|
|
Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Jun 2018 11:25 | # The “postmodern turn” is an academic conceit. The turn is what it always was. 3
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 10 Jun 2018 14:39 | #
No, it is not an academic conceit. The (White) post modern turn is a crucial philosophical concept that Jewish and liberal academics have done their level best to obfuscate and to get people to misunderstand - yourself included. They obfuscate it because they know how important it is for group survival - they want it for themselves and for others to be confused about it. They have been successful in this obfuscation, causing people to be confused and to misunderstand, indicated in the example that you think the likes Jordan Peterson remotely understands this and has some sort of valuable critique to present. Seeing his as “a step” is a reflection of your begin stuck on modernism - he is on a universal continuum indeed, but providing steps on a pathway in the wrong direction; he is not connecting with a difference that makes a difference in the correct direction for group survival. And we’ve come to your difficulty - You don’t just misunderstand White post modernity, you willfully misunderstand it or misrepresent it because it does not fit into the paradigm of yourself as preeminent dragon slayer of Jewish academia - particularly slaying what you perceive as Jewish social academia on behalf of the burly, normal, natural folk; and on behalf of modernity, the science that you propose as being threatened and so on - it is a kind of willful misunderstanding derived from an intensely doubled down, intransigent stance against all academics or anything that you can attribute to it as Jewish machination against “pure and simple natural nationalism.” With that, you will probably try to say that what I propose is overly complicated - it isn’t. You are finding it enormously difficult to get over a reactionary view toward Jewish “post modern” academics (the kind that Peterson is “responding to” as well), which mis-credits them for providing the definition of the terms and concepts - you try to do a kind of reverse deconstruction* with that, and in reaction, also propose doing modernity ever the more determinedly. You’re finding it difficult to get over modernity and the fact that most of the psychology you’ve read was a waste of time. But you need to get over it and I believe that you can.
4
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 10 Jun 2018 18:44 | # GW, do you know why Heidegger’s wife cucked him? Beta bux and alpha fux. Also, Morgoth’s Scottish accent is nearly impenetrable. I bet his vocal delivery would be considerably improved if someone pimp-slapped the taste out of his mouth. Lolllzzlozzlllzzlz 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:00 | # Perhaps, Daniel, the problem with your reading of my thought is that you have not understood that ethnic consciousness is a subjectivisation. You have an historiographical reading which sweeps over everything, and blinds you to that subtlety. 6
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:42 | #
GW, your approach to “the philosophy” of European nationalist advocacy stems from a business model of TOP and TOOP. That is, you are simply trying to compete, emphasize your own indispensable position and contributions, while trying to put aside significant contributions of others, get them below you to make them redundant, if you can. Just as you projected the conceits of one who would propose to be establishing “The” foundational weltenshlong for all European advocacy by means of projection - e.g., (White) “post modernity is an academic conceit” - and try to project a critique of one of the flaws in YOUR perspective (i.e., rational blindness) in order to ignore the vital contributions of others and put forth this ridiculous idea that you make all and everything that comes out of academia redundant - you say you always win arguments against academics; but I haven’t seen you overturn ANYTHING that I’ve said (not that I’m an academic, though I’ll make use of good ideas where I find them, including from the academic, Heidegger*). Worse, why would you be trying to do this (trivialize and dismiss what I say/bring to bear)? It is uncalled for. What I am doing is completely complementary to ethnonationalist advocacy from a more scientific bent, even one that wants to focus on a more psychological perspective - it should be treated as complementary, not as competitive, as you have almost invariably done. I recognize your invaluable contributions - your in depth critique of Christianity, its pernicious historical place and trajectory, is superb - a wonderful hermeneutic! Like any reasonable and ethical person, I am on board with your desire for universal nationalism - nationalism for all, as it were. Your holding fast to the significance of emergentism and its teleologies of sorts, is very very good. Where you go wrong is your desire to remove it from interaction and to see concerns for the interactive and social interactive world as a mutually exclusive and trivial concern - “all Jewish chimera” - social group analysis is “all bullshit” Tanstaafl would stupidly say - again, like saying the perspective of a telescope is bullshit. It’s ridiculous. Race is primarily a group unit of analysis. You can take a psychological perspective, if you want, I don’t care, unless you try to say that’s the only and mutually exclusive way to inquire of our problems and requirements as ethnonationalists. When you were able to come up with some rebut to the Korean guy who’d made an argument about there being a contradiction in emergentism, I shudder to think, that you may think that rebut would overturn the whole of the Pragmatism as an answer to Skepticism post. You see, emergentism, no matter how complex, is still within interaction; and again, reductionism is against the very tenet of emergentism. Your problem is that you want to believe that I can’t appreciate and accommodate subectivization of ethnic consciousness, that what I am doing is mutually exclusive - but hermeneutics doesn’t “sweep over”, it feeds back where necessary and takes broader views, where necessary - it is not “a little dance” or a “clunky going back and forth, back and forth” obliviously, as you tried to say, trivializing, in your competitive business model - it is you who is doing the sweeping aside; and who should be making more accommodation to understanding. You make many fantastic contributions to the ethno-nationalist cause, and if you would leave behind the mutual exclusivity of your competitive business model and try a little more to suspend disbelief in the contributions of your interlocutors (this one) the ethnonationalist world would be a whole lot better off for it. The ideas that you would sweep aside are simply too important, and especially cannot be swept aside for the sake of “intellectual conceit” - a projection if anything.
7
Posted by mancinblack on Tue, 12 Jun 2018 22:37 | # I didn’t refer to Majorityrights as an “oasis of sanity” for nothing, GW…. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:42 | # There seem only to be three or four principal Friends of Adolf there, Manc. But they are genuine obsessives, which you can see in the way they hit their argument foot to the floor every time ... no shaping, nothing held back for next time, no questions, certainly no attempts to understand the critique of others and see where they are coming from ... It looks very like a misappropriated religious energy at work in them, and I did make the point one time that their Hitlerism is as far from useful to our people as is anti-racism (another such error). Religious attachments cannot be reasoned with. There is no enquiry going on, only confirming behaviours. But one has to call it to account all the same, for the sake of other readers. 9
Posted by so many words on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:13 | # So many words spent over such a simple matter. Just say, that you want to keep the “good war” narrative for Britain intact, because you realize how powerful weaponized narratives are. 10
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:18 | # Well, as a “bad war” Hitler and co. certainly deserve lion’s share of the blame for it as well. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:46 | # I put up the following reply to Paul H just now, which (ignoring the wider question of the readership and discourse war) explains why I am contending with these people and what I am contending for:
12
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:22 | # Daniel, you are projecting. I am not competing with you. Surely you have noticed that. 13
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:19 | # On the contrary, it has usually been the case that you will contest something I say. I believe it is a reaction habit and the result of genuinely traumatic circumstance for the abuse of terms and concepts by the YKW I started comments on the thread trying to be as positive as possible but calling attention to a serious mistake - your denial of the significance of (White) post modernity. I’d have said nothing if you just left my comment alone with that one qualification. You decided to maintain you contesting that
It is too important an issue so that I couldn’t just let it go. I am, nevertheless, determined to reconcile our views on ethnonationalism, as I am sure the can be complementary - or more so than they already are; yes, you are not totally competing with me - I heard the “we” of our/MR taking an educational direction; and I saw your incorporation and distilling of several ideas that I share (now) with you - e.g., “that you can take some ideas from a given figure/scholar without having to agree with the whole” - yes: e.g., whether I agree and am faithful to every jot and tittle of Heidegger is not my concern; he has at least some important and useful ideas. You are such an intelligent man and make so many good contributions to our cause - your critique of Nazism was another one - it is absolutely worth trying and I will continue to try to do that. 14
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:57 | # Germans are a Master Race and the English are a bunch of useless, money-grubbing pussies. 15
Posted by mancinblack on Sat, 16 Jun 2018 23:04 | # @8 So, did you actually discover what their obsessive psychological needs and motives are GW? I should like to know myself, although that would still leave the Friends of Jesus, conspiracy theorists, misogynists and Putinists to sort out. 16
Posted by Dr_Eigenvector on Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:23 | # Upvotes, Manc. Attention. You’re talking about half a dozen bald, fat, penniless losers sat in their underpants in bedsits in places like “Leicester” and “Hove”. No one gives a fuck what they think about anything. What else is there to say? 17
Posted by mancinblack on Mon, 25 Jun 2018 21:29 | # You have a point, DrE. I hope life is treating you well, by the way. 18
Posted by Dr_Eigenvector on Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:37 | # Aye, thanks mate. Can’t complain. Same to you. What’s the craic? 19
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 27 Jun 2018 09:29 | # Daniel: “You see, emergentism, no matter how complex, is still within interaction” No, the emergent is from the prior, instinctual, unguided, and has the effect of colouring and informing that “sum of the acquired” which is personality in my system, and which becomes open to a general re-orientation or turn. The whole point about an ontological approach is that we can thereby break the stasis with this motion. It is the shock, the crack of the whip which itself emerges in the arrival of cognitive truth, and gestures towards the authentic. How that proceeds could take us into your inter-active, rules-based model, or into Rod Campbell’s teleological model, or something else entirely. But as I have said many times I am only concerned with the founding movement at this point. I want to see a general understanding and acceptance for a naturalistic founding, because only upon that solid rock can a nationalism of ethnicity ... of being in kind, of a sharing of the unique and inherent, of natural right, and of interest, and so forth ... be not only created for the first time, but possess sufficient integrity and singular truth to reach all the way to the destiny of our people in freedom. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 27 Jun 2018 09:42 | # Manc, at this point I don’t have anything to add on the problem of the Jewish Single-Causers at Morgoths and elsewhere. They are our brothers, and we have to treat with them. We can’t just ignore them. But they are also difficult and angry people dominated by the harder edge of American WN, and locked into this negative and (actually, for an Englishman) self-hating game. I don’t think they will just give it up. Philosophically, we have to give them something which is more hopeful, productive, and powerful. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 27 Jun 2018 09:44 | # Hi Doc, good to see you around. Morgoth’s is suffering from your absence. What are you doing now? 22
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 27 Jun 2018 10:50 | #
I disagree because it is an epistemological blunder. Your concern with emergentism remains valid but it still occurs in interaction (in fact, the emergent emerges through interaction with the source of its latent, more complex properties; and if there are no people to talk about it, to organize and say how it counts in our interests, it is irrelevant. By relegating the social and interaction to a secondary role your project is on a scientistic tract that was, for salient example, part of where the Nazis went off the rails. It is an epistemolgical blunder. And your trying to sweep aside the things that I’ve said as “secondary matters” “superficial, decorative afterthoughts” as “political” and “not philosophical”, as a “mutually exclusive concern”, has been a terrible misdirection, obstruction to the advocacy, defense, in fact to the proper philosophy of our people. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:12 | # Daniel, I don’t know if you can break free from your island of gauche certainties. There is no “epistemological blunder”. There is only you trying to justify your own worldview by whatever means comes to mind. 24
Posted by mancinblack on Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:58 | # @18 I have no craic to share mon ami. In this moment there is an almost perfect stillness in my life, which is rare but not at all disconcerting. As the Lao - Tzu would put it, it’s often the space inside the vessel or the doorway - that part which seems of no substance or value, which in the end, is the most valuable part of all. 25
Posted by mancinblack on Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:13 | # @20 “We can’t just ignore them” is easy for you to say GW but ignoring them is easier for me to do as I’m banned from there, remember ? Of course they need something of far greater worth and utility than what they have on show. I doubt they will prove to be receptive to new ideas, though and I’m including Morgoth in that assessment. 26
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 27 Jun 2018 18:08 | #
Yes, there is an epistemological blunder that you are committing - of the worst sort. After that, GW, this is a typical projection of yours, on your “island of gauche certainties” Where there is only you trying to justify your reactionary world view - one of the worst, if not the worst reactionary case that I’ve ever experienced - so reactionary that you cannot tell the obvious, clear and important difference between what I bring to bear and that of the YKW academics that you are reacting to. Our enemies should give you an award for your obstruction and bum steering. It is unforgivable that you will not see that your project does not have to be mutually exclusive to what I am bringing to bear and that you do not recognize that in fact, what I bring to bear is much - much - more important in essence and in order of priority than what you are doing. 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Jun 2018 10:28 | # In that case you will doubtless be able to explain the “epistemological error” in this statement:
and in this:
And please don’t rely upon “reaction” or, indeed, upon the “Cartesian anxiety” you occasionally reference. 28
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 28 Jun 2018 13:43 | #
That’s easy, give me a few minutes. I don’t need to refer to your - and your chess partner Bowery’s - Cartesianism or your reactionism, although they do serve to fund your epistemological blunder: The epistemological blunder in this statement:
The epistemological error occurs not exactly within the statement, but in parsing it from its interactive context (interactive of all kinds, including social) and in the assumption that somehow the prior, “unguided”, is interfered with by being protected in its social-systemic context - a context which is always. Trying to remove that context is the epistemological blunder which Aristotle calls trying to apply “Theoria”, the more hardish science of more linear cause and effect, forces and impacts, to praxis, the world of human social-biological nature (as I have discussed many times), which is equipped with concern for relationships, relative adjustment as such, with the agentive capacity to adapt and learn, for interactive coherence as opposed to the more linear, Cartesian notion coherence that you are espousing. To assess our nature in praxis requires a bit more feel - what Aristotle calls Phronesis, or practical judgement - because it is not quite so deterministic as the nature of hard science. But in recognizing agency and the kind of coherence it affords negotiation of, it also provides not only for human authenticity, but accountability to the social group and warrant of the group. Without that epistemological distinction between Theoria, which is correctly applied to matters of hard science, such as physics, one can take it (“in physics envy”) and over apply it to human nature, (commit an epistemological blunder), of failing to recognize its distinct nature as biological Creatura, and as human nature in particular, which requires an epistemological basis in Praxis, respecting our agentive, social interactive nature and inextricable contexting. When you commit this epistemological error you unnecessarily (unnecessary, because hermeneutics and social contructionism proper does not interfere with inquiry as to the optimal biological specs, parameters, behavioral routines of a given race/species, for example) take human nature out of the corrective nature of praxis, not only removing potential misguidance but potential proper guidance, or rather helpful guidelines (since you are hyper sensitive to any hint of coercion) and correction - you set human nature off the rails into the realm of forces and impacts and have a Hitler for example, demanding that his people get themselves killed by the millions and kill millions of other Europeans* because its all just “natural struggle for territory and dominance”, no further account necessary - if you don’t have the will to become one with this linear, lame brained program then you deserve to die according to “nature’s god” of cause and effect. * I add this asterisk to recall attention to the fact that the good old right wingers in America are still trying exonerate Hitler and commit to his epistemological bluner all over again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29lUfiISCvE “Comfy Tangent Big Cat Lady” has been “red pilled” as to the “lies” about Hitler, who was “really alright in his motives and program - it was everybody else’s fault but for a few tactical errors” and in turn totally misdrects a newby, one “Butterfly lady” who says (absolutely correctly, that “I’m sorry that the two numbers are associated, because, 14 is ok, but 88 doesn’t work for me” .... Comfy Tangent Big Cat lady begins to inform her on “Hitler’s innocence” ..“it was all Churchill’s instigation” ... “Butterfly Lady” winds up thanking the panel for “enlightening her.” Hitler “needed to” invade Poland and the Soviet Union (and Ukraine and Belarus) - even though Poland demonstrated abundantly that it was willing and able to fight the Soviet Union, as did Belarus and Ukraine. And who then, if those countries were left in relative alliance, was going to invade Germany? Good luck. Because America has such a Germanic bias and such a poor understanding of history, they are not able to easily appreciate that the Versailles borders were drawn about as carefully and fairly as could be on historical account. Bateson recognized the epistemological error of Hitler and much of his discussion is based on addressing this Cartesian, epistemological blunder. Similarly, would the abrogation of Praxis be noted in your next challenge. He would say (and I invoke his authority since you won’t listen to me, though I’ve said these things about 500 times now): “Much of this appears to be an effort to get back to the innocence of mood signs” - that is, Bateson is saying that those who mis-apply theoria/pleroma to praxis/homo-creatura, are yearning for the simplicity of the physics model, if not the more simplistic communication (mood signals) of animals, such as wolves.
Who said there is no “solid rock” already and who is standing in the way of you identifying some rigorous scientific specs and parameters of “homo naturalis”? Not me, not hermeneutics, not White Post Modernity, Not social constructionism proper. ....”natural right” is a social construct if ever there were any. ....“be not only created for the first time, but possess sufficient integrity and singular truth to reach all the way to the destiny of our people in freedom.” Created for the first time? You are going to do this and you are going to do this by trying to bury theory and philosophy more capable than what you wield? Take your own advice and don’t take the advice of American right wingers too seriously - typical of right wingers, like David Duke, he can amass some useful facts, say, about the J.Q., fine, but he is theoretically, philosophically retarded, except partly for a few ideas that he ripped off and arrogated to himself. His popularity is at least partly contingent upon dubious backing, if not alphabet, and he’s still pandering to his German/Irish American audience - “It’s all Churchill’s fault” - and probably taking pay-offs from Russians ... a lot of good Hitler’s “natural philosophy” visited upon the Russian population…. And can you believe that to this day Duke is defending Trump? - why does he not call him “Zio-Trump?” 29
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:59 | # Daniel, you are a victim of terminologies given you by other men. You are missing the difference between the disclosure of meaning and the given-ness of meanings, and missing it personally at that. I could call this the epistemological difference, in the same sense that the difference between the being of beings and beings themselves is commonly considered the ontological difference. If you had taken my advice and not cherry-picked from the concept of “Dasein” you would, being honest and thoughtful, very likely have had come to terms with the revolutionary nature of Heideggerian thinking. As it is you are held fast in your historiography, from which non-vantage point you take it upon yourself to declare a revolutionary’s words erroneous. All I can say is: track back and look at Dasein again. 30
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:37 | #
Gussedworker, I am a victim of nothing here but your incessant, competitive rhetoric, argument in bad faith egged on by your idiotic right-wing friends, for their idiotic reasons, which “victimizes” our struggle by obstructing its better resource. You assume that I have adopted technologies given by other men, it is wrong. It is your trying to turn around the “technology of rights” argument against me ...trying to turn arguments against me as you, Bowery and the STEM asshole ilk always try to do. A key example being on the matter of my concept of “the left”, where you were totally wrong in saying that this was “advice” given to me - it was one of many key inferences of my person. What you are doing, misguided and blinded by your right wing technology, is you are stalling a necessary war of position, allowing our enemies to go in and occupy these positions (of better philosophy) in the public space. No worry, I’ll be flushing them out shortly.
Bullshit.
You keep making this stupid argument that I “cherry pick” from Heidegger (as if I shouldn’t rather, as Heiddegger recommends, spread the matters out, take what is essential to heart and give thanks) and then you think hermeneutics, a crucial Heideggerian concept, should be ignored. My understanding of Dasein serves just fine - your lock onto “of being” only reinstates the Cartesian position, whereas I would see that as one expression in a non-Cartesian, hermeneutic circle of authenticity, including there-being. If you don’t like my usage, don’t use it.
I have. My thinking is revolutionary, yours anachronistic, reactionary and stupidly competitive. Competitive for no reason and competitive against our best interests.
I do all kinds of things, just because you “pronounce” some singular thing that I am supposed to be doing wrong in your STEM mindset doesn’t make it true.
Track back, read some of my posts again. if you take it upon yourself to see what I’m saying you will not try to obstruct what I am saying like some intransigently contentious, spoiled rotten, inconsolable kid who wants to be seen as the only one offering something profound. This isn’t your garage, where you take apart a motor and put it back together again with the insistence that social life should be that way as well - that predilection is the source of your latest projection. What you are doing, in being misguided and blinded by your right wing technology, is you are stalling a necessary war of position that I have prepared, allowing our enemies to go in and occupy these positions (of better philosophy) in the public space. But not to worry, I will be flushing them out shortly. 31
Posted by Richard Houck, Liberalism as a Mental Illness on Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:45 | # GW, this guy, Richard Houck, might bed up your alley. A law student (psychology undergrad), he’s written a book on the theme of “Liberalism as a Mental Illness” - he talks with Jim Goad about it here. ..he’s not dodging the J.Q. either. 32
Posted by Morgoth Reviewed on Mon, 24 Dec 2018 08:07 | # Morgoth is coming around to our White Post Modern view: good. In this discussion with Millennial Woes, he details some of its implications pretty well. ..although he over-does the skepticism of individual agency, that criticism and call for revision should be placed mostly on the “supply side” (so to speak) of cultural and moral rules is correct. ...of course MW is still encouraging him to call “liberalism” / “leftism”, even though Morgoth started off getting that right. ...the parsing of northern European is an uncalled for delimitation of concern. I mean, is he looking to create a northern European superstate or is he an ethnonationalist: in which case, why emphasize only ‘northern European’ ? It would be better if he had specified that the snow man metaphor represented the northern European nations - discreet - after all, you don’t want to homogenize their differences either. 33
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 25 Dec 2018 02:35 | # Why should Nordics breed with greasy, swarthoid mongrels? 34
Posted by Captaincontrol on Tue, 25 Dec 2018 02:44 | # They don’t have to. And the concept of ethnonationalism protects borders, including our striking, sinewy beauties against paunchy, washed-out northern genes (you do agree that blonde women can sometimes do with a bit of make-up). ...while naive nordicists otherwise throw the would-be buffering nations of southern Europe under the bus ...feeding them to an insatiable Africa. 35
Posted by "The Orthodox Nationalist" on Fri, 28 Dec 2018 02:03 | # ...the kind of moron that would captivate those who wish to re-tell their story that Hitler was “defensive” because he panders to them. Father Rafael: “Barbarossa was preemptive in order to protect central Europe, because Stalin was planning an attack.” Preemptive as of when, father Rafal? After you’d declared war on and attacked half the world for your lebensraum? Father Rafael goes on to say, “Hitler didn’t start the war” ... my poor Matthews need to hear that. ...and “I (father Rafael) am qualified to say so because I got a PhD from The University of Nebraska. .. “adding to my credential, are two years teaching at Mount St. Mary’s College and then a great deal learned while writing for The Barnes Review, working for Willis Carto - must be true then (lol). ..and he goes on to say that “THE consensus is” that Barbarossa was preemptive by nature of the attack”, because it was head on, meant to gain a quick victory, everybody says so….and if the internet bubble was around years ago things might have been different. ....it is not that Hitler’s war mongering was dripping from every sentence of Mein Kempf from the start… ...just ask Father Rafael’s protege, Matt Heimbach! He will cite chapter and verse of “Dr. Joseph Goebbels truth.” ..... Let me tell you how ridiculous that father Rafael Johnson’s claim is. The fact is that: If Hitler and the Nazi regime had been inclined to cooperate with their neighboring countries, the entire world would have been aligned with them against the Soviet Union. There would have been no danger of Stalin mounting a successful attack on “Central Europe.” ...Germany would have had any number of powerful allies if it was clear to them that their aims were not aggressive. Post a comment:
Next entry: Cochran on the genetic history of Jews, Aryans et al.
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) |
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 10 Jun 2018 08:33 | #
Quite good Guessedworker.
I was pleasantly surprised.
I would only take issue with your commentary on “post modernism” as being one and the same as “post structuralism”, Deridda’s deconstructionism and all of the other muddling that the YKW niche power tries to associate with post modernity; as opposed to post modernity proper (White post modernity).
White post modernity is not an irrelevant, fanciful indulgence. It is needed by ethnonationaists and it is an emergency.
It is the means for negotiating our systemic group (national) maintenance among other groups; as opposed to the universalism of modernity and as opposed to its narcissistic, insufficient recognition of other groups of people with self interests and motives other than ours - which require means to be defended against if not coordinated with.
To gain sympathy for a concept of White post modernity, try to observe that Heidegger was at the pivot of the post modern turn.