|
|
|
Miscegenation As Equivalent to Rape and Pedophila - Part 3 Some men may like a nice, tight, 9 year-old girl now and then. What’s your problem?
Summary
In this part, 3, I focus on the abuse of the concept of marginals and how the correct application of it and hermeneutic means to foster marginal participation is necessary not only to establish the authentic boarders of our system of people but also toward its maintenance. That is particularly important as we are an open system, therefore subject to corruption and dissolution. White males, naively and disingenuously brought to bear against other groups in universal maturity, have their optimal rate, its normal, protracted, authentic unfolding and nature seized upon opportunistically by non-Europeans. As our system is open and not merely self corrective, is subject to additional changes as we are reflexive, adaptive creatures, its management requires the use of hermeneutic method - its positive use is made possible by the very open endedness but also internal relation of the system; that to designate and reconstruct the pattern by establishing and maintaining rules through the method’s affordance of socially established as opposed to scientistic (inauthentic) rules. Given our open system and availing ourselves of its opportunities, I discuss: how incentives and disincentives for participation are necessary and may be established through these rules; how rites of European manhood ought to be revised to suit our authentic nature under the circumstances; how our moral order ought to provide for a sacralization of routine but also of sex, in order to act as a homeostatic corrective to hyper competitive models of the west; how symbiosis might be achieved within our group and between out-groups. Please beware that I am still correcting the style, refining details, that the ordering might deviate a little as well from this summary. This may represent a revisable draft even of this summary. However, this is the basic form and content. Also beware that I take a reader though a sometimes meandering and digressing tale of the benefits of adopting the proposed suggestions and the consequences of not doing so. Finally, at times I may torture the reader with bad English sentences and paragraphs, particularly as I make my way through these ideas in the first place. However, I will be working to make the English style less painful to the reader; along with installing more organizational cues in the essay. That will be my next chore – be warned that organizational cues/rubrics may not be done to the reader’s satisfaction yet.
Key word: With hermeneutics epistemology is subsumed into praxis (into practical, interactive, social concern) Concern is a better term to use than utility. We would not want people to think that it would be a good idea to use up say, the national parks and rain forests, etc. That is, non-use has its practicality - that is a large and important difference from Dewey’s instrumentalist emphasis. Epistemology taken into praxis, into social concern then, is not mere Deweyan instrumentalism. It respects the ecological flexibility of unused potentiality for change.
Initiates are marginals by definition – not yet recognized as full members of the Class.
Hence, after the first lessons of our Augustinian bias, the contrasting higher ethnocentrism and incommensurate rates of maturity among non-Europeans, we come to the second lesson - of the Manichean; the great deception of Jews as White while reversing the interests of our European patterns: “marginals” and “workers” are presented as those outside the White Class, diversity and multiculturalism mean integration with us, our agentive, realist, non-Cartesian notion of social construction is taken to mean all differences are mere fabrication. As the punishment for being punished is escalated, in anachronistic practice oblivious to aliens among us, the initiate cannot trust even his own. In didactic incitement, White male maturity is not supposed to respond with defense and organization, but is supposed to disappear into universal “maturity.”
In authenticating our ontology we need to go deeper to note that all Whites are marginals from time to time – even alphas in their own way. It is crucial to our ontology that we undo the perverted Jewish definition of marginals which has been to declare those outside or antagonistic to the White Class as marginals, to be integrated in the White Class; we need rather to take the definition of marginals back to mean those toward the margin but still within the White class – viz. those person positions on the margins due to a point in time of their life-span or stage in evolutionary process/systems. Marginals are authentic in our systemic border defense.
While maintaining their own class, they pervert anti-classification still further into “anti-racism” and “civil rights;” those highly liberalizing moves are called “leftist” activism by Jews. While objectivism is perverted further and called “the right” with Randian Objectivism: corresponding to the Tractatus derived Mises and Hayek pretense of midtdasein beyond the class ad infinitum; viz. it is liberalism ad infinitum beyond the class, but called “conservatism” - inauthentic liberalism to counter false “leftism”; bringing incommensurable systems together; would-be qualitative niches both within and without the class are instigated to competition, loss of difference, quantification, rigidity, imperviousness, reciprocally escalating diatribe, and a zero sum result ultimately leaving would-be systemic controls open to runaway and final dissolution. In contrast to universal maturity, our relative optimal range of sublimation is somewhere between the African and the Oriental. Our pattern is comprised of more people who could be characterized as marginal – that is a part of our authentic nature, differentiated people of a pattern ranging from broad, open-minded speculation, to precise verification. In authenticity, we move from highly imaginative speculation, oriented on broad patterns, though friendly, generally stopping short of voodoo and returning for confirmation in highly precise, rigorous verification – the authentic pattern’s corresponding corprisociality, its people, are variegated, optimally sublimated, not highly episodic in purview or expression. However, because we are more “speculative”, neither riveted to the moment nor episode and our Augustinian nature leaves us less spooked by outsiders, our pattern’s authentic realization is particularly susceptible to didactic incitement and those who would capitalize upon its naïve foundations. Didactic incitement acts against marginals – our participation in its susceptibility is an alpha hold-over, a predisposition to attack marginals, which is impervious to qualitative niche difference, incommensurability – its habit instigates reciprocally escalating diatribe, a quantifying comparison, centralization and a zero sum outcome. Aside from that being a corollary of scientism and Jewish perversion, our classification is further disordered because the puerile female one-up position is pandered-to upon the rupturing of classificatory bounds – she has overly abundant control of mate selection and gate keeping who is to be empowered; she is only more motivated to keep the would-be system disordered; and as she has to deal with more episodic assertion, the litmus test of initial interaction episodes then typically becomes maintaining anti-racism - one of her most significant weapons for “keeping men honest” liberals (just as a man who rapes women is keeping women “honest” conservatives). Anti-racism can always provide her a “sacred ministry of betrayal” in de Beauvoir’s words, “you will never do anything to me more hateful to me than I have already done to you.” Marginals would normally have more motive to participate in the reconstruction of the pattern as they are a bit more dependent upon it; and understanding of what is authentic will provide the way for many, however the Greek notion that freedom from ignorance will cause people to act in their/our proper interests cannot be relied upon by itself to be fully sufficient - we are an open system, up against out-group competition, different levels of sublimation and Manicheanism; hence, marginals are also more susceptible to corruption if not treated fairly. Nevertheless, puerile females have incentive to keep the disorder as their position is more powerful that way: without order males are in a state of constant terror, threatened with an objectivist/hyper-relativist upshot of atavistic might makes right. “Tolerance” is another Jewish promoted injunction with which she is pandered. In nature we must tolerate what is bearing upon toxic. Tolerance it is a late, non-optimal response. The White knight imperviously reverts back to what has worked from time immemorial - the idea that women were more vulnerable. However, thrown into a mix with former out-groups and pandered to exponentially, universalized female maturity has exponential recourse over males, and is far less vulnerable in that respect as a result of modernity’s disorder. Pandered to, the nastier predilections of the puerile female are given more free reign: incitement to genetic competition with a view toward socially impervious alpha-males and their anti-social consequences. The unheralded fact is that the West has plenty of female egomaniacs. She becomes more confirmed, articulate, confident, impatient, testy - whereas you once might have gone to some sort of male authority, now one might try to efficiently seek out a female since all roads lead to, well, her. Taking her basic needs for granted, if she is “afraid” or “uncomfortable”, if she is “bored” (when there are zillions of important problems to solve), “do you know wHat? You should be more tolerant.” These claims are powerful “warrants.” Why do White men commit the most suicide? Don’t bother her with the question - “maybe men are just not as strong as women.” Confidence is a counter point to empathy. The confidence that the puerile female so admires in “alpha males” (found in spades in spades) is not only a counter point to empathy, taken to an extreme it is sheerly counter intellectual - counter to the breadth of consideration necessary to deal with our ever more complex social circumstances. Nevertheless, the puerile female is only more disposed to deploy the charge of racism (classificatory accountability that doesn’t include only to her): since she has to take direct assertion quite seriously and does not necessarily have to think ramifications through on a wide arc of social contingencies (she is not being rejected in reproduction), her more puerile predilections in mate selection hold sway. Then what of the incitement of puerile females? They are looking to see not only who will fight for them, but who will survive and prevail. However, this testing mechanism has been distorted, as has been the testing mechanism of rites of passage - the notion of manhood taken to where it is toxic, self transcendence to the point of the Cartesian. We are an open system, but we represent profound and highly predictable patterns - “I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns, that is the rubric under which we meet” – Cartesianism – “what you may not know is that you have to accept them.” What that statement implies is that marginals, even for their intermittent participation, are a part of our systemic pattern’s governance and that patterns - marginals from within or without (take your pick) - will reassert themselves over individualist technology of Lockeatine or Jewish rites, in the worst case scenario over-correcting to everyone’s detriment. It is critical to our authenticity therefore, to take the idea of the value of our marginal perspectives on the system, that their niches have in providing the system’s maintenance: not only providing sensibility, knowing where the shoe pinches, but buffering, cultivating the turn of potential runaway back to the center of the system, delimiting the boundaries by turning over-compensations back toward the center. They have broader perspective on the system as reward does not come so directly to them - they must think or feel the system through more thoroughly. They have more incentive to participate and maintain a system, if it is fair to them, as their position is more precarious and imperiled if they are cast-out – they, White males in particular, for their natural sublimation, are likely to lose out entirely to outside incursion, without the cooperation of their own kind - hence they have more reason to fight outside incursion in an authentic, timely fashion. While incitement of this pain, emasculating punishment for being punished, effectively keeps things mixed-up, people on their toes, competitive, a situation that is more powerful for the puerile female, it is also more Darwinistic and less ecological, contrary to European’s Augustinian bias. An authentic European range will allow for a new conception of marginals: Our ecology is variegated and asymmetrical in its expressions for good, ecological sense – marginals have a sense of pattern infringement as the pattern is impacted they feel pain and think how to solve its problems - we are not stupidly impervious to social and environmental impact. Our authentic pattern can only be registered by death through Augustinian devils and fighting non-White imposition. Authentic European range cannot be registered otherwise - it is susceptible to be obfuscated in Manichean trickery; hence we must stigmatize the Manichean amongst us - trust and courage will not be built in our initiates otherwise. In addition, it is probable that many accomplishments do derive of satisfaction on basic levels, cooperation and confirmation, and that more and more resource accrues to “alphas” while marginals are further deprived the basics through the mechanism of didactic incitement to universal maturity. Our system, particularly as it is more characteristically marginal and speculative, is very susceptible to this incitement - hence the need for marginal male confirmation, a bit more puerile female disconfirmation. Re-establishing our authentic ontological bias requires reconstructing the honor of our ontology over universal femaleness and maleness – in order to establish our relative but not hyper-relative moral order, this would imply a moral order based on the full range, the interests of both genders of our biological constitution – including White males. Of our dying geriatric margin, we can say in their case alone, that own most being toward death represents authentic there-being amidst the class. Courage requires understanding who and what one is fighting for. Confidence (like con-fidelity) requires trust - a belief that loyal fight will be recognized and met with at least a modicum of reward, not punished. We don’t need men who are tough for the sake of tough, we need men who know what they are being tough for: that is the basis of courage Up against Jewish Manicheanism and opens systems, we can no longer merely assume the Greek position that self knowledge, merely undoing ignorance will impel flawless action, we need subjective incentives and disincentives as well. Incommensurate maturity, biological hegemony and Manicheanism inveigh against us.
White men don’t have courage, don’t have honor? What honor is there in a system void of accountability? Which lies to the world about the nature and difference of non-Europeans and prohibits us from fighting those who would take our co-evolutionary women? Why and how could you have courage to maintain that? It is not about cowardice when you don’t know what you are fighting for - bravery for what? You have to know and understand what you are fighting for to be courageous, you have to know its moral grounds and your part in it, that which extends from your ancestors to your future; knowing that your contemporaries and your legacy will back your loyalty to the best of their ability. The rites of passage we have known have been largely fake - based on a universal notion of maturity; taking on forms, for example, of going to war for an America that does not protect our genetic interests. They initiates have punished us for being punished. Whereas our authenticating rites ought to instantiate our classification, build understanding of our optimal and Augustinian nature, trust and loyalty. In correction, authentic tests would be less gratuitously harsh and arbitrary, more informative not only of our own nature, but of whom our true enemies are; more focused on the deadly reality and responsibility of defending the race in particular, especially against elite traitors and those who betray us from a-high. The Manichean and punishment for being punished ought to be discouraged among our people as it builds mistrust among us. We may re-build confidence, trust, honesty and allegiance through cooperation and adherence to our Augustinian bias within the class. Our authentic nature in Augustinian bias would have it that co-evolution warrants the intrinsic value of White male there-being amidst the class (of course White females too): innocent until proven guilty. Other than fights against non-European imposition, Augustinian devils ought to decide who dies. Flight or fighting on behalf of Whites will be a first sort as to who merits authentic inclusion. Co-evolution warrants our being. Call this our “own-most innocence.” We cannot address issues of borders and expect the marginal duty of defending borders from immigration properly until we have our in-out group clarified in authentic range. This corresponds to our Augustinian nature, which is not wrong. If we are truly the noble, the Aryans, we do not need to deceive, as that could only cover-up unjust acquisition. Kierkegaard adds that “sleep is the highest genius.” Rotation (which corresponds with sleep) implies obligation to some cooperation in mutually assumed risk. Competition void of rotational agreement implies the ultimate end of incitement, that we should never sleep and rather work to support the queen, until we die; while sleep, in fact, is central to our organic being. Cooperation is ubiquitous. Whereas culture is artificial selection, as Bowery notes, in open system maintenance it must be somewhat deliberately geared in calibration to maintain authentic and optimal pattern. Ecology is a conservative relation to resources and may function on a different level than Darwinism. As we are conscious and planning creatures we have some capacity to relegate Darwinism to lower levels - the sperm battle, for example. We have to know who and what we are fighting for, but must also have incentive to cooperate as such because our system is speculative, open and susceptible – tangible incentive must be provided to gain trust and confidence – that doesn’t happen by “might makes right” or zero-sum quantification and comparisons. To posit the classification is a first requirement to counteract its destruction and denial. “Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis” - A.N. Whitehead I/We call it the White Class because, in addition to sounding good, it distinguishes the necessity of hermeneutics in its maintenance (more on that later). It isn’t just something that happens, it is reconstructed or not. Classification of Europeans (and subcategories) functions as a working hypothesis which lets us assert our optimal sublimation, between the non-optimal levels of non-Europeans; our authentic pattern range is non-episodic - not typically verified in an episode - not always empirically evident. Hence, the assertion of the classification over the pattern is critical in order to protect its authentic unfolding. In addition to our open system’s interface with differing levels of sublimation and ethnocentrism we are also up against Mancheanism: all of that requires designation and protection of the class, if its pattern is not to be ruptured and our people are to live their authentic nature.
Sacralization of the Class Sacralization of the class as we have said religiously now, is possible: it is possible to have a good religion based in the 14 words, as they are palpable (beauty/children), transcendent (going to the pattern and beyond our individual and collective pejorative aspects) and implying practical action (oriented to the future, we must secure) regarding the White social. If you don’t do it for White women or men, perhaps empathize with a child like yourself, which has no choice in coming into the hell of a third world.. Relationships as corresponding with routine and the sacred: As pandering and incitement in disorder has made relationships both too precious and not precious enough, it would be a good idea to normalize them by proposing them in the alternative realm of sacral routine; matching may even be done in cooperation with distributist effort – that is to say meetings which would support our matching efforts in a serious but practical way. With a view toward establishing our ontological basis in rites, taking a stab at it anyway, there is another tautology that helped cure a horrible intentional oscillation of mine that resulted from a close family member’s blood curdling protestations if I had the nerve to notice beauty in women. The all too simple solution was to declare that on a scale of 1 – 10 in emotional, intellectual and physical criteria, that I would be quite willing to take my equal in a woman. While that does not solve the problem in reality, given matters of hypergamy, incommensurabilty of confirmational levels, etc, etc, what it did do was give me the confidence that I was fair. I think this sort of thing could have calming effects for initiates - the confidence that they are fair: authentic Europeans know that they are good enough and do not want more than their appropriate match. I provide that tautological anecdote as segue to propose that part of our “distributist” efforts to provide incentive to participate in the class ought to be to help people match up. It will take more than a 1-10 scale, no doubt, but it is something that should happen, as authentic ontology would seek appropriate pairings – there is the expertise even here at MR to make headway. In addition, because our classification is no longer objectivist (lightly relativist as opposed to hyper-relativist), we take note of the relativist paradox – it must include some objectivism – specifically in mind regarding relationships, to maintain a “control variable” of institutionalized monogamy A “control variable” necessary to maintenance of the class is sex as sacrament. This will be crucial to ordering the class by making it reliable and reasonable. It has two aspects. One that treats the sex episode as exceedingly important, a re-enactment of our reconstructive practice of the eons. With that, a choice of partner and monogamy is deemed profoundly important. That can be confirmed religiously even where people have not remained with one partner through life. Sex is obviously important: it is not only the means by which children come into the world - hopefully in a responsibly prepared for way - it can be confirming of the relationship, an individual’s value, their politics and their place in the broader relational pattern etc. OK. You know that. It seems anxiety, necessarily for that which is beyond the moment, is a counter point to authenticity. Because our authentic pattern is different, geared toward longer term, protracted interests (as it should be) than say, the episode or the moment of other sublimation rates, it is quite necessary that sex as sacrament permit of voluntary enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls. This would function as a control variable on its reward structure within society but would also serve to maintain valuable genetics. Not to mention reserving “head-space” for endeavors other than pursuing a partner. It is also crucial to developing and maintaining a sense of authentic agency, particularly for the young - authentic personal choice requires the possibility of an exclusive choice. It is possible in a hermenteutic as opposed to a scientistic sense – as we are not merely forces and impacts, but agentive, biological creatures who learn. It is necessary to authentic choice and critically, to maintain a sense of human agency that we are not merely subject to inevitable causality - a horrifying prospect. Our authentic choice would be reduced enormously if not entirely, without this option - all reduces to rigid episodic and momentary animal competition otherwise. One may reasonably expect this to work for some people despite scientistic claims as sex is sexy: part of what makes it so is a tension between animal drive and human dignity / dominance and submission vs human dignity. Human dignity, of course, is largely dependent upon a vision beyond the animal episode – hence the dignity of sex as sacrament only makes our White class more sexy. This sacrosanct enclave also anchors the European pattern with not only an institutional fairness and integrity, but also a transcendent realm to provide incentive for participation, loyalty and reason to fight – against Muslims and Jews, in their minimal respect for our women’s natural ways; or others who would impose against us for their more episodic nature. It does not completely matter how large the percentage of adherents to sex as sacrament are, the primarily important thing to the mind of the initiate, is that the option is reserved. That will inspire calm and confidence. With White classification and the continued notion of the cooperation in our Agustinian realm, an increasing sense that we are fighting on the same side provides also a means to transcend jealousy – hence, we may have a more authentic choice for a celebrative attitude toward sex as well, for those who wish – whereas now, celebration of sex looks like insanely jaded mockery of our point of maturity for what is being carelessly put at risk. As Jews are more Manichean and blacks/Arabs more episodic, but brought to bear against our more speculative pattern, sex as sacrament is all the more necessary to European ontology as a corrective - a place for non–Cartesian there-being amidst the class. We return to our Augustinian nature in confirmation of our optimal sublimation. Our optimal level of sublimation, among pervasive ecology we assert as warranted, more than any rain forest or endangered species even, for they have no meaning to us without our discussion - worthy as they are as well for their potentially necessary resource and place in ecological diversity; but there are semiotics which contribute further to the warrant of our maintenance beyond mere survival. In our normal range unprovoked we are not creating the misery of required vigilance against episodic violence or the mechanism of drudgery – we are symbiotic and creative. In optimal sublimation range, there is a great deal of asymmetry, weirdness and some spectacular beauty in Europeans. This is semiotic of not only later evolution, but of niche ecological sensitivity – hence, potentially necessary sensibilities to gauge ecological maintenance. In our authentic pattern, we are not as impervious to environmental and social destruction as non-Europeans, but respond in pain and thought. The semiotic end of incitement’s rigid quantifying and centralizing, reduction of pattern is hyper-symmetry, a sign of the atavistim, impervious to social and environmental destruction - an atavistic result of a stable, but more primitive form resurfacing absent the class. Hence, the importance of maintaining the class: our distinct humanness as Europeans in relation to our environment. However, the class does not merely maintain itself and de facto classifications too hard to ignore emerge as a tropism where classifications are prohibited. We are evolved to classify perceptually our “likes/needs” on a relatively optimal, relational scale: e.g. “women, fire and other dangerous things” (Lackoff). Prohibition of classification mystifies and diverts from classification’s erstwhile establishment of accountability, coherence, agency and warrant over our ecological maintenance. Barring that, we are put into a dissociated oscillation trying to gauge need for relationships/reliable perceptions. Prohibited our optimal classification, differences too salient to ignore emerge as tropism and gain hegemony (in the disorder particularly blacks and Females as I’ve elaborated elsewhere). As there is no positivist grounding free of metaphor and there is no private language, orientation is steadied through deliberate classification and broad social agreement in the establishment of rules. Patterns being intermittent in their quality, but patterns nevertheless, mean that we are no longer beholden to the Jewish imposed liberal mandate to observe only the exceptions, the Uncle Toms, the Oreos, the Laurence Austers. Conversely, classification of our patterns mean that the Jewish perversion of the notion of marginals (those outside the White class) is undone. Our marginals (those within the White class, but not on top or in the center) do in fact provide Centurian report and orientation of our pattern; midt-dasein entitles them to a means of subsistence, but admittance obligates them to defend the White class. All non-Whites, especially Jews, in their Manichean ethnocentrism are of concern to us, Chinese “eusociality” perhaps an ultimate menace, Turks and Arabs in our face. Some focus on blacks in particular is necessary here because, in the mix and resultant disorder of modernity, the episodic assertion of blacks and mulattoes (a percentage of Arabs/Muslims are veritable Mulattoes) may appear ideal to the universalizing, puerile female, the answer to answers of the problem-reaction-solution anti-racist dialectic - the ideal weapon for whatever resentment and assertion of power. Blacks manifest a primeval, archetypal alpha male. Alpha-males can assess matters very accurately, very quickly but usually too narrowly, and they cannot control their impulse to compete with betas enough. Hence, their episodic assertion represents an immediate, non-trivial menace to our authentic pattern – especially of course, as it is misrepresented by Jews; but not only, as black hyper-assertiveness represent a litmus tests and weapon to puerile females in the didactic incitement of maintaining their selective and gate-keeping power – power that a puerile female does not likely merit. Blacks may be just one example and maybe not the greatest danger, but if you can’t acknowledge their obvious difference that is a bad sign. They may not be the lynch pin that Jews are, but they are important nevertheless, as one of the chief weapons of Jews and Jewish misrepresentation - destructive, no doubt, in imposition, as noted by Frank Salter (on genetic interests) and for a myriad of other reasons. With blacks having more biological stability and an atavistic place that acts opportunistically, assertively on its episodic basis within modernity’s prohibition of pattern classification, particularly given the disorder’s institutionalization (“civil individual rights” and classification as “racism”), the prohibition of our cooperation or use of our superior technological recourse in our defense, we are left highly susceptible to them and whatever hegemonic, bio-power they may have. They are both a “man’s man” and a puerile female’s answer - never mind the other delicate nonsense. In defense of our pattern against the didactic incitement of universal maturity then, it is important that we assert the important, pejorative differences of Africans and not let that be pooh-poohed as obvious or a mere expression of “insecurity.” Our male initiates must be able to assert the not comical side of this difference, as puerile females cannot be allowed to play stupid. Slavery and its legacy were horrific for everyone and negatively impacted White workers especially, all along. Then to penalize Whites for that which they were not responsible, in all but a small percentage, not even their ancestors? As if billions in welfare to blacks, for them to breed exponentially as opposed to Whites, as if affirmative action, etc have not been enough. Let her consider their huge violent crime rate against Whites. A U.S. rate that would be more like Switzerland if you could take blacks away. We owe them our women too? Nevertheless, the pandered to White puerile female will likely look toward blacks and the mulatto as the answer to answers in disordered context which ostensibly calls for masculine maximization rather than qualitative distinctions and circumspection on a paradigm that exists more and more rarely. Blacks are home in the world; with a strong, innate rhythmic sense, which, though spectacular, it is not our rhythm; we are not so at home in the world but striving, evolved for a more sublime reach - our authentic pattern is protracted and more speculative. Its authentic realization is an effort that is easily flouted on an episodic basis and can look really bad to the young girl; whereas the mature women will have some appreciation for the products of this process, including her children in their variegated qualities, seen as precious but vulnerable to the impervious symmetry of blacks. Africans are a much older people, some 100,000 plus years older than our 41,000 years of European differentiation; this gives them some bio-power and bio-hegemony. Moreover, the kind of selection of most Africans is based more on episodic masculine assertion in intertribal conflict; it has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating a less sublimated, impulsive, more aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive kind of people: its most serious expressions being more sex partners, younger, single parent families, exponential population growth, arrogation and destruction of resources, poverty, disease and violent crime. Mulattoes may seem like the ultimate synthesis to the anxiety of modernity - the synthesis to the Hegelian dialectic. In reality, Mulattoes do not represent a solution as they consume and destroy our qualitative differences, taking them into atavistic symmetry, as they still assimilate the behavior of blacks proper. Nor is there any corollary to their increase and reduction of the population of blacks proper; or the devastation of blacks proper – finally, they represent a dangerous Trojan horse, making a dangerous pattern appear more benign and appealing as it assimilates Europeans more; and opens the gate of our pattern to attack. No musical, athletic prowess or other apparently benign qualities justify their destruction of our pattern Though we evolved from blacks, our authentic pattern has differences that make a difference such that in authenticity, we rightfully do not want to go back. In terms of genetic interests it is very important as Salter notes - for example the impact of Bantus on White genetic interests, wherein introducing one Bantu to a European breeding system is equivalent to the death of White children.The lived reality can be even worse. We cannot allow girls to play dumb and to go along with the Jewish portrayal of those who would incite masculinity for observing these facts. To do that to the future of White children, unguarded, and to let them come into that kind of world of genetic destruction, is as vicious and irresponsible as rape and pedophilia.
While the techno-nerd can insulate himself to some extent from the immediate impacts of blacks and other non-Whites by doing things they cannot, it can purblind him to the impact of blacks and other non-Whites on Whites; it may flatter him to accommodate a puerile level of incitement thus, not the true, optimal European pattern, which does require men who are doing things that blacks and others can do too (that e.g., blacks might even do better on the episodic basis for which they are evolved through primeval disorder). While the techno-nerd position is somewhat buffered he is not registering damage done to co-evolutionaries. Thus, it requires judgment beyond retreating into techno nerddom; as it can arrogate the pattern and take for granted the anti-black buffering of his tradition, or pander to women in order to assume a precarious altercast as being above it. Better or not, in optimality, stabilizing levels are necessary for the management of the White pattern as well – hence our protective sacralizations of the ordinary realms of European needs. Moreover, those purblind techno-nerds are slated, more and more, to become techno nerd slaves to make life convenient for mulatto supremacists. A constant close reading is myopic and subject to arbitrariness for lack of perspective. Hence inauthentic: the management of our authentic system requires a hermeneutic process of moving back and forth from a broad, imaginative comprehension of our pattern, metaphoric hypotheses as need be, and then a return to operationalization and empirical verification, where need be. The social world is to be governed by prhonesis, as Aristotle says, practical judgment; that is so because we are agentive and internally related, having reflexive effects - the social realm is a little too complicated for constant science – it is praxis, experiential, requiring a feel, the practical judgement of phronesis. To institutionalize that fact quaternary systems are advisable as they are both simple enough in their topoi to make them common, socially, and they are too complicated in their interface to be reified into eusociality or runaway; it insists upon a modicum of independent judgment necessary to the praxis of flexibility, choice and balance. While open system patterns necessitate narrative / imaginative connection to our nature, an open-endedness which does mean we are vulnerable, it also implies that we might have the agency to intervene in social agreement, narrative agreement, on what our most authentic interest would legitimize, prohibit and obligate. The hermeneutic process is necessary to govern and maintain our pattern from protracted orientation to verfiable accounts of its authenticity. Metaphorically, that is as if going from far to close readings of our authentic pattern: though it is anti-“scientism” (bad application of science) it is not anti-science - on the contrary, it is taking into account our open system, its sometimes hidden circuitry and making the best opportunity of it - not to fabricate, “merely” construct, but to afford full orientation and operational verification along with the criteria that matters most - our people concerned. While facticity provided a liberation from mere tradition, custom and habit, the hermeneutic turn provides a second liberation - a necessary liberation from mere facticity: not only for narrative coherence from the arbitrary attendance to every mere fact; but also in the ability to establish rules to govern and maintain our system in its authentic reconstruction, as a class; whereas our open system can, by way of mere facticity, be only more susceptible, this liberation will allow for authentic governance, for authentic view.and authentic verification of our patterns’ evolution. Hermeneutic rules and the recognition of the necessary relation to the social, to the social consensus to construct them, is in contrast to the mere causality of scientism – e.g., scientistically speaking, rape and pedophilia can be looked upon as merely factual, non-emotive, “not necessarily all that bad”, perhaps just a sickness requiring therapy. However, in social consensus we quite rightfully consider these events to be wholly unacceptable and punishable. The same can and should be true of miscegenation, for example. Though factually possible and semi-endurable in nature, we are able to establish, through social rules, an assessment that miscegenation is on par with rape and pedophilia. This does not necessarily state what the punishment should be, but does suggest that banishment is a minimal likely option - a likely recourse, of course, is that they would be expelled to live with the consequences of their choices; but they certainly should not be able to impose the consequences of their choices upon Europeans. Bowery’s litmus test of the non-humanness of those who will not stand for freedom from association serves well here. The existential fact of White children being born into a black nightmare provides a powerful warrant in testament. That is to say nothing of its impact on our pattern as it would be authentically unfolded. Nor its impact on resources, the incentive and reward structure; not to mention the impact on the psyche of young men who are thrown into what is for them inauthentic competition while prohibited authentic response. As an open system, it cannot be said miscegenation is wholly unnatural. However, prohibition of White men from defending against it, (as Bowery notes) from using the means at our disposal to defend our co-evolution is unnatural – it is Cartesian, in its requirement, and destructive to our authentic response; an unnatural requirement that is only compounded, as it is coercively (as GW so aptly put it) enforced against our authentic nature. Particularly as Africans are a more fundamental form of masculinity, of course miscegenation will have natural inclination, even like narcotics for some females. However, just as pedophilia and rape can be strong inclinations for some, we do not accept these behaviors but recognize them as destructive - it is to take the most important choice away from one who is not yet ready to render a responsible choice - to our co-evolution. We do not observe universal maturity. We impose social arranged delimitations on these actions therefore, even though they are conceivably natural. With regard to rape, pedophilia and certain kinds of miscegenation in particular, we impose strong prohibitions for very good reason. These crucial distinctions, rendered through hermeneutic orientation, are why it is important to get away from scientism and the impervious, anti-social, modernist notion of lineally causal necessity. Our rules are governed by the relatively optimal interest of our class, not of universal maturity. The authentic European man did not accept miscegenation. An authentic White man knows he and his appropriate partner are good enough – he can be honest in the recalibration of rites will assert as much. The authentic European man recognizes that he is a part of a variegated expression of beings, the more particular, the more a particular kind of honor accrues to his manifestation. In authenticity, White men do not allow for pedophilia, White men do not rape, White men do not hit and demean women and in authenticity, White men do not allow for miscegenation. In authenticity, White men defend against interlopers - White men have been prevented this authenticity as Bowery emphasizes so well. Manicheanism is not honorable. If you are truly honorable then you don’t need to lie and trick people because your ability will bear out the just results. And if you trick to achieve your aims, your results cannot ultimately be justified. Unlike the Marxists, this four way topoi of ontology provides authentic, subjective incentive for achievement – it is sacralized with a redefinition, taking it from mere lineal maximization in personal service to optimal connection with reconstruction of the White Class – reward and recognition for service as such – following Dr. Lister’s discussion of the social capital model of Denmark: plenty of rich folks, but not such great disparity in wealth as to make for high friction; and no such poverty that would deny the basics of life. Thus, achievement is recognized as it serves the relative interests of the White class – valuable insofar as it does not transgress the interests of the White class. This effort is toward putting the White class on an optimal basis as it corresponds with biology; whereas maximizing and quantifying models becomes toxic, destructive to our social and environmental relations: hence, we model a rotation between being/ being amidst the social classification, routine, achievement and reconstruction of midtdasein. Sacralizing of routine, of course, requires instantiation of the class – and the best way to do that at present is the DNA Nation – a parallel nation ready to cooperate with non-virtual manifestations. Now, about operationalization of the DNA Nation, it is no requirement, it begins from the inside-out, with those who want this parallel nation to manage our elective human ecologies, in coordination with the ancient ecologies of Europe; and the grander Nation to provide for an economy and force that might fund larger projects and defense. The time for DNA Nation is now. I hope that Bowery et al will use their expertise in Sortocracy [Nation/County(ancient European or new world)/Couple] and I hope that he would be compensated for it (perhaps receiving some money for placement of people and suggested match). Matching service of the DNA Nation can assimilate the honesty and fairness of the authentic European man. Authentic Europeans want what is appropriate in a partner, not more. The ordinary and the routine must somehow be connected with ontology – we have been separated from this as something precious. An authentic European man knows he and his appropriate partner are good enough – he can be honest in the recalibration of rites and will assert as much. He is honest and wants what is appropriate The rigidity and quantifying response to incitement that would cut through our qualitative differences, ignore incommensurate niches, bringing them together in the universal comparison of a zero sum criteria, where one loses and one wins, tending to spiral into reciprocally escalating diatribe and war - will be countered with the full calibration of our pattern in its authentic response, we being able to take the class for granted and attune focus to inter-group and intra-group symbiosis: where we will see our incommensurate and qualitative differences as functionally differing yet cooperative niches. Because our European people are Augustinian but their level of sublimation is now up against ethnocentric and non-optimally sublimated outsiders, new calibration rites of manhood will let two things test a man to the death: Augustinian devils* and the fight against non-European imposition. There is no free ride, of course - marginals will be required to do their part, but they need to be provided incentive of at least the means to basic means – at least of understanding and social agreement. On the other hand, we delimit the amount of cooperation to that which is an optimal basis of shared resource for survival and allow Augustinian devils to kill after that – we cannot treat life as so precious as to make it unlivable for the living.
To add or integrate: The “post modern” capacity to be unbound of obligation for change and the new as the only good. Realizing that its ultimate foundational backing is futile and its sheer pursuit destructive; one may be free to reconstruct one’s people (and traditions where benign) without feeling old fashioned or as if one will be left behind. On the other hand, White post modernism allows for changes, advance and innovation where they are helpful to the class. Though I’ve noted this post modern notion before, it is highly relevant to the context: viz. what is “new”, out-breeding, is not necessarily good nor is it necessary to reach the good. On the other hand, reconstructing our people and ways is not mere conformity or stodgy tradition in which one has no agentive choice but to participate.
We are availing ourselves of hermeneutic method, its capacity to set rules through social agreement as opposed to the causalities of scientistic models. It affords “the post modern turn” where we may participate in reconstruction of our people and traditions where benign (without the modernist pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity and not being “new”), while liberated enough from facticity and mere tradition to afford the agency to make innovative advances where beneficial to our pattern’s reconstruction. For example, we may balance-off traditional and modernist gender requirements. With this “non-scientism” we may move away from deterministically competitive models of nature to attune focus and cultivation of qualitative differences which may function symbiotically and non conflictually within our class and with regard to non-Europeans; likely incommensurable differences which might otherwise entail false comparisons when brought together, reciprocally escalating conflict and zero sum results to runaway.
Concern is a better term to use than utility. We would not want people to think that It would be a good idea to use up the national parks and rain forests etc. That is, non-use has its practicality - by the way, that is a big and important difference from Dewey’s instrumentalist emphasis. Epistemology taken into praxis, into social concern then, is not mere Deweyan instrumentalism. It respects the ecological flexibility of unused potentiality for change.
Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 07 Apr 2013 07:26 | # ...still working on even this first part, and there is a good deal more to come, but you’ve waited long enough and this stuff has gist enough to hold the place at least for now.
3
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:46 | # “Je n’ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.”—Pascal “In regard to the questions which you have asked me, I would like to have known what your own answers would have been; for thus I might have made my reply in fewer words, and might most easily confirm or correct your opinions, by approving or amending the answers which you had given. This I would have greatly preferred. But desiring to answer you at once, I think it better to write a long letter than incur loss of time…..”—Cicero Since you are nearing completion, I would suggest the following actions: 1) There is a huge gap between a catch sentence “Some men may like a nice, tight, 9 year-old girl now and then. What’s your problem?” and an essay—a gap that is normally filled by an introduction perhaps buttressed by what in academia is called an “abstract”. 2) Usually one begins a lengthy piece by writing something like an outline—the items of which can form headings for the various sections, subsections etc. 3) The traditional form of “tell what you are going to say, then say it, then tell what you just” said seems redundant but it really isn’t. 4) Finally, try reading How to Write with Style: Kurt Vonnegut’s 8 Keys to the Power of the Written Word 4
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 07 Apr 2013 17:19 | # Thanks for the tip Jim, but I’m fairly deliberate in what I am doing. I’ve just posted more to part three and it is still somewhat unfinished, but it sets out the information enough for now. will shape and craft more later… these are, after all, hypotheses (maybe I flatter myself but not really, the point is they are subject to correction. It is not my purpose to put out disinformation.. But in address to this comment to yours, there is a method to my madness.. Just a bit more to go.. thanks for your patience. 5
Posted by Joe on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:13 | # How can a non-Christian, pantheistic—“do your own thing”—culture maintain “sex as sacrament” ? The current culture of the West is based on pantheism. Worship any god, or gods, or no-god, or satan even, worship any god you want : ” do your own thing”. There’s never been any pantheistic culture that ever maintained “sex as sacrament”. Only true Christianity maintains “sex as sacrament”. Seems you want all the benefits of Christianity while simultaneously throwing Christianity in the garbage dumpster. You can’t throw something out, then expect to have it at the same time—let alone throw something away, yet somehow manage to retain the good in what you just thrashed & threw away. The white, Caucasian race is too varied to use only race as a foundation of metaphysics and eschatology. The white, Caucasian race is not inherently united. The Race is inherently and intrinsically divided along many various lines. Always has been - it’s natural to the White Race. Race is not enough to build a religion on. At least not in the case of the White Race. Maybe for other races it is, I don’t know. What I do know, I know for the white race, “White” is not enough to build a religion on, especially a religion that maintains “sex as sacrament”. In fact, it was “Sex-as-Sacrament” that was the first Christian teaching that was flushed down the toilet when the White Race collectively decided to forsake Christianity—or what was left of it after two giant internecine wars—in the 1960’s. As Christianity is what United the White Race in the very first place, and created and built Western Civilization, it makes more sense to me to stick with Christianity. We can have the good things that accrue from Christianity [ i.e. sex as sacrament] , and work at changing the aspects of Christianity that’s baneful to us as a Race. As it is, now that the White Race has rejected true Christianity [ to a large degree], we no longer have the sacred aspects of Christianity to hallow our lives, our marriages, our children, our families, our nations. We are however, still stuck with our intrinsic faults. The intrinsic faults of the Churches throughout history were always the intrinsic faults of our white race anyhow. The faults of the Churches throughout history were not due to anything about the metaphysics and eschatology of true Christianity—just human nature and our innate faults as a race. We still have our faults, our, dare I say, we still have our fallen human nature, but no longer have true Christianity to hallow our days, or to maintain “sex as sacrament”. Can’t trash and throw something valuable in the garbage dump, yet still expect to have the benefits of what one so disdains, destroys, and throws away. 6
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:27 | # well Joe, I should have known you could not wait until I was finished. But anyway, i have posted the full “stuff” of what I have to say for now Christianity is a choice that you may opt for according to a “laboratory of the states” Most Europeans are like me, not interested in that choice. But we need a moral order. So, I’ve got this up now but I’m still editing. PS, I have not read your comment beyond the first line yet. 7
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:33 | # Joe, my first moving through your (premature at any rate because I was not finished) comment shows it to be typical of you - noise. Worthless traffic against important information. From the get go you’ve got a straw man: “anything goes culture.” I do not imply anything remotely of the kind. We, as every culture, are subject to prohibitons, obligations but may afford legtimacies. But unlike the mental retardation of Christianity or scientism, as hermeneuticists we are free to correct our moral order, to bring it up to date these some 2,000 years. 8
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:41 | # Upon hindsight of one thing you said, however, I may have been too dismissive - maybe Hitler was 1/4 or 1/8 Jewish and perhaps that was why he wound up being so destructive to Europe, engaged as he was in an unresolved and overcompensating internal fight. 9
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:00 | # Joe, you think that you can make “sex as sacrament” seem hokey by putting quotes around it…or around “sacrament”... Many of us have had enough of the Jewish tricks that people like you have fallen for, including “true Christianity” and “true Catholicism”
10
Posted by Momus on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:21 | # Whatever the pros and cons of the front page item we know that Joe is a dullard. Why he doesn’t even know what pantheism actually is. 11
Posted by Momus on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:25 | # Well whatever the pros and cons of the front page item are we do know that Joe is a dullard. Why he doesn’t even know what pantheism actually is. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ And I doubt he has anything to say on the whole debate around the relationship between immanence and transcendence. He doesn’t even know his own Voodoo shit that well. 12
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:15 | # In a word, Joe, this piece is a message to those who are concerned for Europeans, and not for those who are not concerned about them, nor is it for those who are concerned for Christianity. Those looking for that, or looking to obnoxiously play that tune in the middle of this discussion should go to a Christian site or thread. P.S. No, Christianity did not invent western civilization, nor sacrament, nor is it our only common denominator. 13
Posted by Momus on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 12:16 | # Sorry to Danny for going off topic but. . . JELLY AND ICE-CREAM WHEN THATCHER DIES! I don’t care if this offends any Tories lurking here but I can’t help but be very happy today. Thatcher was a leading neo-liberal ideologue and utterly loathsome with it. As someone who’s family was on the ‘receiving end’ (as many in Scotland and the north of England were) of this poisonous woman and her gang of greasy Jews and lickspittle estate-agent spivs (overlapping sets it must be said) and their policies I’m absolutely delighted at today’s news. The Hayekian doctrine of ‘there’s no such thing as society’ is the very antithesis of my politics. The politics of spivery should die with her - sadly they will not. Still they say good fortune comes in threes. On Saturday I won £500 on the ‘Grand National’ horserace. Today has been good. I think I should do the National Lottery this Friday! Of course for all ‘British nationalists’ the 4th of May 1979 is the day the Union died. There is a silver lining to every cloud I guess. Thacher’s biggest legacy - in her own words - New Labour and Tony Blair.
14
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 12:26 | # I would say a denunciation of Thatcherism, Hayekian “there is no such thing as society” is very much on topic. 15
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:25 | # This post went up on April 6th, what would have been my mother’s 86th birthday - she was a troubled person for much of her time; but I am sure that she would have wanted me to be able to invest the sum left me from her and my father’s house toward starting a family of my own - that, as opposed to Maja “Mika” Mozeko weighing-in to steal and have a baby with her sociopath criminal boyfriend, Tomasz Marcin Pachocha, while doing what she could to destroy that which she could not get him to steal (she started the plot with her first boyfriend, Oskar, and got Roman to get me to go along with Tomasz’ “business”) With that, a very big no thanks, as well, to Roman Sznajder for his part as the hypocrite and Oskar Matyszczyk (her first boyfriend) for coming after me like a vulture to start things off; immediately upon my father’s death. What these people did was disgraceful. The men of Omaha Beach could not have died for the likes of Maja Mika Mozejko, Pacocha. A vile child it must be I am ashamed of these people. Disgusting. These are people who are sadistic, who delight in hurting others. Who simply cannot stand to see another person happy, who will hurt you, even if you are willing to help them - over again as much as they can, if they can. They do surprise me. To come through what I had….More disgusting than I could imagine. That goes for you too, Luczyna and…Andrzej, you can keep your bullshit lawyering.. And speaking of people who cannot stand to see others happy.. It is like just having given a classic performance, best I could anyway (ok, I still have to go through for typos and style, especially in part 3) but getting ready to take a little bow, make personal comment.. ...and here is fucking Joe, selfish pig, playing his obnoxious tune from the audience sensing when to seize another’s moment..where not interrupting to play his stupid Christian tune. Oh well, I’m past that with this little comment. I feel worse to the extent that he is poisoning the thread with his ignorance than for my “moment” ..... As I’ve said, I still have to look clear away some awkwardness here and there in the post, but you can trust the content is basically here.
16
Posted by Joe on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:33 | # @ Daniel S. I put “sex as sacrament” in qoutes because I was quoting from your article. 17
Posted by Momus on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:35 | # I see my little tribute to Maggie’s death has been pulled from the front page? Why given some of the absolute shite (in every possible way) that is approvingly posted as front-page items I’m confused and would like an explanation and to know who is responsible?
18
Posted by Joe on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:46 | # @ Momus Maybe some shape-shifting lizards deleted your article as it wasn’t reverent enough towards Thatcher. David Icke says Thatcher is yet another dastardly serpentine shape-shifter. Maybe she didn’t really die. Maybe it was just her turn to morph into a invisible goblin-ghost in cyber-space deleting posts that don’t pay her the kind of homage she thinks she deserves. Thank God she didn’t morph into a “spaghetti monster”. That would be a major cause for concern. 19
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:09 | # ........................ “do your own thing” ““Sex-as-Sacrament” was the first Christian teaching flushed down the toilet when the White Race collectively decided to forsake Christianity—or what was left of it after two giant internecine wars—in the 1960’s.” This is the kind of interpretation of the motive of the time that a Laurence Auster would try to put across to blame White males (instead of Herbert Marcuse, et al) and to obfuscate their motive of the time for Dasein. The Jews really do not want people to see that motive and they are eager for extended phenotypes to ape the traditional stoic line in order to blame White males:
....not that an impatient, motherly tone isn’t his usual style. 20
Posted by Joe on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:19 | # The massive rejection of morality—sexual morality and morality in general—in the 1960’s can’t be pinned on Herbert Marcuse only. We’re all given free will and volition. For example : Alcohol is legal for adults. Doesn’t necessarily follow one has to become an alcoholic. Gambling is legal now. Doesn’t necessarily follow one has to become a gambler, or gamble one’s life savings away. One could list a million examples along the same lines. 21
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:37 | # For those interested in conspiracy theories, as I am Not, how about a conspiracy theory about a meta conspiracy theory? a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory? Conspiracy theorist David McGowan shows the signs of post hypnotic suggestion in order to get him to do something: to distract from the dasein motive of the time. They wanted to cover it up so badly that they’ve got this guy post hypnotically reporting a tale that hippies were a complete CIA operation from top to bottom! Why do I think there could be some truth to this conspiracy to get this guy to render this conspiracy theory? Look at his discussion of the Altamont incident in which Hunter Meredith was stabbed by a Hell’s Angel: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr106.html
“Many of the accounts of the tragedy at Altamont include the demonstrably false claim that Hunter can unmistakably be seen drawing a gun just before being jumped and killed by the Angels (some accounts even have Hunter firing the alleged gun). The relevant frames from the film are included here for your review. What can certainly be fairly clearly seen is the large knife being brought down into Hunter’s back. But a gun being brandished by Mr. Hunter? If you can see one, then you either have far better eyes than I, or a far more active imagination. Or both.”
He claims there was no organic motive for the men of the time..says it’s biggest protest song was “For What it’s worth?” not about Viet Nam at all..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HVACPv_KFw
22
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:42 | # and again, straw man Joe, I did not pin it all on Herbert Marcuse. Joe, give it up. Your comments are a stupid diversion. 23
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:23 | # I will be refining this essay, correcting for mistakes and so forth - will note the changes later on. I felt the thing to do for now, was to get it on line, even in rough form. 24
Posted by Joe on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:57 | # @ DanielS Thank you for the link to David McGowan’s excellent website, “davesweb”. McGowan’s “Laurel Canyon” expose of the hippie movement and the anti-war movement is especially excellent. McGowan’s work can not be so easily dismissed as there’s a preopnderance of solid, truthful , factual evidence the hippie movement was NOT a grass roots phenomena. Tavistock via the CIA played a big role in creating and starting the hippie movement in the first place. One reason to start the hippie movement—amongst other reasons—was to side-track antiwar sentiment and de-rail it. Search Terms : “Tavistock + The Hippie Movement” ” Jim Morrison’s Father” ” Jim Morrison’s Father + Gulf of Tonkin” McGowan’s expose about the hippie movement is excellent. Thank you for the link. I’m waiting impatiently for the final installment. In the meantime, my posts bring No harm to any White person, no harm to any black, no harm to any Muslim, no harm to any Hindu, no harm to any Jew, no harm to any Mormon : No harm to anyone of whatever culture/background . I know some readers are very sensitive souls, hence my posts about truth-tellers from various disparate groups of people. I prove my “tolerant” Bona-Fides with solid, factual information. I hope the info one gleans by using the above search terms doesn’t hurt the feelings of any old hippie types. That’s Not my purpose. Just trying to share some truth—as you do through your considerate link to McGowan’s excellently truthful website. I didn’t post a link to any website about “Tavistock + CIA + Hippie Movment” because there’s so many. The above search terms will access alot of truth about the role of the CIA in starting the hippie movement in the very first place. In the meantime, I don’t mean anyone any harm : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQXYda83q8U
25
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:18 | # .... Fuck you Joe, there was a grass roots motive beneath it all, and you refuse to see it because you are a stupid, conspiracy theorizing extended phenotype - go to some Christian site and go to hell. You are an idiot. That’s all. Stop poisoning this thread with your impervious bullshit, you impervious, trolling idiot 26
Posted by Joe on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 20:12 | # More about Jim Morrison, the 60’s, the hippie movement, drugs, etc. : http://12160.info/politics/blogs/the-illuminati-satanism-drugs-the-music-industry http://adventofdeception.com/occult-control-music-industry/ http://www.illuminati-news.com/art-and-mc/occult-rock.htm About the 1960’s pied-pipers : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6klDcGNpLk Read the description/explanation about the song. 27
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 20:25 | # Joe, asshole, I showed the link, I have read it all and everyone is free to go there, ok dick head? People can go there and believe that Jim Morrison was a CIA agent LOL instead of the drunken idiot that he was. These rock stars were mostly spoiled fools, hear? That’s not the point. Nor is it your point - yours is to distract, create noise, informational traffic and consternation in me. I want people to look at what this asshole troll Joe is doing: he is generously dowsing every thread with conspiracy theories to make the discussion look ridiculous. He is probably an agent, but at any rate I have no respect for him. Joe, may blood pour out of your ears
28
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:38 | # Adding line change (add Randian Objectivism: w Mises and Hayek as false counter to “leftism”) 29
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:41 | # (add Randian Objectivism: w Mises and Hayek as perverted, inauthentic midtdasein; viz. false liberalism within the class to counter to “leftism”) 30
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:56 | # Ok, I have finally had time for a thorough proofreading of part 3. Typos were rife. Many things made no sense and seemed absurd because they were only sketched-out. It is much less awkward now, though some of the content will still seem awkward - nevertheless, what is here now, I am willing to defend. Non deliberate errors are gone. There is probably a bit too much redundancy on the idea of asymmetry; it is also likely that some other significant aspects of our ecology are underplayed as yet. Other than having corrected the grammar and style, one content revision that jumps out at me occurs where I changed the word lie for deception. Truthfulness and reasonable coherence can be at odds, particularly regarding a relativist matter of our relative class against the ravages of objectivism, that has some merit as a concern; nevertheless, that should not require too much strain on the judgment of the fundamentally honest - a white lie just to move on where it will not hurt as opposed to a black lie: it is fundamentally different than full blown deception. Ok, So this part is far more ready for comments for those who might care, if anybody: perhaps nobody would be better than Joe, Silver, Thorn or Haller: I think they should go back to their church or FBI office, or from wherever they came. Of course I will be working to make this and the other 2 parts more clear, but the content is largely here (even if awkwardly redundant in concern not to leave important issues under stated).
31
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:18 | # ... Adding line: The existential fact of White children being born into a black nightmare provides a powerful warrant in testament. That is to say nothing of its impact on our pattern as it would be authentically unfolded. Nor its impact on resources, the incentive and reward structure; not to mention the impact on the psyche of young men who are thrown into what is for them inauthentic competition while prohibited authentic response. 32
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:57 | # Add line
33
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 20:49 | # wisdom of the language: “deception” cept to receive something
receipt you are expecting to receive something.
34
Posted by Rabbi Herman Lipschitz on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 23:38 | # Excellent article Mr DanielS.
35
Posted by Joe on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 02:31 | # @ Rabbi Lipschitz It’s too bad Your fellow Jew Hymie-in-Afula is not around to hear your words of g*dly common-sense, that’s because Hymie is race-mixing and banging his “Asian hottie” as we discuss this most sinful of topics. Hymie seems to be some kind of Jewish wild-card, diluting the cohesiveness of your tribe by Hymie’s race-mixing antics with the “immigrant guest-worker Asian hottie” Race-mixing is sin because Race-Mixing produced Hitler—who was race-mixed with hymie-blood-DNA and North -African- berber -blood, your typical donmeh jew blood-line. And the donmeh Jew Hitler did a lot of bad bad things to Jews. 36
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:05 | # I have fleshed-out this part a bit:
“Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis” - A.N. Whitehead I/We call it the White Class because, in addition to sounding good, it distinguishes the necessity of hermeneutics in its maintenance (more on that later). It isn’t just something that happens, it is reconstructed or not. Classification of Europeans (and subcategories) functions as a working hypothesis which lets us assert our optimal sublimation, between the non-optimal levels of non-Europeans; our authentic pattern range is non-episodic - not typically verified in an episode - not always empirically evident. Hence, the assertion of the classification over the pattern is critical in order to protect its authentic unfolding. In addition to our open system’s interface with differing levels of sublimation and ethnocentrism we are also up against Mancheanism: all of that requires designation and protection of the class, if its pattern is not to be ruptured and our people are to live their authentic nature. 37
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:02 | # I’ve treated this third part in way like the gentleman who wrote our Godel essay did - as a work in progress to discuss as he worked. That was a mistake on my part, as the essay was conceived with effect of its immediate impact being a part of it, it should have been more fully ready before going on line viz, it only served to attract attention to fairly haphazard cut and paste. That mistake is done now: I’ve rewritten this part, on sex as sacrament:
However, because our authentic pattern is different, geared toward longer term, protracted interests (as it should be) than say, the episode or the moment of other sublimation rates, it is quite necessary that sex as sacrament permit of voluntary enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls. This would function as a control variable on its reward structure within society while also serving to maintain valuable genetics. Not to mention reserving “head-space” for other endeavors other than pursuing a partner. It is also crucial to developing and maintaining a sense of authentic agency, particularly for the young - authentic personal choice requires the possibility of an exclusive choice. It is possible in a hermenteutic as opposed to a scientistic sense – as we are not merely forces and impacts, but agentive, biological creatures who learn. It is necessary to authentic choice and critically, to maintain a sense of human agency that we are not merely subject to inevitable causality - a horrifying prospect. Our authentic choice would be reduced enormously if not entirely, without that option - all reduces to rigid episodic and momentary animal competition otherwise. One may reasonably expect this to work for some people despite scientistic claims as sex is sexy: part of what makes it so is a tension between animal drive and human dignity; dominance and submission vs human dignity. Human dignity, of course, is largely dependent upon a vision beyond the animal episode – hence the dignity of sex as sacrament only makes our White class more sexy. This sacrosanct enclave also anchors the European pattern with not only an institutional fairness and integrity, but also a transcendent realm to provide incentive for participation and reason to fight – against Muslims and Jews, in their minimal respect for our women’s natural ways; or others who would impose against us for their more episodic nature. It does not completely matter how large the percentage of adherents to sex as sacrament are, the primarily important thing to the mind of the initiate, is that the option is reserved. That will inspire calm and confidence. With White classification and the continued notion of the cooperation in our Agustinian realm, an increasing sense that we are fighting on the same side provides also a means to transcend jealousy – hence, we may have a more authentic choice for a celebrative attitude toward sex as well, for those who wish – whereas now, celebration of sex looks like insanely jaded mockery of our point of maturity for what is being carelessly put at risk. 38
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10 | # Another line change:
40
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:00 | # I see now why I had been concerned that I might be talking about symmetry/a symmetry “too much” It wasn’t that I was talking about it too much, but this paragraph had been in the wrong place:
It is in the right place now. 41
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:18 | # Correcting this paragraph
42
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:29 | # Correcting this part still further to read:
As there is no positivist grounding free of metaphor and there is no private language, orientation is steadied through deliberate classification and broad social agreement in the establishment of rules. Patterns being intermittent in their quality, but patterns nevertheless, mean that we are no longer beholden to the Jewish imposed liberal mandate to observe only the exceptions, the Uncle Toms, the Oreos, the Laurence Austers. Conversely, classification of our patterns mean that the Jewish perversion of the notion of marginals (those outside the White class) is undone. Our marginals (those within the White class, but not on top or in the center) do in fact provide Centurian report and orientation of our pattern; midt-dasein entitles them to a means of subsistence, but admittance obligates them to defend the White class. 43
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:40 | # correcting this line to read:
44
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:02 | # Correcting still further:
45
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:23 | # correcting this line Didactic incitement is impervious to, if not opportunistically seizing upon, our qualitative differences. 46
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:30 | # Correcting this paragraph:
47
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:55 | # Correcting this line
48
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:05 | # Correcting these two lines near finish:
These crucial distinctions, rendered through hermeneutic orientation, are why it is important to get away from scientism and the impervious, anti-social, modernist notion of lineally causal necessity. 49
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:19 | # A correction of the very last paragraph (fundamentally signalling the completion of editing): Hermeneutic management, observation of incommensurability and niche differences along with the determination to allow Augustinian devils to determine life amongst us, will build and enhance symbiosis, cooperation and trust within the class; and without the class as well, with regard to non-Whites, where discretion is the better part of honor. It takes matters out of zero-sum, quantifying comparison and mere causal facticity; into agentive warrant of our pattern’s autonomous management in relation to environment and other groups, into qualitative differences that make an ecological difference. 50
Posted by Momus on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:31 | # @Danny The future welfare of yet unborn generations? What are you going on about? The idea of a social ‘whole’ which is premised on an intra and inter-generational moral-economy and some notion of fidelity to the commonweal? The very idea of collectivelly imagined synchronic and diachronic politico-moral commitments/responsibilities is nothing but a leftist con-trick to tax hard working citizens. You’re only, and anything more is a dangerous illusion, a radically autonomous individual that must at all times be maximally satisfying your atomistically understood rational self-interest (the old hedonistic calculus at work). By happy coincidence that also makes one maximally altruistic - thus the true author of any collective good. Obviously social collectivities don’t really exist (it’s an epiphenomenon of individuals and individual action) but you know what I mean. 51
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:48 | # @Danny The future welfare of yet unborn generations?
Yeah
to the people and their common habitat, anyway. The very idea of collectivelly imagined synchronic and diachronic politico-moral commitments/responsibilities is nothing but a leftist con-trick to tax hard working citizens. Oh bullshit, Graham. with regard to financial matters, I am referring to the likes of yours, Bowery’s, etc’s distributive models. I explicitly refer to your ideals.
That’s in your head, Graham. I downplay the fact that I am a social constructionist - which includes of any “individuality” because it is an idea so abused by Jews that the right wingers here won’t understand it.
I say nothing of the kind: please keep your straw men away. We know you hate America, but straw man cartoons are not the most instructive.
Patterns exist graham, You are criticizing something which I have been at pains to criticize myself Yes, I know what you mean.
....... It was a mistake on my part to post it before it was ready. A little of the pressure I felt came from you and your alliance with Silver. You are “above” us White Nationalists, I know. I understand that I am stepping on toes but the project of recalibration calls especially for some of the feral, “unprofessional”, angle that I am afforded to take as I am not bound to poodle requirements, can rather go into authentic concerns the “mature” are “above.” Fuck it. Of course I should not have let the antagonism fluster me, but my being “unprofessional” is part of what makes me both good and bad Nevertheless, I’ve got this done now. And I am becoming more satisfied with it as I’ve corrected it. 52
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 03:53 | # Graham said:
that must at all times be maximally satisfying Totally wrong. One of my central points is to take (e.g., Maslowian) self maximization and take it into Aristotlian optimality.
Not at all - as I have just cleared away, there is no atomistically understood rational self and your claim of hedonism is merely a stoic, maternalistic incitement against White male being. work is a part of routine - it is on balance as important as socialization, there-being and achievement (refined distinction, added reward, etc) But you don’t want to work to make an evil system, destructive to you own interests function even better by contributing mindless work. You want work to serve yours and your people’s interests.
Wrong again. It has been central to my emphasis to put a stop to maximal altruism. That is why I emphasize stopping at marginals within the class; and applying something more on the order of the silver rule to out-groups. Your applying this word maximization here can be nothing but a straw man as Optimality is a central tenant, pervasive throughout the concern.
53
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:36 | # .. You’re only, and anything more is a dangerous illusion, a radically autonomous individual Detailing my rebut to this straw man still farther: As I have said, there is no such dangerous illusion of pure individualism. I am only trying to protect and foster individualism’s relative autonomy and authenticity. I believe I discuss this in part two: “authenticity” would represent an optimal range - that goes for the social and for the individual. For the individual, “authenticity” would be in an optimal range of alternative functional autonomy. That optimal range of autonomy would occur as relative agency, as opposed being merely caused by physical forces and social mandate. Being merely caused by the social or physical forces would of course be inauthentic. Demarcation of authentic range would correspond with qualitative distinctions - incommensurate but conflictual or symbiotically handled differences. 54
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:42 | # Further clarifying this part of the equation in response to Graham’s straw man:
55
Posted by Momus on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:49 | # @Danny Oh boy - I actually was mocking MR’s crowd of Hayekians and Thatcherites with that comment. There’s no such thing as society only individuals - didn’t you know that? Given such beliefs I wonder why they think themselves anything more than liberals with a tendency towards vulgar racism? Really why should anyone else should care? Incoherent liberals are not the go-to people if one wishes to seriously critique our present direction of travel. After all there is no alternative or didn’t you know that as well? Then you have the cheek to suggest it’s wrong to be ‘snooty’ to such - let’s be kind - not very bright people? It’s not like such people will even rise to the level of mediocrity (which is an irony given how many fancy themselves as elitists etc). 56
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:23 | # So many easily disposable straw men ... as if one has to be a socialist to believe in looking out for future generations, and not despoiling the future through selfish actions in the present (like importing hordes of racial aliens)! As if rational economic principles, and concern for race and civilization, somehow cannot coexist within the same theoretical edifice! 57
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:52 | # Thanks again Graham: apologies for my sensitivity. And even where you may issue a straw men, they are good in the sense that they provide a means to point out a refinement of the actual argument by contrast Leon, we are concerned for rational economic principles (and social capital, as Graham notes). I don’t see your economic principles as rational. 58
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:30 | # Adding: The confidence that the puerile female so admires in “alpha males” is not only counter to empathy, taken to an extreme it is sheerly counter intellectual - counter to the breadth of consideration necessary to deal with our ever more complex social circumstances.
60
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:55 | # So now that you’ve gotten it “out there”, could you explain what was so time sensitive that you felt compelled to publish rather lengthy essays in an unfinished state that would require of your readers the arduous task of reading and then, after you finished, re-reading? 61
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:27 | # ..... I think more than one thing explains it and I do apologize again. 1) Working under a stigmatic rubric, I felt pressure to get to the happy ending quickly, at least to show it. 2) Perhaps more importantly, the last parts contained necessary answers that properly should go altogether with the first part for any discussion to be coherently and relevantly focused. 3) Joe’s persistant viral attacks were getting to me - as they were obviously meant to - he got me to react, in disgust: in this case, nettling me with obnoxious comments that I felt the need to redress and at the same time instigating me to post before I was ready. ...as I’d said, Silver’s automatic attacks also made me feel a pressure to get it up altogether and fast. 4) There are probably other reasons for the mistake - it was in part, an irrational process, though I am familiar with standard methods for structuring essays, this turned into more of an organic process, I was making some discoveries and remembering things that I’d considered long ago as I went along.. yes, I was sorry that it was getting long and struggling to keep the length down. 5) At bottom, I think that I posted prematurely because it is not about me or this given moment, but about getting the matters correct, ultimately. Thus, my vanity was not the fundamental matter and the audience saw me in the dressing room, putting my pants on one leg at a time. Not a good idea, as it will cause them to suspend disbelief in my credibility. I misapplied the method of the fellow who wrote the Godel piece, who would discuss his effort as it went along. For another thing, that was a wrong minded method as drama played a role in this work that it did not in his work. It was a mistake to put it up there and painful to read through some of the writing even after first edits. In defense of myself to some extent, the content was at hand - I wasn’t changing it in response to comments that I found obnoxious: Maybe to prove that was the basic reason why I put it up before it was ready; while I did comment that I am still working on it. I hope that the mistake is at least instructive as a human struggling against viral attacks such as Joe’s / as I can only hope Joe’s viral attacks are instructive as to their nature. There is little else of merit to his spamming presence here. 62
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 16:18 | # I wouldn’t call Joe’s posts “viral” so much as indefatigably off-topic. That’s why I have stopped reading them. But to be fair, I’ve also stopped reading yours—and it isn’t just because your essays were prematurely published, but because when looking down the page of main posts and noticing the comment count, yours are almost always at the top of comments and the comments are from you on your own posts—you responding to yourself more than to Joe. Why read all that? What’s “the point”? Tell me why I should invest the effort in reading your essays before I make the investment. The proper place to do so is in the on-page portion of the essay with the rest of the work below the fold. The quip: “Some men may like a nice, tight, 9 year-old girl now and then. What’s your problem?” is merely provocative. It doesn’t interest. 63
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:13 | # ....... Posted by James Bowery on April 14, 2013, 11:18 AM | # I wouldn’t call Joe’s posts “viral” so much as indefatigably off-topic.
Joe’s comments ARE a viral attack.
The other comments are mostly directed in defense from Joe’s attacks. Between the two, Joe’s attacks and me having to note the corrected form, is the motive for 90 percent of my posts.
What’s “the point”?
Yes, here you are right. Particularly before throwing up the first mess of part 3, I should have said in that area, PLEASE BEWARE THAT THIS IS VERY ROUGH UNEDITED MATERIAL THAT I AM PUTTING UP - and perhaps note that instigation has made me feel compelled to post it prematurely UP FRONT INSTEAD OF IN THE COMMENTS, WHERE I HAD - while adding a note there, in front of the post that I will be refining the writing. That would have saved you the investment of time. My mistake. I’m quite sorry about that. It is is very deliberate and it is not meant as an interest arouser (I hope not, would speak badly of you if it was). It is meant as provocation to an extent but more to establish a counter-point. It is proper to the essay and my purpose. 64
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:40 | # Jim, it does not take a towering intellect to see that Christianity is a giant pile of Jewish bullshit. To whatever extent you insist upon on clinging to it, perhaps to protect those good people who insist upon it, is probably what had you encourage Joe (“hey Joe, that sounds worthy of a new thread”). That motive of protecting Christians may blind you to some extent to the motives of this shit eating Jew fly who comes here with his flurry of derailing and trivializing conspiracy theories, that nettle and attack tender morsels until he can finally lay his Jewish eggs, the controlled opposition of Christianity, into a wound. 65
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:04 | # Could you condense to an executive summary or abstract what you call “my purpose”? 66
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:30 | # Yes, but I will do that tomorrow. Have some things to tend to before I go to sleep. 67
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:36 | # It really shouldn’t take very long. I’d say Jim wants to give apolitical genes a route to survival. 68
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 02:05 | # It won’t take long, but I will do it in the morning (where I am) 69
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:09 | # I have added a 373 word summary. I will be working to improve the English style and provide better organizational cues to the reader so as to relieve any misery in sharing my tortuous way though these concerns. 70
Posted by Joe on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:44 | # @ DanielS It’ll be a fine day in the morning when you finally “organize” your thoughts in a logical & coherent—dare I say, cogent, manner—and finally perhaps achieve “improving” your English skills, which could use improvement—to say the least—to be as kind as possible considering the pretentious and affected English so contrived. Yes, it’s “misery” to read your convoluted sentence structure—based on disambiguous thought patterns it necessarily follows—so naturally and necessarily your English is nearly incomprehensible. It’s so convoluted it causes “misery” as one tries vainly to understand what exactly it is you’re trying to communicate ; Yes, it’s “tortuous” to read. In the meantime, until that fine day in the morning, a traditional Christian viewpoint concerning miscegenation : http://cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/heart-and-soul/ For entrenched, recalcitrant, and die-hard Daseinites who simply can’t bear to hear any kind of Christian viewpoint, especially a pre-1960’s type old-fashioned Christian viewpoint—before “do your own pagan thing” became so popular and au-courant, learn more about your precious Daseinite “religion”: 71
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:22 | # Joe, good. If you don’t like my writing as yet, get the fuck out of here you lying parasitic disease! We don’t need your Christian disease gunking up this thread which would have been much further along were it not for your disease. Get the fuck out of hear and die you fucking disease. 72
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:25 | # The motive of the shit eating Jew fly calling itself “Joe” is to come here with his flurry of derailing and trivializing conspiracy theories that nettle and attack tender morsels until he can finally lay his Jewish eggs, the controlled opposition of Christianity, into a wound. 73
Posted by MR needs a garbage section on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:22 | #
vs.
No one cares how long your fucking summary is. You’re a neurotic bore. GW is a nice guy. Too nice. It’s always been a problem at MR. 74
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:35 | # Thanks for the summary, Daniel. How would you relate epistemology to hermeneutics in your ontology? 75
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:15 | # Epistemology is subsumed into praxis (into social utility) However, one end of the ongoing hermeneutic process would be the more rigorous end, seeking “closer readings”: operational verification to yield warranted assertability. There are some facts that might be contestable by the disingenuous or insane only. How those facts come to count, however, is more negotiable. Not being a scientist, on the rigorous end, I defer to Dewey (there are better explanations of his instrumentalism, but this is a gist):
True to the name he gave it, and in keeping with earlier pragmatists, Dewey held that ideas are instruments, or tools, that humans use to make greater sense of the world. Specifically, ideas are plans of action and predictors of future events. A person possesses an idea when he is prepared to use a given object in a manner that will produce a predictable result. Thus, a person has an idea of a hammer when he is prepared to use such an object to drive nails into wood. An idea in the science of medicine may predict that the introduction of a certain vaccine will prevent the onset of future maladies of a definite sort. Ideas predict that the undertaking of a definite line of conduct in specified conditions will produce a determinate result. Of course, ideas might be mistaken. They must be tested experimentally to see whether their predictions are borne out. Experimentation itself is fallible, but the chance for error is mitigated by further, more rigorous inquiry. Instrumentalism’s operating premise is that ideas empower people to direct natural events, including social processes and institutions, toward human benefit.” 76
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:06 | # Epistemology is subsumed into praxis (into social utility)
77
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:54 | # I want to state this a little more clearly: I had said “Epistemology is subsumed into praxis (into social utility)”
That is to say, non-use has its practicality - that is a big and important difference from Dewey’s instrumentalist emphasis. 78
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:37 | # Epistemology taken into praxis, into social concern then, is not mere Deweyan instrumentalism. It respects the ecological flexibility of unused potentiality for change. 79
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:35 | # Daniel, I ask you to perform the following experiment: Press CTRL-F and enter “hermeneutic” and notice how often you make use of that word throughout the original post and your responses. Then notice how often you make use of that word in your response to my specific question about the word. Please try to be more responsive in fewer words. 80
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:43 | # Here’s an example of a high signal to noise ratio ontology: Individual: a sexual organism. Human: A moral individual. Individualism: the moral valuation of individual selection. Individual selection: selective pressure applied to the phenotypes of the individual’s own phenotypes as opposed to the extended phenotypes of other individuals of the same species expressed in that individual. Organism: the aggregation of replicators against which selective pressure is applied. Culture: the artificial selective pressure based on transmissible morals. Multicellular asexual organism: An asexual organism consisting of specialized cells. Cell: An organism that cannot long survive if separated from the organism of which it is a part. Group selection: The evolution of multicellular asexual organisms. Gang: Multicellular asexual organism whose cells are modified to fill specialized roles. Tribe: A gang related by consanguinity and congeniality. Nation: Individuals related by consanguinity and congeniality. Nation State: An extended tribe. State: An extended gang usually organized into one or more population concentrations called “cities”.. Civilization: An extended state. War: Gang selection. Peace: Absence of war. 81
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:07 | # ... James, First of all, I don’t think that we are attempting the same thing. I might dispute some of your definitions as leaving important aspects out. Maybe you are attempting something on the order of what Wittgenstein was trying to do with the Tractatus Logico Philosphicus. It likely strips certain important aspects of meaning. I am not trying to create a computer language. I do try to be precise as necessary, but context is content. As for hermeneutics, I have discussed hermeneutics before. There is no ambiguity and no mystery to me when I use it. If you (or others are not clear) you may simply ask and I may clarify it. There is nothing here that I could not discuss and explain. 82
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:27 | # I’ve added hermeneutics as a key word definition to the top. I’ve defined it in several other places before, so I took it for granted as something that might be a bit redundant. 83
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:39 | # In fact, the hermeneutic turn was largely taken in response to the Vienna School of Logical Positivism’s failure in attempting to follow the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus to a positivist language. It corresponded to Godel and Heisenberg’s findings as well Key word: With hermeneutics epistemology is subsumed into praxis (into social concern) Concern is a better term to use than utility. We would not want people to think that It would be a good idea to use up say, the national parks and rain forests etc. That is, non-use has its practicality - that is a large and important difference from Dewey’s instrumentalist emphasis. Epistemology taken into praxis, into social concern then, is not mere Deweyan instrumentalism. It respects the ecological flexibility of unused potentiality for change. 84
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:19 | # Here are some added layers to that definition: particularly when considering Heisenbeg, it recognizes a connection between knower and known
With hermeneutics epistemology is subsumed into praxis (into social concern) 85
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:58 | # Hermeneutics is a response to the failure of the Vienna school to create a positivist language and other failed Cartesian efforts as revealed particularly by Godel and Heisenberg. Hermeneutics is a method opting instead for a socially engaged, ongoing process of applying broader historical and temporal orientation and then closer “readings” of data as need be. There is a recognized connection between knower and known. With hermeneutics epistemology is subsumed into praxis (into social concern) 86
Posted by overconfident females on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:47 | # Good link passed on by GL which talks in similar terms as I have for the past several years on the issue of gender relations and monogamy: http://www.returnofkings.com/8756/hypergamy-unchained This remark in particular echoes experiences and observations that I’ve written about in several places:
Post a comment:
Next entry: Margaret Thatcher, 1925 – 2013
|
|
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— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 06 Apr 2013 20:57 | #
,,,
This is just the first few paragraphs for now, part 3 goes into a few different and significant directions…I will have more up a.s.a.p.