devoid of value is a bullshit thing to do.

Here you perform a disservice. And it is not an honest appraisal. You are forced to continually misrepresent me and what I say in order to keep up this puerile stance of you, the defender of right wing working class or ordinary people, against the haughty leftist academic.

It stinks GW. I am not ever going to go against you where you are right, but I will defend myself where you are wrong.

You are trapped, Daniel, by the narrowness of your own discipline.

I am not trapped at all, GW. This is a projection. You are the one trapped in the narrowness of your objectivist project. I keep telling you, in truth, that I am a hermeneuticist, flowing back and forth freely, as need be - not trapped.

It can provide you with an opportunity to describe and prescribe to your heart’s content.  But it cannot sweep away the liberal thought-world and replace it with one that will light the way to Europa’s destiny.

My methods and world view can indeed provide the means of liberation, revolution and authenticity - much better than your ways.

But it does not happen over night and your obstruction and refusal to accurately hear what I say neither facilitates nor hastens the realization of that fact.