Posted by DanielS on Mon, 03 Sep 2018 16:21 | #

A note and caveat on the document, “Ethnocracy, Sortocracy and the Euro-DNA Nation.”

I am not as confident in the document as it was phrased at the time. Frankly, I have looked at it again for the purpose of creating these audio versions.

In my defense, however, it is a case where, despite my earnestly telling people that I am not presenting edicts like some sort of Moses with tablets, but rather ideas to be negotiated and corrected, people have not tended to take me up on this way of knowledge generation and correction.

The result is that a few things have sat there that I now look upon as clear mistakes.

Not so much the basic suggestion, but the presentation of some ideas as “THIS IS WHAT WILL BE DONE IN THE EURO-DNA NATION.”

The salient example that jumped out at me was “Older people WILL be required two years military service.”

I still think that’s a good suggestion, and if anyone thinks its perverse, it is a hell of a lot less perverse than sending 17 year olds up as canon fodder, who have their whole life and reproductive years ahead of them.

HOWEVER, perhaps because I was overly eager to cooperate with an experienced and intelligent movement insider in advancing this project, one who could see things similarly enough, I was perhaps overly deferential to Bob’s editorial style and overlooked the fact that some of his phrasing belied the whole “vote with your feet and freedom from association” feature of the DNA Nation. It became controlling and authoritarian in tone, in some places, perhaps for some of Bob’s aforementioned politics.

While the geriatric army is a good idea, it should not be the requirement of all nations and all persons of the DNA Nations. It should correspond as a freely elected choice with commensurate compensation to incentivize it.

I’m afraid also that this second document is a bit LARPY, and as such, should not be permitted to obstruct progress in advancing the thesis of the first document, The Euro DNA Nation.

Posted by Cavalli-Sforza, man who cataloged humanity: RIP on Tue, 04 Sep 2018 08:51 | #

Medium, “The man who tried to catalog humanity”, 2 September 2018:

       

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza chased Darwin’s dream of a tree of humankind.

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, known simply as “Luca” to generations of human geneticists, died this week at age 96. More than any other human geneticist, Cavalli-Sforza believed in the potential of genes and culture together to trace humanity’s origins. In the course of his work, he pioneered new ideas and models that brought together these two distinct areas of science.
Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza at a meeting in 2010. Photo: Luca Giarelli CC-BY-SA 3.0

Like most scientists, many of his ideas would turn out to be wrong in the details. But his work helped form the foundation of our current knowledge of human genome variation across the world.

In 1991, Cavalli-Sforza wrote an essay for Scientific American that explained the course of his life’s work to that point. He recollected a time as a young man when he worked in the Cambridge laboratory of Ronald A. Fisher, one of the founders of modern evolutionary theory.

“I started thinking about a project so ambitious it seemed al­most crazy: the reconstruction of where human populations originated and the paths by which they spread through­out the world.”

From his start working with microbes this idea was quite a massive leap. But he chose a lucky moment to enter the field of human genetics. During the 1950s, the nascent field was starving for data on how human variation connected to inheritance. New approaches were about to provide such data, along with new opportunities to understand the evolution of recent populations.

Anthropologists understood human variation by looking at traits like the shape of the skull. Such traits could be examined with complicated math, but geneticists needed simpler systems to start to unlock how human genes might vary. Some of the earliest-known examples of Mendelian inheritance were genetic disorders, and while these were very important, they were also very rare, meaning that they could not be broadly informative about normal human variation.

But a handful of traits, many of them invisible variations like blood types, likewise showed a Mendelian inheritance pattern. Postwar geneticists developed ways to test people for these traits, making it feasible to sample distant populations, at first by typing blood or carrying out simple tests like the ability to taste the bitter chemical phenylthiocarbamide, and later with electrophoresis of proteins in the laboratory.

These variations became known as “classical markers”. All of them obeyed Mendel’s laws of inheritance, making it possible for geneticists to use mathematics to understand how their frequencies might change over time. Geneticists traveled to the four corners of the globe, gradually building maps of the frequencies of blood types and other classical markers. No one really knew how old the blood groups were, or how long ago the differences between human populations might have arisen. But they could see big differences: Some populations had almost no type B blood, for example, while other populations had quite a lot of it. Until the 1980s, classical markers would remain the state of the art evidence of human genetic variation.

Cavalli-Sforza first made his mark in his native Italy, traveling to villages in the Parma Valley to sample blood. He worked to understand how inbreeding within these small towns was connected to the slight differences in frequency of blood groups. With several coworkers, he scoured church records of marriages and births, tracing the times when people moved between villages as well as the number of children they had. Tracing these multiple lines of evidence, he could show that consanguineous marriages, or inbreeding, were the main drivers of genetic differences between these small towns. In doing so, he provided some of the earliest evidence that humans were still being affected by genetic drift, the random change in gene frequencies that happens in small populations.

Cavalli-Sforza realized that if genetic drift could explain the gene frequencies in small Italian towns, it might have affected humanity over a much deeper past. Genetic drift was a force that over long periods of time tended to drive populations slowly apart, inexorably diverging in gene frequencies. Applied to a group of populations over long periods of time, genetic drift would form a tree.

It was during this period that Cavalli-Sforza began collaborating with the statistical geneticist A. W. F. Edwards, developing ways to reconstruct evolutionary trees from gene frequencies. The statistical methods used measures of distance, computed from the frequencies of several genes across populations, and they generated a new picture of human origins.

From Cavalli-Sforza 1966, “Population structure and human evolution.”

Here, the branches of humanity came into focus. American Indians, Asians, and Oceanians on one broad branch, Europeans and Africans on the other.

The tree looks very different from our understanding today, which places African populations as the most diverse elements of humanity, not a minor twig. It is worth noting why Cavalli-Sforza’s early trees turned out to be wrong. Blood groups were first discovered and studied in people of European descent, meaning that African variation was not fully included by looking at the traits that vary in Europe. These five loci in particular include several that reflect natural selection, especially the Fy, or Duffy, locus, which approaches fixation in many sub-Saharan populations. Today, using whole genome sequences, it is clear that the deepest branches of human population trees are African.

But more important, the tree illustrates an enormous limitation of the classical markers. The frequencies of a few genes simply do not provide enough information to tell when and how much mixture may have happened among the populations. Cavalli-Sforza, drawing upon his work in the Parma Valley, and later work with Pygmies in central Africa, was willing to assume that migration and mixture were rare. In his model genetic drift, not gene flow, was the main force driving human evolution. Natural selection happened, too, but with patterns that might be recognized by comparing to the predictions of genetic drift alone.

The first principal component of genetic variation across Europe, from Cavalli-Sforza 1997 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci US.

A tree for visualizing genetic differences was a powerful tool. But Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards went a step further. They used an early computer to take the genetic differences between populations and transform them into principal components, which reflected the common correlations among the gene frequencies.

With this approach, they could not only show how gene frequencies changed on a map; they could now show how the common correlation of many gene frequencies changed. In Cavalli-Sforza’s vision, these maps provided a view of the historical forces that caused people to vary. A gradient across all the classical markers could show the possible pathways of movement and migration in the past. What the maps couldn’t show was how and why those movements had happened.

“The results of principal components analyses looked very good, but there was nothing to compare them with because the questions they helped to answer had never been asked”

He set out to find other sources of data that could make the genetic distances meaningful. With the archaeologist A. J. Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza turned his attention to the Neolithic. This was an epochal archaeological change: the time that agriculture first spread from the Near East into Europe, taking with it pottery and stone implements that were ground and polished rather than chipped and flaked into shape. If events of the past had been powerful enough to sculpt gene frequencies across Europe, it seemed that the Neolithic should have been the strongest of them all.

By the early 1970s, the radiocarbon revolution had taken hold across European archaeological sites. The earliest signs of Neolithic traditions in various regions of Europe, from Greece to Ireland, had been dated with the new method. And they formed a striking pattern: it appeared that the Neolithic had spread slowly, around one kilometer a year, from the southeast to the northwest.

     

For Cavalli-Sforza, this picture had a clear implication: No migrating horde of farmers had colonized Europe. Instead, farming spread as farming populations gradually increased in size, carrying their new way of life to the next small region or hamlet. This process seemed almost to ignore variations in environment such as forest or hills, it seemed to have been inexorable. It was not the mere diffusion of ideas, instead it was a diffusion of culture together with genes. It was, as Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza would name it, a process of demic diffusion.

“All evolutionary processes are basically similar, whichever the objects that evolve.”

Posted by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza RIP continued on Tue, 04 Sep 2018 11:47 | #

Ibid:

During the 1980s and 1990s, demic diffusion became the dominant model of demographic change for the Neolithic. The idea underlay Colin Renfrew’s influential theory that Indo-European languages also spread with the Neolithic into Europe, replacing earlier languages spoken by Mesolithic or earlier peoples. It appeared that the processes of culture change and dispersal could be linked to the growth and expansion of human groups, if only geneticists could fill in the gaps in their data. Cavalli-Sforza worked more and more to understand how cultural and biological changes were linked, establishing a long-lasting collaboration with Marc Feldman to examine how cultures evolve.

We know today from ancient DNA data that the details of this vision of the Neolithic were wrong. The expansion of agriculture was important, but it was not alone. Much later movements of people, some of them quite rapid, transformed the genetic makeup of European populations. Today it appears that Indo-European languages invaded Europe during the Bronze Age, and that early farmers were genetically most like today’s Sardinians, a linguistic isolate that Cavalli-Sforza knew well.

But those facts learned from ancient DNA have come to most geneticists as a surprise. The synthetic view promoted by Cavalli-Sforza was so compelling, linking economic, demographic, and genetic change, that it would take a new data revolution — still underway today — to overturn.

  . . .

During the 1980s, Cavalli-Sforza worked to synthesize the growing evidence base of human genetic variation around the world. He side-stepped the brouhaha over mitochondrial Eve, pointing out that while the new DNA sequence-based approaches could trace the history of a single gene with great accuracy, they were not yet capable of combining information from many genes. He went to work building trees that could summarize the relationships of entire populations, not just individuals.

In doing so, he struck upon a collaboration with a group of maverick linguists, who believed they could build a universal tree of human languages. The intellectual leader of these linguists was Joseph Greenberg. Greenberg eschewed the approach followed by most historical linguists to reconstruct language relationships. Where most other specialists tried to reconstruct a full history of sound changes and shared grammatical constructs, Greenberg instead took the much simpler approach of comparing common words. In his view, this approach would enable recognition of much deeper, more ancient relationships among languages — most controversially, he suggested that all Native American languages could be grouped into three large families instead of the dozens recognized by other linguists.

Greenberg’s colleague Merrit Ruhlen took this a step further, proposing that every language in the world might be placed into a single tree. This idea resonated with Cavalli-Sforza. If humans had really originated from a small population within the last hundred thousand years, they must all have divided from an ur-population that spoke a single language. Just as a tree of genes could link all populations, so could a tree of languages.

And if Cavalli-Sforza was right about cultural and genetic change, those trees of languages and genes would be the same tree. All that remained was to draw it.

The tree of genetics and languages. From Cavalli-Sforza 1991, Scientific American.

“It was exciting to discover that we had con­firmed a conjecture made by no less a pioneer than Charles Darwin…that if the tree of genetic evolution were known, it would enable scholars to pre­dict that of linguistic evolution.”

It was a remarkable vision. People who spoke similar languages did seem to be more genetically similar than those who came from different language families. Of course, there were many exceptions. Some of the apparent similarities between the genetic and language trees might, after all, just reflect the fact that genetically similar people tend to live nearby each other, and so also are more likely to borrow or adopt common languages. But then some of the differences between the trees also might reflect proximity: For example, the genetic similarity of north and south Indian people despite their different language families could reflect thousands of years of mixing between people with different origins.</br></br>

In short, language and genes don’t reflect identical histories. Each is influenced by its own evolutionary forces, and language experiences extensive horizontal transfer as people adopt new languages and change their old ones. But the connections are tantalizing. To pursue them, Cavalli-Sforza catalogued gene frequencies, building larger and larger synthetic maps. He wrote popular books and articles on the idea. Meanwhile, traditional linguists continued to dismiss the idea that they could ever discover a “mother tongue” for all humanity, and archaeologists divided about whether a truly comprehensive view of human migrations was even possible.

       

With Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza in 1994 he published his magnum opus, The History and Geography of Human Genes. This book — as thick as the Boston phone directory! — included an enormous number of charts and pages of raw data on gene frequencies. It was meant to serve not only as a summary of the state of the field but also as a sourcebook for further research. It was not completely successful in its aims; by the mid-1990s the entire field of human genetics was rapidly moving on from classical markers to microsatellites and DNA sequence data. Meanwhile, the internet made it possible to share data online, meaning that a monograph with tables of gene frequencies was no longer a boon for new research. Nonetheless, that book served as a major statement of one era of human genetics, and most scientists in the field in the mid-1990s saw it as an essential source.

I first met Cavalli-Sforza at a symposium on human evolution that he organized at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 1997. Then, he was already 75 years old, a formidable white-haired figure who completely dominated his surroundings. The world was changing — at that meeting, I saw for the first time a demonstration of microarray data for genotyping dozens of loci in parallel. But Cavalli-Sforza was still at the center of the field, his lab and collaborators at the forefront of applying new technologies.

At the time, he was still building support for his initiative to sample the genetics of small indigenous populations around the world. The “Human Genome Diversity Project”, conceived at Stanford during the early 1990s, aimed to collect genetic samples from more than a thousand people from small-scale societies around the world. Scientists would use a new technique to transform these samples into immortal cell lines, which would then be distributed to laboratories for research.

Cavalli-Sforza and others saw the HGDP as a necessary corrective for the Human Genome Project, which at the time was spending some 2.7 billion dollars to develop a first draft of the sequences of all 23 pairs of human chromosomes. The Human Genome Project did encompass a sprinkling of variation — with individuals of European, African, and Asian ancestry examined by various laboratories, the resulting genome draft would be a demographic mosaic of the powerful nations where most genetic labs were located. But this scheme left out hundreds of populations around the world who represented the breadth of human diversity. Cavalli-Sforza and other project leaders wanted to sample linguistic isolates, hoping to capture their unique genetic variation before their children or grandchildren merged into the larger populations of nation-states.

Many other scientists saw the HGDP as a boondoggle, or worse as a threat to mine the DNA of indigenous people for medically valuable — and potentially patentable — traits. Funders who were initially receptive to the idea decided during the 1990s that they could not support it after all. The National Institutes of Health would move toward a broader sampling of variation, first in the International HapMap and later in the 1000 Genomes Project, but it focused on the largest populations in nation-states around the world, not small-scale societies.

Yet, the HGDP trundled on, with collaborators around the world contributing samples and cell lines. The Centre d’Etude du Polymorphisme Humain-Fondation Jean Dausset (CEPH) in Paris stepped forward to maintain and distribute the cell lines to researchers, and ultimately hundreds of laboratories would apply the data to problems of human origins and diversity.

Tree of population relationships based on HGDP-CEPH panel data, from Li et al., 2008, Science.

As they did so, those laboratories would rely upon Cavalli-Sforza’s basic analytical approaches. They built trees of relationship among the populations — this time, correctly placing African populations near the base of the tree, and all non-African populations on a single, fairly recent branch reflecting their common history. They computed principal components from the gene frequency data, yielding a picture of how humans varied across space for hundreds of thousands of genetic markers. The tight correlation between genetic variation and geography would repeatedly be marked, a consequence of genetic drift, selection and migration among past human populations.

Many new approaches to examine DNA variation had emerged through the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, making the classical markers a thing of the past. But remarkably, nobody improved much upon the basic analytical approaches introduced by Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards until the advent of genome-scale data in the early 2000s.

The past fifteen years have seen rapid methodological development, a resurgence of population genetic theory, and with it new ways of understanding human evolution. New statistical approaches like STRUCTURE and D4 statistics enabled geneticists to finally progress beyond the binary trees where populations could only branch away from each other, to consider reticulation and links among the branches. Into the last decade, Cavalli-Sforza remained conversant with these new approaches, sometimes pointing out that what might seem to be improvement instead could be a dead end. In a 2011 interview, he noted his admiration of Jonathan Pritchard’s STRUCTURE approach, while thinking ahead toward a vision of leveraging genetic information to improve human health. At the same time, he prickled at upstarts like John Novembre, who had started to pick away at weaknesses of the venerable principal components approach.

I was especially struck with a comment that showed Cavalli-Sforza was thinking about my own work, and that of many others, that had begun to demonstrate the scope of human evolution in the recent past.

“I am especially interested by one issue: It is possible, maybe even likely, that an important fraction of the genetic medical variation that we find in our species arose in the last 10,000 years. Such variation/adaptation may be the result of the intense cultural development that led to agropastoral economies, a lifestyle that introduced major differences in the lives of large sections of humanity in almost every part of the world.”

In my early career, I found myself disliking Cavalli-Sforza much of the time. His pronouncements about human origins overstretched the bounds of the simple statistical models and data that were available. He seemed to brush aside objections, rather than engage with them. He dismissed as meddling politics what seemed to be reasonable objections to the HGDP.

Today I see more clearly how human genetics in the 1990s was at a crossroads, needing badly to include evolution in its models of variation and change, but still unable to grapple with the traits and observations that obsessed anthropologists. Rereading his work, I see how perspicacious Cavalli-Sforza could be, not only about where advances were to be made, but also about where the methods fell short.

Many geneticists today are building upon this foundation — putting together datasets of past and present variation, finding more and more resolved trees, reaching out for connections with archaeology. A few even want to replicate his work at genome-scale, dreaming of an “atlas” of human genome variation.

It is a monumental task, and as Cavalli-Sforza’s massive book poignantly shows, likely obsolete the moment it is published. What matters is not the monumental tome, but the methods, and the ideas of connecting different forms of evidence about the human past, to understand where we came from and how we are connected together. It is a worthy legacy.

by John Hawks, Paleoanthropologist. I study human evolution and work to understand the fossil and genetic evidence of our hominin ancestors.

More reading:

Cavalli-Sforza was a prolific public writer and popularizer, and several of his books are accessible to laypeople. Now more than 20 years old, most of his books no longer reflect today’s state-of-the-art. But they do give a rich account of the history of human geneticists’ attempts to build the picture of human origins using our genes. I especially recommend Genes, Peoples, and Languages, and The Great Human Diasporas, written with his son Francesco.

An abstract of this work was published by Scientific American in 1991, titled “Genes, Peoples, and Languages,” and is the source of the gene-language tree I’ve excerpted above.

I highly recommend the 2010 interview between Cavalli-Sforza and Franz Manni, published in Human Biology, “Interview with Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza: Past Research and Directions for Future”.

A. W. F. Edwards published (‘09) a remarkable remembrance of the origins of his statistical work with Cavalli-Sforza, “Statistical methods for evolutionary trees,” includes personal stories of his collaboration and encounters with Motoo Kimura.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Sep 2018 14:32 | #

Daniel: I still think that’s a good suggestion, and if anyone thinks its perverse, it is a hell of a lot less perverse than sending 17 year olds up as canon fodder, who have their whole life and reproductive years ahead of them.

Young men fight because they are the most able and easily enculturated in a military tradition.  Beyond that, they are motivated to fight because they have their “whole life and reproductive years ahead of them.”

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:06 | #

The idea does not preclude military service for the young, it only proposes the option for geriatric service. I’ve explained why this can have its advantages (e.g., older people having less to lose). WWS wrote it as if it were compulsory for all nations. I hadn’t looked at the document for a while and would have corrected that sooner had I noticed.

Posted by mancinblack on Tue, 04 Sep 2018 16:31 | #

@4 Yes, but we could save a fortune on the defence budget. It doesn’t cost much to sharpen the ends of walking sticks and they could hurl hearing aid batteries and colostomy bag bombs at the enemy. Where the aged could really excel, though, is in intelligence and interrogation techniques..

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

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Sep 2018 17:26 | #

Ah colostomy bag bomb, turning anti-fa techniques against them.

I’d like say its a creative reading into the idea, but both of you are actually lacking in positive imagination as to the suggestion and a bit rigid about requirements and expectations of older volunteers, requirements that they may not be able to meet.

Let’s say a state provided an option. At age, say, 63, you could serve two years - in some capacity that you could physically handle, of course. You would be at increased risk but for a good cause. Nevertheless, you’d probably survive, say with an additional two hundred grand - half to go to your children or grandchildren etc, and half to increase your enjoyment of the next few years.

I could go for such an option when I reach those ages; its for a good cause and its monetarily incentivized.

Service could also reward with surrogacy, both for younger and older recruits who’d like to have children.

Furthermore, in original conception, the idea was based on Germanic border communities, which were like military camps.

There, younger people could do two years service as well, being mentored at the same time by the older volunteers.

There is the novel proposal that the older people be required to take on some riskier missions where possible; but again, because they already have most of their living under their belt and have hopefully succeeded in having children.

However, I must repeat, that I meant this geriatric service as an option; and now that I see it as WWS had written it (as compulsory) and not as I was considering it, as an incentivized option, I can kind of see how some people would have reacted strongly and negatively.

Nevertheless, geriatric service could take what is a drawback to our demographics, our advancing age, and turn it into a positive asset, weaponizing the “less to lose” aspect.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Sep 2018 21:38 | #

Many, many years ago my oldest friend told me of a comic novel he was reading - the title I forgot long ago - about the land of Nihil.  Aside from it being funny enough for him to retail several episodes from it, the only thing I remember now was the Nihilist practise of sending geriatrics to the front line of whatever war the state had accidentally got itself caught up in lately.  In Nihil, you see, nobody cared enough about anything to actually fight for it and, certainly, nobody cared enough to value military effectiveness or honour, or even victory.  So the elderly and infirm were unleashed to charge the enemy, waving their walking stocks angrily and doing their best not to keel over from shortness of breath before they reached the enemy lines.

Perhaps a kinder but wry comment on the old at war was the Powell and Pressburger 1943 romantic drama, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, with Roger Livesey in the starring role and Deborah Kerr as his elusive muse.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Sep 2018 22:23 | #

In Nihil, you see, nobody cared enough about anything to actually fight for it and, certainly, nobody cared enough to value military effectiveness or honour, or even victory.  So the elderly and infirm were unleashed to charge the enemy, waving their walking stocks angrily and doing their best not to keel over from shortness of breath before they reached the enemy lines.

Again, if you are talking about conventional warfare and all tasks therein, it might be ‘uncaring’ to send hobbled old people with walking sticks and so on…

But I specified that they might perform tasks that they are up to, if they are still in fair enough condition. Furthermore, who is to say they’d be less caring? Maybe the young would be less caring because they don’t understand what they’re dying for - courage requires understanding; and again, maybe the older being less caring about their lives, most of it behind them, would be an asset.

Perhaps the problem with Bob’s version, in addition to his having rendered geriatric service obligatory (which I’ve now corrected for anyone to read or hear), is that he omitted the idea that there could be corresponding service for the young, in which they’d be mentored by the older folks.

But the bottom line is that it could be option for some states to incentivize service for old folks to perform tasks that they are still physically capable of performing.

If your state doesn’t want to have this option, well, that’d be your state’s prerogative.

I think you’ve lost enough young men who could have been fathers to great Englishmen - as I recall, the entire Cambridge class of 1921 was slaughtered in the trenches.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 04 Sep 2018 23:05 | #

Geriatrics to the front line and spergs to the gas chamber.  GW and Daniel are not long for this world.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Sep 2018 23:22 | #

CC, be of some use and make some sandwiches for us.

Posted by White flight: Voting with your feet Chicago style. on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 00:14 | #

Posted by Matt Parrott on Mon, 10 Sep 2018 00:18 | #

Will this process allow for a variety of genetic exclusions, or only along broad racial categories?

I would really like to figure out what’s wrong with Daniel’s chromosomes, then exclude any carriers of those genes from my own DNA Nation.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 10 Sep 2018 01:05 | #

Why did you decide to record Heimbach fucking your wife?  Was it for purposes of blackmail or did you plan on wacking off to it later?

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 10 Sep 2018 07:02 | #

Posted by Matt Parrott on Mon, 10 Sep 2018 01:18 | #

Will this process allow for a variety of genetic exclusions, or only along broad racial categories?

I would really like to figure out what’s wrong with Daniel’s chromosomes, then exclude any carriers of those genes from my own DNA Nation.

Matt, the general plan is that you should be able to match well enough and identify with a particular community; which should be able to exclude me from its particular civic membership and its particular shared resource.

Posted by Matt Parrott on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:37 | #

Captain Chaos,

If anybody would take the time to actually review the publicly available source materials, they would read that I had not been recording, was not involved in the “sting,” and had simply wandered out of the home to figure out where my alcoholic wife was. I briefly stood on a plastic tote, only gaining a short glimpse of what was going on. There was no plotting or voyeurism on my part, and there wasn’t actually any surprise, either. There’s no way to manage drunken retards while retaining any dignity, and my life is now refreshingly free of drunken retards.

Additionally, nobody entered “White Nationalist” as their profession on the police reports. I didn’t even write mine, as my hand was broken.

For the life of me, I don’t get why the official story needs these embellishments.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 16:16 | #

Sortocracy’s original intent—going back to the ‘90s when DNA testing was first making its way into public consciousness—was to accommodate deeply rooted, blood-and-soil Ecclesia.  Its offer to accommodate “social theories” of any kind—including those valuing deeply rooted, blood-and-soil—recognizes differences in beliefs about society while exposing, in their opposition, those who are implacable enemies that must be treated as forces of Nature:  “Can’t keep your hands off us?”  Extending that offer to those with unreasonable beliefs (We’ll keep our hands off you, but we’re going to continue to practice social theories as promulgated in “XYZ Studies”.)—taking the form of their respective Ecclesiastical Law—is moderated by their relative inability to support population on equally valued land.  The divisive character of Sortocracy is moderated by the fact that area goes up as the square of perimeter of territory.  Economic optimization of border enforcement encourages “social theories” that find the widest consent, taking into consideration the competence to defend borders by those so-consenting.  Territorial allocation starts with market-based territorial allocation between Ecclesia.  The monetary base for this market is purely land-based, allocated by census, and collected as land-rent. This accommodates, without violence, deeply rooted, blood-and-soil Ecclesia while teaching those with unreasonable beliefs, their errors.  This could heal far more of the European-derived peoples, now suffering from extended phenotypic parasitic castration, than any other proposal set forth.  Vague claims about how one would go about this public health measure just don’t cut it.

While waiting for a response from Curt Doolittle on his operationalized philosophy of state, I’m using the conceit of “preparedness” to establish a prototype county currency with military veterans and young men from “military families” as described in the 9 operational rules for the Berkana Ecclesium in my challenge to Doolittle.  One thing military veterans who have served in the post-9/11/2001 wars:

When polity collapses, the default is rule by the warlord that can form the most powerful gang.

One key to that preparedness is registration of property rights as the backing for the local (county) currency, market-based assessment and taxation, the revenue of which goes straight out, evenly, to those placing their flesh-blood-and-bone between chaos and civil society.  That this bypasses the “deliberative bodies” of civil society is a necessary condition of preparedness, as those bodies are the very ones responsible for the collapse of polity.  The deliberative bodies may then be reconstituted, subordinate to this foundation of flesh-blood-and-bone-as-monetary-authority.  When they Declare War,

Not only will a warlord have a hard time offering a better deal, he will be called out to Nature before he can establish his gang to offer individuals “a deal they can’t refuse” within the proto-polity.  This kind of system will not work with lesser races—races that rely on nascent sterile worker caste slaves to fight the wars of the elites.

When people get out from behind their pseudonyms, not only online, but in face-to-face confrontations with young Marines with whom they may one day have to resolve personal disputes in the absence of polity, and talk with them about how those disputes may best be resolved—in the context of their ground-truth knowledge about warlords—they may be able to make progress.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 16:29 | #

rom: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Multiethnic Separatism
Date: 1997/06/10
Message-ID: <jaboweryEBKvMH.Gn0@netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 247530120
Sender: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
References: <865838837.22646@dejanews.com> <19970610133100.JAA29941@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.religion.asatru,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.native,soc.culture.african.american,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.conspiracy,seattle.general,aus.politics,talk.politics.misc,soc.men,alt.revolution.counter

I’d rather have people openly hate me than have people smile and love me
while they destroy my society, my community, my family and therefore my life.

Those who want to end “racism” by doing whatever it takes to make everyone
ignore phenotypes because “we all know genes just don’t matter all that
much” will get everything that’s coming to them.  I’m sure they believe
in the same liberal paradise that I was raised to believe in as a
midwestern boomer with tv and academia supplanting local folk teachings.

But with age, learning and thought, I have come to reject that vision as a
confidence game—albiet an unconscious one—despite the fact that it
opens me to be called the modern equivalents of “satanic”, ie: “Nazi” and
“racist” by the New Inquisition.  I no longer believe in Martin Luther
King’s dream because it is based on a fundmentally flawed idea—and
that is the idea that genes just don’t matter all that much.  On the
contrary, genes do matter—genes matter a lot more than middle American
boomers were raised to believe.

The question then becomes, how will people who believe as I do get
everything that is coming to us as well?

Those of you who still believe in MLK’s dream—please let those like
myself remove ourselves from your paradise with a guarantee of
noninterference from your governments.  We will we allow you to erect
barbed-wire fences and guard dogs to keep us out of your paradise—cut
off all communication so our pernicious, satanic, immoral, xenophobic,
racist, antisemitic, primitive, neonazi, supremacist, propaganda can’t
contaminate your vulnerable youth—and meet any boarder crossing with
death to the trespassers.  Of course, this cut off of communication and
migration goes both ways.

We’d even accept any nationality, creed, race and religion (Orthodox
Hasidic and other “reactionary” Jews already have Israel so they need not
be included) so long as they agree to the basic idea that genes are a
primary social organizing principle and that sovereignty must reside with
genetic identity.  We’d have to subdivide the “turf” according to such
principles—without outside help or interference.

Can you we-are-the-worlders imagine the hilarious scene of neoNazis,
KKKers, Christian Identity types, folkish Asatru and other white devils
being fenced off in some place like the old Confederacy states with the
Nation of Islam, Native American separatists and other “racist” mud
peoples to work out our problems with each other absolutely bereft of the
traditional guidance of Jews, without which, of course, JudeoChristian
Western Civilization would not have been possible?

Oh, I know, many of you are more compassionate than to allow us to do such
damage to ourselves—you are _so generous_ that you would forego the
enormous knee-slapping black-comedy that would result when we found all we
could do was kill each other because guys with last names like “Wiseman”
and “Goodman” weren’t around dispensing their wisdom and goodness into
every home via state schooling and television.  But, then I have to say, I
honestly believe a growing number of we crazies are getting so out of hand
that not only might we fail to appreciate the greatness of such generosity
—we might hallucinate that it was actually the desparation of a
parasitic culture in the same old paternalistic guise—and we might get
violent or something.  Then not only would we hurt ourselves, but we might
hurt you as well… So maybe it would be best to just sit back, have a
good laugh and let the world learn a lesson in humility at our voluntary
expense.

To maximize the humor content, you’d have to make sure all we barbarians,
primitive tribalists and other losers had all the rope we needed to hang
ourselves, but good, for all the world to see—otherwise they might
think there hadn’t been a fair test of the idea of genetic social
organization.  Furthermore the real purpose, which is to demonstrate the
natural mastery and wisdom of the Chosen People, might not be achieved.

I mean, after all, haven’t all countries who excluded Jews eventually
begged for them to come in and help them achieve the same prosperity
achieved by their non-exclusionary neighbors?

                SO LET MY PEOPLE GO

—
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
            Change the tools and you change the rules.

Posted by Greg Johnson's Bogus Claim on Sat, 22 Sep 2018 09:13 | #

Greg Johnson discusses his new book, “The White Nationalist Manifesto” with J.F. Gariepy.

I can recommend it only with caveat.

While he does lay out the case for Whites being genocided and recognizes the necessity for raising the perceived legitimacy and consciousness of the need for White Nationalism, he does not see the contradiction in his using social constructionism as an example of social theory antagonistic to that consciousness and practice.

He calls race being a social construct “an entirely bogus idea.” ...This is an expression of his middling (138) I.Q. He’s only smart enough to talk himself out of the eminent utility and truth of the concept.

Social Constructionism (proper) does not say that race, evolution and biological distinctions are not real.  What it does, rather, is sensitize our attention to our social connection, indebtedness - which is true (not bogus) - consciousness of which provides for some agency and accountability (coherence and warrant too), at very least in determining how these things come to count.

You would not want to oppose this sensitization to social conscientiousness, agency and accountability (coherence and warrant) if you are looking to build consciousness and conscientiousness of White Nationalism.

Similarly, you would not want to be arguing against THE Left, as he does, given its general enculturation of union type organization, loyalty and compassion to the full group, including those on the margins, full group advocacy against elite and rank and file betrayal, if you want to raise consciousness and loyal adherents to White Nationalism.

Greg Johnson. Typical Right Winger ...with a lisp and a better than average I.Q. which is good, but maybe not good enough.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 22 Sep 2018 19:19 | #

I used to tell a story from time to time which I originally discovered in a book on Christian intellectualism a very long time ago.  It is about a mad and disastrous rail journey to the Pacific Ocean, maybe on the Colorado Mountain Railway sometime around 1890 or so.  Anyway, in this story the passengers (among whom, of course, is the central figure - just an ordinary traveller) begin to notice that the train is picking up a lot of speed.  In short order it is careering down a steep gradient, twisting and turning with the towering rock-face beside the track, sometimes leaning precariously over to the void on the other side.  The passengers are soon lost to fear, the women screaming and holding their children as tight as they can.  Some of their menfolk are desperately wrestling with the carriage brake-wheel.  But nothing slows the beast down.

Our hero remembers that the conductor had passed through the carriage, going forward, not ten minutes earlier, and sets off to find him.  He struggles all the way to the front carriage, but sees no one.  He fights back his fear and determines to negotiate the running plate at the side of the coal wagon to get into the engine cabin.  When, finally, he gets there he finds it completely, horrifyingly empty.  He is quite alone, and then, as he peers breathlessly through the engineer’s window towards the track ahead he encounters the full horror of the situation.  Not only has the engine no engineer but there is no track out in front of it.  There is nothing but virgin ground.  The mad machine is blindly, violently slamming down the sleepers and rails as it goes.

Our ordinary waking consciousness, with its habitual and cognitively debilitating tendency to immersion in whatever objects appear before us and take our attention, is not obviously successful at discrimination for truth.  We are all of us ordinarily enworlded in, at best, a shadowed “reality”.  This is our condition, and it’s nothing new, of course.  But I really don’t think I would call it a construction.  There is too much mechanicity, too much that is accidental about its arising, and too much tendency for us to be constructs of it, in so much as the personality is derived from that external realm (which is where the story comes in).

Our saving grace is the power of instinct which, regardless of everything else, manages to identify and select evolutionarily adaptive behaviourial choices over maladaptive choices sufficiently frequently for the ethny to advance in fitness.  Turning to what is requires turning to who is, for only that way does the mad machine acquire an engineer.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Sep 2018 19:42 | #

But I really don’t think I would call it a construction.

You wouldn’t call it a construction, perhaps, but I would and others would for very good reason - again, as it sensitizes us to our agency, capacity for coherence, accountability and warrant, at least in regard to how given facts come to count. In some cases, we do more literally construct things and ourselves.

There is too much mechanicity,

The mechanicity of the word construct does a favor to our consciousness precisely for its awkward fit to nature, in provoking attention to the agentive along with the social participatory aspect.

too much that is accidental about its arising, and too much tendency for us to be constructs of it,

Again, at very least, how facts come to count can, and I would say would do well, to be looked upon as social construct for reasons already belabored.

in so much as the personality is derived from that external realm (which is where the story comes in).

Well, you are simply ignoring what I’m saying.

Our saving grace is the power of instinct which, regardless of everything else, manages to identify and select evolutionarily adaptive behaviourial choices over maladaptive choices sufficiently frequently for the ethny to advance in fitness.

You can hope so, but I see a lot of tragic race mixing, and a lot people’s “instincts” making bad choices as far as our race’s interests are concerned… our race in general hasn’t been doing all that well on the basis of instinct unaided by (proper, White) post modern thought.

Turning to what is requires turning to who is, for only that way does the mad machine acquire an engineer.

I take your comment as your usual wish to dismiss and trivialize these important concepts in favor of some kind of pure mind stuff.

If we are to have engineers for this runaway train, they’d better be equipped with better ideas than that and not dismiss better ideas because they cannot get past the Jewish distortion and misrepresentation of these terms and concepts to us.

Posted by No place to go to escape ZOG on Sun, 23 Sep 2018 08:54 | #

Renegade Tribune, “There Is No Running From ZOG’s White Genocide Agenda”, 22 Sept 2018:

Originally entitled “Sitrep Northwest Front”
By Eric Thomson (2000)

White Flight is occurring all over the North American continent, usually from cities to suburbs within commuting distance of available jobs. Americans have a long history of preferring flight to fight, trading space for a modicum of peace, no matter how temporary or illusory. Likewise do Whites have a dismal history of preferring to fight FOR the ZOG in foreign wars, rather than fighting the ZOG where they live, in defence of their homes and families. There are two things we must bear in mind as we flit hither and thither in pursuit of jobs and in flight from the fast-encroaching muds: (1) We are running out of space, and (2) We are running out of time.

There is no “Shangri La”, unless we make one for ourselves. The longer we delay, the harder it will be to establish any sort of White communities on this continent. The general rule is that those who flee will not fight, and if they will not fight, the muds will simply crowd them out again. One can flee the muds as often as he can, but one cannot escape from the ZOG. Most Whites labor for zogbucks. As long as we worship the ZOG’s money, its manacles will remain our sign of servitude to our racial enemies. There is only one way to deal with the ZOG, and that is to destroy [...] The ZOG is to our race as cancer is to the individual.

I knew Ostensible Whites in Africa who were brain-dead Birchers and kooky Christians. They fled North America because of “communism” and sought sanctuary in Rhodesia and South Africa. I wonder where they are now. I knew similar blightwing types in Mexico who invested their “hot money” accrued from tax evasion into Mexican properties and enterprises, only to lose them to the mestizo bandidos through seizure or intermarriage. Stupid Gringos have recently lost their retirement homes to Mexicans who waited to apply their ‘law’ until the homes were completed! Whites have forgotten that there is only one law: might, against which ‘rights’ on paper are laughable. Nothing is ‘yours’ unless you have the power, the deadly power, to defend it from those who would simply take it from you.

From time to time I receive propaganda in regard to “The Northwest Imperative” or “The Great White Hopeland”. One of the originators of this propaganda has gone out of business and the other has come and gone from his touted “homeland”. It is remarkable that the foremost proponents of this racial relocation scheme have abandoned the policy they wish others to follow. This is classic “do as I say, not as I do” behavior. But what can we expect of the blightwing, anyway?

I came to the state of Washington on a tip from a correspondent, that I could find an all-year job. The tip proved false, so I was unemployed for six months and was exactly one week away from losing my room, and being turfed out on the street with my suitcases and my typewriter. By that time I had made some effective acquaintances, one of whom tipped me off that a parking lot attendant’s job was open at a local shopping mall. I jumped in and got the minimum-wage job. My coworkers were agog to think that they were associating with “a Congo mercenary”, who was a “multi-lingual professor”. They had obviously exaggerated what they had heard from my employment application form. I gave up trying to correct their erroneous impressions, which were much more exciting than the truth. Thus was I able to keep myself supplied with the bare essentials of food and shelter. The clothing I brought with me.

Whatever the jewsmedia have to say about the “tight labor market”, jobs are scarce. None of the jobs I have obtained were ever advertised in the want ads. Those that were appeared to be pro forma requirements, with the applicant already being chosen. On every job application was the racial quota form, in accordance with ZOG requirements for non-White hiring, regardless of qualifications. As a White man, my age, race and sex were already against me. Had I been crippled or were I burdening society with my dependents, then I would be qualified to live off the tax-payers, but I did not fall into that privileged category, either. As winter approached, I was faced with the choice of hunger, cold and eventual death. I therefore resolved to have one last good meal, load my haversack with rocks and break the windows of the local “People for People” office. That way, I could solve my food and shelter problems by going to jail. As a jail inmate, I would receive access to social rehabilitation programs. Were I an illegal alien, I would qualify for free medical care!

My ‘ace in the hole’ has always been my ability to take menial, hard-labor jobs which most n****** avoid. Not so in mestizo America. All such jobs are monopolized by mestizos, usually Mexicans. Whenever I see a Mexican (“Messican” is more apt, for they make messes whenever they can) driving a piece of farm equipment, I wonder about “cheap labor”. Even if his wages were low (they are not!) the cost to the tax-payers of sustaining his dependents is exceedingly high. Not only are Mexicans dominating the agribusiness jobs, but they are likewise swarming into business and government administrative positions, where they can hire more of their own and appropriate more tax-money for their kind. It’s The Invasion of the Cockroach People! One mestiza bandida shovelled out so many food stamps to her species that the local welfare office requested she leave to avoid prosecution. As it was, the jewspapers reported “great discrepancies” in the area’s food stamp program. Así es la vida.

The villains of this piece are the race-traitor, Ostensible White growers, who hire mestizos in preference to others. In addition, the mestizo invaders usually prevent others from remaining on jobs which “belong to them”, as I have learned from their White victims. One of my informants says that these growers are fanatical JUDEO-Christians, who declare their “god-given rights” to pollute the country chemically and demographically.

In Central Washington, the jews and the Freemasons are herding the last few Whites to their extinction, while the jews and Jesuits, along with their Marxist mestizo leaders, herd their mongrel Goyim into the green pastures of the stupid Gringos. Central Washington is becoming Mexico and Western Washington is becoming a combination of Hong Kong, Seoul, Manila and Bombay…

[...]

One further point which the proponents of The Northwestern Imperative overlook is the huge Chinese population in British Columbia, just over the invisible ZOG-line drawn on maps so as to distinguish Soviet Canuckistan from the Jew-Ass-Eh. This population has established its colony in B.C. as well as Seattle, and it is rapidly enlarging with the influx of new Asian invaders. If this demographic situation is not drastically changed, the entire west coast of North America will be populated and dominated by the Chinese.

As long as the ZOG exists, the racial situation in North America will worsen, rapidly and drastically. The fate of the ZOG rests in our hands, Whitey….. Only anti-ZOG action, on all fronts, can do that! Down with the ZOG!

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Sep 2018 09:45 | #

Daniel, who or what is the constructor?  Have you ever pondered that, free of the answers provided by unoriginal academics?  You can’t have done, or you would know that in this respect the cognitive machinery of the brain functions as a primary process, quite without the agency of a thinking subject; and no collective of the latter ... race-loyal white men, say, ... can intervene and engineer the process by top-down “rules” or some such.  I might say, “Be realistic!”, if you must have a rule; but as to Being in the real, that isn’t got that way.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:20 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Sep 2018 04:45 | #

Daniel, who or what is the constructor?

We interlocutors are the constructors, you, I and others in conjoint construction.

Have you ever pondered that, free of the answers provided by unoriginal academics?

Obviously I have pondered it, weighed it against my experience and in consideration of what works and what doesn’t.

Your attribution of “unoriginality” to academics that I refer to is more than dubious, especially when you’ve called Carolyn (“now what would Hitler say?”) Yeager, an original thinker.

You can’t have done,

I have done. It is your intransigent hyper competitiveness and wish to maintain yourself as the lone superhero against academic perfidy that has you making this false accusation.

or you would know that in this respect the cognitive machinery of the brain functions as a primary process, quite without the agency of a thinking subject; and no collective of the latter

There is instinct and facts of inborn neural circuitry and so on, but maybe, just maybe, you will finally get it into yours that before and after the factual instance there is the capacity to determine how things count.

In the example of the runaway train, the engineer, or impromptu engineer in the emergency, is still better prepared if he anticipated this scenario with others and thought about how he might respond in such a situation. But especially after the fact, there are a myriad of ways that the event can be deemed to count, from the absurd to the more cut and dried.

... race-loyal white men, say, ... can intervene and engineer the process by top-down “rules” or some such.

This is straw man. Typical. Trying to impose cliches of ‘the left’ as trying to impose concepts on nature. Rather than acknowledge what I actually say, which always takes into account our biology, while also paying attention to misdirecting, reinforcing or fostering social rules.

I might say, “Be realistic!”, if you must have a rule; but as to Being in the real, that isn’t got that way.

It is your imagination that I am not realistic. You say that to try to pigeonhole me and what I say into your habituated autobiography as the hero against (stereotypes of) ‘the left’ and academic pomposity.

I know that you are not going to make the adjustment from the puerile reaction that once brought the agency of your autobiography into high relief… so thrilling that you are now locked in, to where you must make a nuisance of yourself, an egregious obstruction as you attack even good and important ideas.

You can’t stop competing, even where you should be cooperating. Maybe you should view some of the videos on ‘narcissistic personality disorder.’ ...but you need help. I can’t change you from your incessant antagonism and reliance on straw men in order to set up your role play. Recognizing that, I am resigned that all I can do is try to work around you.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 23 Sep 2018 12:11 | #

“the brain functions…quite without the agency of a thinking subject”

Hmm.  If this is categorically true one wonders if GW put as much thought into what he was typing as he would think about, say, picking his nose.

Of course the sheep need to be told how to march, and in what direction, by those that actually can and do think.  This learning process on the part of the sheep is known as “enculturation.”  The thinking has already been done for them and comes prepackaged.  We call this “propaganda.” 

Perhaps Daniel would have an easier time explaining such things if he would be willing to give up the sperg-speak.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 21:35 | #

Daniel, can you give a simple, concrete example of what your hermeneutics IN ACTUAL PRACTICE would look like?

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 27 Sep 2018 05:40 | #

A James Bowery says, ‘with a scientific, sheer empirical take, that is to say, given the chance to hold an experiment of referendum, people could vote with their feet and resolve territorial disputes.’

The hermeneuticist says, hold on a moment, that may not end disputes and even if it does, it may not resolve them with justice the way that hermeneutic reframing can by taking the historical perspective into account.

Frankfurt, Germany may be minority German now, and the people there now might even vote to keep it that way, but that is not right and not justice. The broader German public and Germans of more hisitorical wisdom and power could take measures to keep the city German.

The word practicality is a bit tricky here, as it can be “practical” in that situation to just let the city go to the Muslims or whomever, but there is a meta-practicality in the capacity of hermeneutics to re-frame events with facility and avail hermeneuticisicts of sufficient data - beyond what may be acknowledged by the disingenuous - in order to resolve issues despite their merely pragmatic convenience, rather in historical coherence and truer justice.

Bowery might rebut,  ...“but referendum would have resolved ‘the Polish Corridor issue’ and averted World War II.”

Not necessarily, not even if the Allies capitulated to Hitler’s demands as they did in the Sudetanland.

It is complicated in the example of how the Versailles Treaty resolved issues taking history into account as opposed to allowing decisions to be made on a sheer referendum of who lived in some places then, but that would take a while to unfold. “The Versailles Treaty thought Danzig should have been a free city? it was full of Germans (then) and the people voted to be part of Germany! Look how your hermenetucis worked out there! or in The Sudetenland, Posen, Bromberg, Thorn!”....

While there were legitimate historical and logistical practicalities as to why Versailles set the borders as it did, still more hermeneutic factors might have had to have been taken into account - how to neutralize Hitler’s autobiography as Friedrich the Great imperialist 2.0, ‘never mind anyway that he stole certain places from Poland over a hundred years ago when push comes to shove.’ ..‘never mind that Thorn and Bromberg would form impractical salients into Polish territory, that Poznan was a foundational city of Poland, that Danzig was also a Polish city and a neutral city at times in history ..or that Czech populations may have been destroyed in the 30 Years War.. and that their most vital national resources are in the Sudetanland.’ .... never mind, the WN of America want their bed time stories of how Hitler was perfectly justified ...though his take on matters did not exactly work out well either.

But again, it works both ways - it doesn’t only lessen the warrant of Germans occupying cities in “the Polish corridor” or the Sudetanland, between the world wars. It increases the warrant of Germans against would-be migrant interlopers to places like Frankfurt now.

There are many other examples of practicalities to hermeneutics - for example in how it can help to overcome paradoxes, dilemmas, contradictions and confusion. Rom Harre provides a list of strategies to overcome these sorts of problems in the article I posted called, “Contradiction in Lived and Told Narratives.”

That’s a shorter, simpler answer as you requested. I have a longer, sperg version ready to hand and in store for you.

..bear in mind that Heidegger does characterize hermeneutics as a circular process and as such, it allows for more empirical verification as to what is the case, and what is necessary in the moment and episode..

I will go into that when I start sperging.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:47 | #

CC,

Maybe a dozen years ago on these threads I reacted to criticism from Alex Linder by telling him that I am probably the most revolutionary poster here.  Your comment @ 25 is along the same lines as Alex’s, assuming as it does that, short of a terrible and costly war, the child of Christianity and liberalism, modernity and techne, and the rest of the Abrahamic baggage which weights us down, can be converted ex cathedra into a genuine, loving nationalist in perpetuity.  I have never thought that to be true.  It is the stuff of a Billy Graham Crusade.  It sorely underestimates the differentiation of systemic liberalism from nationalism, and likewise ignores the nature and extent of the change to the person, be he American, Swede, Brit, Canadian, Dutch and Dane, required to journey from the former to the latter.  Not for nothing do we routinely describe that as an awakening.  It is a rising from sleep and illusion, and ingrained falsehood, to our own, as I said earlier, properly human relational and ecological truth.

Now, that might come to pass accidentally, as it almost did for a while in Germany in the early phase of national consciousness under the National Socialists.  But they didn’t know what they were doing, as proved by their rejection of Martin Heidegger’s overtures at Freiburg, and they duly and royally fucked it up.  Wouldn’t it be a good idea to get it right this time?

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 28 Sep 2018 21:14 | #

DanielS says: A James Bowery says, ‘with a scientific, sheer empirical take, that is to say, given the chance to hold an experiment of referendum, people could vote with their feet and resolve territorial disputes.’

Note the difference between my use of the word “says” and DanielS’s use of the word “says”.

It is easily verifiable that he says what I said he says.  Indeed, I could include a link for those skeptical that I’ve accurately transcribed what he “says”.

I could paraphrase DanielS and do so in such a way as to remove nuance from what he “says”, and that might be intellectually dishonest of me—particularly if I were to attack his lack of such nuance.  However, it would be limited to that if I said:  “To paraphrase DanielS…(lack of nuanced portrayal).”  In the present situation I challenge DanielS to provide a link or even a source of the quotation he attributes to me.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 28 Sep 2018 23:35 | #

To begin with, I carefully said, “A” James Bowery says, as in, it would be charactaristic of someone like him to say…

Next, I may not be able to find the link where he said this would provide a solution to the “Polish corridor problem”, because he said that in personal conversation with me…

However, as an illustration, whether he’d care to join us hermeneutecists or not, he has stressed the empirical aspect of voting with your feet and in referendum; which provides a convenient example in stark contrast to hermeneutics (sorry, it was not my purpose to target him). It was not really my purpose to challenge him, but this kind of distinction provided a clear example (as per captainchaos’s request for a concrete example) of the practical utility, necessity even, of hermeneutics.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 28 Sep 2018 23:53 | #

Daniel, Poles and Italians are a bunch of useless pussies when it comes to waging RAHOWA.  Recall how quickly the German blitzkrieg overcame Polack retards charging panzers on horseback.  Remember that during the Allied invasion of Italy it fell to German forces to defend the peninsula.  Consult losers like that regarding an invasion of the Soviet Union…why…for what?

GW, since when have Germans needed anything but a functioning set of balls to get shit done?  Once again, Krauts in Europe and America will decide the fate of the European race.

Bowery, did you get me banned from Chateau Heartiste?  Pussy.

Posted by Initiation & conclusion of WWII on Sat, 29 Sep 2018 05:22 | #

Polack retards charging panzers on horseback

That was Nazi propaganda footage that American media would play time and again to show “the beginning of World War II.”

The real beginning was a cowardly deception by the Nazis, when on August 31rst 1939 they requested of the Poles and were granted permission to dock a ship in the bay of Gdansk. The next morning they launched a sneak bombardment attack on the city from the ship.

Ultimately, for their technokraut logic, bereft of basic judgment as it were, they were thoroughly annihilated in their war of annihilation that Hitler senselessly initiated, killing fifty million Europeans, destroying European cities and treasures; and setting forth a chain of events, will to supremacism or subservience, stigmatic foolishness that provided the enemy warranted propaganda that may yet issue the end of European peoples for their over the top following of rules without sound judgment.

          DanielS

...getting things done. Sheesh.

The Belarussians, Ukrainians, Czechs, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Finns and more, were all against the Soviets ...instead the Nazis chose to add half of them to the enemies list as well, along with the Poles, who already had staved off the Soviets, showing their willingness and ability to fight the Soviets.  ...the thanks they got was being stabbed in the back.

Hitler and Merkel….getting things done indeed. Really done.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 29 Sep 2018 09:13 | #

So, is it a “rule” or a “social construction” that we are supposed to follow?  Because from the ontologist’s standpoint the thrown or enworlded being is, all at once, in that world, of that world and, collectively, is that world, and never ceases to be so from the moment of his appearance in it to that of his passing from it.  Very obviously, there is no other rendition of that world, no separated place in which it resides and from which it can be viewed objectively, or acted upon.  Our being itself is fixed in and as this circumstance.  As an artwork, it might look like Justinian here, all fixed in sundered pieces at the cost of vitality, spontaneity, authenticity, presence … all that vivifies:

Certainly, we can cleave one thing from another here, and say that our all too human condition as enworlded beings is permanent and unavoidable, yet also ameliorable.  But ameliorability is measured not in consequences like homeostasis, which belong to “fixed place” utilitatian thinking, but in the qualitative process of Being.  What we, as political actors, do, we do for Being, not for utility.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Sep 2018 09:39 | #

So, is it a “rule” or a “social construction” that we are supposed to follow?  Because from the ontologist’s standpoint the thrown or enworlded being is, all at once, in that world, of that world and, collectively, is that world

Before I read further, the very fact that you are again taking issue with rules as necessarily prescriptive rather than also a descriptive analytic device that can then allow the “analyst” to take recourse is groan-worthy.

And that you take issue with social constructionism only goes to show for the millionth time that you refuse to see that it is a way of talking that emphasizes a view (that Europeans desperately need) toward the fact of our joint social creation and responsibility - from our parents conceiving us, with all the social facility and help that is necessary to care for a child, to us agreeing with the epidemiologist who looks through the microscope and says, ‘this configuration that I’m seeing, we’re calling that x,y,z syndrome’, to even, ‘the white race is a “social construct?” are you kidding me? We all agree that it’s a very real and sacrosanct biological fact!’

...all fitting into social constructionism. The main difference is that your view de-emphasizes, or denies where possible, social relatedness and agency.

I will look at the rest of your comment later (groan)

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Sep 2018 09:54 | #

Having read the rest of your comment now, it is even more absurd than I expected - stemming from the same intransigent wish to compete and trivialize what I say, if not make it “wrong.”

First, Homeostasis is a fucking biological concept, not strictly “utilitarian”, though it certainly can be useful to think in its terms.

Nor is homeostasis about a fixed place (that’s you projecting its engineering definition), it is a dynamic, interactive, corrective process - it is rather an open system and it is one very good way of looking at how we maintain our autonomy and distinction as a people system.

Typical, absolutely typical of you, to attack one of the best and most important concepts to our interests.

And what I would say about your attack on the pragmatist emphasis on usefulness is that you are merely taking a pejorative view - the deep, the profound, that which we hold as sacred and eternal is a very useful thing.

But I am not here to defend pragmatism, as its emphasis has pitfalls about which I’ve spoken.

I’m commenting here to defend against your narcissistic contentiousness, which is so determined that it has to compete even against ideas which are most important to our defense and well being.

And this:

  Very obviously, there is no other rendition of that world, no separated place in which it resides and from which it can be viewed objectively, or acted upon.

Absolutely ridiculous. Where did I say there was a place from which it could be viewed with pure detachment and pure agency?

That would be classic Cartesianism.

That is not a description of the process of engaging topoi or specificatory structures at all.

There’s no other rendition of the world but yours? Well there are some facts that people would be crazy or stupid to dispute - that’s in the social realm as well - though they might dispute it - and wind up dead, outside of the social realm - while other aspects of the world and existence are indeed subject to other renditions.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 29 Sep 2018 11:31 | #

Perhaps you can explain, then, if nihilism, as an existential condition, is “socially constructed”, and how a “rule” would address it, and what that “rule” would be.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Sep 2018 12:01 | #

For someone professing nihilism, trying to commend it (I believe Gariepy calls himself a moral nihilist), or conducting practices with ramifications of such incoherence, confusion, meaninglessness and lack of purpose…

I might begin with an epicurean take, discussing the use of pleasure and how a hierarchy of pleasures will facilitate greater enjoyment of life. First, you profess nihilism? Then why don’t you kill yourself? Why do you enjoy food and drink? The look of a beautiful woman? Sex? Why do you like to be among many beautiful women, who are relaxed and helping to make your life more comfortable?

Wouldn’t it give your life purpose to move from a level where you are merely trying to avoid pain and confusion, and to understand broad coherent patterns that allow you to regulate your pleasures ...after a great cup of coffee in the morning and look at your favorite websites… a walk in the cool breeze that complements a temperate and verdant morning….providing exercise and time to contemplate those patterns both…

Contemplating how you can perhaps help to facilitate that circumstance where you can live among beautiful, kindred and helpful women ...and friendly, cooperative men as well… that will facilitate the regulation of your enjoying the other pleasures, in better, more optimal form than you otherwise might…. as it would be hard to do that, if you did not have the higher pleasure of their social cooperation and kindred inclinations.

...and you have a great meal, food, a night with your loving woman and then the pleasure of seeing your legacy carry on… a chain of being hardly without purpose…

Posted by Adolf Coorski on Sun, 30 Sep 2018 05:05 | #

Epistemological blunders aside, perhaps it would be conciliatory to CC to observe this impressive quote from A.H.

“When the Zionists try to make the rest of the World believe that the national consciousness of the Jew will satisfied by the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, the Jews thereby adopt another means to slyly dupe the simple minded gentile. They have not the slightest intention of building up a Jewish state in Palestine so as merely to live in it; what they really are aiming at is to establish a central organisation for their international swindling and cheating; as a sovereign state, with its own sovereign rights it cannot be controlled by intervention of any of the other states: therefore it can serve as a refuge for swindlers who have been found-out and at the same time, a high school for the training of other swindlers.

It is a sign of their rising confidence and sense of security that at a time when one section is still playing the German, French-man, or Englishman, the other with open effrontery comes out as the Jewish race.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:14 | #

So this was my question:

Perhaps you can explain, then, if nihilism, as an existential condition, is “socially constructed”, and how a “rule” would address it, and what that “rule” would be.

Are you going to answer it, or respond to something I did not ask?

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:32 | #

As social constructionists, we would look at what might be interpreted as a confusing circumstance of existential condition and look upon it through the issue of “tangles”, as in tangled rules, or rules that are left overly vague - so as to leave them confused - they bear teasing out… or as charmed or strange loops, paradoxes or dilemmas, which also lend themselves to interpretation of futility and nihilism ....which also bears re-framing and resolution.

Next, I’d charge him to find any culture, any people, anywhere, ever, who did not have these three elements to their social structure: Things you can’t do (Prohibited); things you might do, but don’t have to (Legitimate); and things that you must do (Obligatory).

That culture/people won’t be found which doesn’t have those three rules. That’s as much as saying there’s no such thing as nihilism, or moral nihilism.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 30 Sep 2018 16:50 | #

Should Chavs be allowed to live according to their own authenticity or should there be rules in place that decide whether or not they get a jackboot put in their asses?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Sep 2018 21:46 | #

Daniel, that modernity into which Being is thrown or enworlded has the character of a long-established and deepening totality of nihilism, not a tangle of rules. You cannot get at it by picking at its surface.  You may not get at it at all ... not define it or model it fully to yourself ... not diagnose its state of advance ... certainly not arrive at a means of redress.  Its sheer enormity, its nebulousness, its subtle, persistent rootedness in the formative factors of the psyche, all of them unspoken, all of them unconsciously absorbed from earliest childhood ... all this weighs against a simplistic, values-based ready-reckoning.

Of all the pathologies which beset us this one, nihilism, is most beyond the capability of sociologists to apprehend and address.  Please tell me you are not so lost to personal certainty that you cannot see that!

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:13 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Sep 2018 16:46 | #

Daniel, that modernity into which Being is thrown or enworlded has the character of a long-established and deepening totality of nihilism, not a tangle of rules. You cannot get at it by picking at its surface.

Yeah, fuck off. What else is new?

That that is THE interpretation is YOUR strawman - your straw men - the farts in your armchair that you think should be gold to the rest of the world but are nothing but terrible stink.

You may not get at it at all ... not define it or model it fully to yourself ... not diagnose its state of advance ...

Who said I was diagnosing in advance? Its posjudice.

certainly not arrive at a means of redress.

Really? Why don’t you shut up?

Its sheer enormity, its nebulousness, its subtle, persistent rootedness in the formative factors of the psyche, all of them unspoken, all of them unconsciously absorbed from earliest childhood ... all this weighs against a simplistic, values-based ready-reckoning.

It’s only simplistic in your egomaniac wish.

Of all the pathologies which beset us this one, nihilism, is most beyond the capability of sociologists to apprehend and address.  Please tell me you are not so lost to personal certainty that you cannot see that!

You desperately want to believe that the farts that are stuck in your armchair need to be unlocked and sniffed by the world.

They stink, and are worthless.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:42 | #

One of the best things Gregg Johnson has posted to his site is an essay by Alain de Benoist on the conversation on nihilism conducted by Juenger and Heidegger.  You can read it here, if you are interested:

https://www.counter-currents.com/2010/07/junger-heidegger-nihilism/

At the very least, it might give you cause to question your certainty.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:57 | #

The certainty you project is yours.

The faggot snob can go suck a dick as he is wont to do.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Sep 2018 23:14 | #

He only translated the article.  I don’t think his sexual orientation played a great part in that.

Have you been drinking?

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Sep 2018 23:46 | #

GW, don’t you think it’s a bit arbitrary that all you do is oppose everything that I say?

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 05:35 | #

I’ve read that article, and while you may need help with your thing about individual psychology, I can’t say that there was anything there that I didn’t already know about what Heidegger was saying, nor anything really that renders what I’m saying somehow wrong.

Your key deceptive move was to pick one thing, “tangled rules,” out of several ways that I suggest that ONE CAN look into or, rather, from within, the arbitrary flux in which we are thrown, and then you claim that I am saying it is “THE” way to consider a nihilistic condition.

It is this kind of dishonesty, and needless obstruction of important considerations, which is infuriating.

Awakening the awareness of nihilism so that one can find in it and fund a ‘foundational’ will to power in subjectivity is elementary (which requires not an endless concern as if stuck as a permanent bobble-head at the wailing wall; nor even a tome the size of Being and Time; but the suggestion and occasional reminder) and in as much as it does not engage praxis as a necessary part of that arbitrary thrownness, then it is not finding a true will to authentic power; or as it would rather remain below praxis, it is functioning on a brute level that might serve to form a collective technological force for a tyrant, as it is conveniently lacking in the human level reflexive awareness, but it cannot be the end point of well considered philosophy, only a beginning for an amateur or an end in catastrophe like WWII.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 06:48 | #

And in regard to this egregious strawman again:

Daniel, that modernity into which Being is thrown or enworlded has the character of a long-established and deepening totality of nihilism, not a tangle of rules. You cannot get at it by picking at its surface.

I have discussed the structure and trajectory of modernity many times, as it is wont to run impervious rough-shod over important differences between people, put resources and coordination at risk…

I have also discussed the proper (and not overly complicated) way (White Post Modern) for Europeans to handle it. Typically, you tried to deny its significance, but ultimately, you won’t be able to.

...many important things I’ve said about modernity’s overall condition, that you tried to bury and now try to bury once again in this straw man to deny any significance to what I say.

I’ve discussed the ways in which people may be confused about which form and way of communication to adopt in the circumstance - they may not know the difference, a confusion expressed in ‘wails’....

While I once suggested that you might be a wailing modernist, and you tried to deflect it with sarcastic re-phrasing, that I was calling you a ‘weeping modernist’....I have re-assessed your aims actually to be more of a doubled-down, determined modernist. ...with all its foolish imperviousness and needless destructiveness.

 

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 07:55 | #

Greg Johnson once said that he ‘never got GW.’

Here it is in a nutshell:

With the idea of being motivated to clear away and prepare the ground of authentic being, you can pretend that you are the smartest, deepest thing ever, and that you are not arbitrarily and singularly exercising your overbearing resentment of academia and your wish to destroy anything in another that displays the least scholasticism, ability, intelligence, judgment and utility thereof.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:15 | #

The race-destructive “nihilism” we observe today is merely decadence.  White individuals are at least in the short-term shielded from the collectively injurious effect of their actions by historically unprecedented material plenty.  This is not true nihilism, which I suspect is only truly displayed in the mentally ill.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 14:59 | #

Nihilism is not decadence, which is really only a moral declension which, however sickly it is, always retains the possibility of self-imaging and criticism, and thus a salvatory turn if sufficiently straitening circumstances arise.  Rather, nihilism is a complete estate of Man, and not a state of mind; and has nothing in it ... no possibility of a saving sense of dissonance ... by which change might be effected.  Historically, of course, it filters gradually into the general life like a dye in the water.  But at each moment of its expansion its difficulty of removal remains constant.

With that in mind it is worth reading the linked de Benoist article.  It can only make you think.  In particular, you could think about how, in your words, “race-destructive nihilism” is only one manifestation of a much wider problem, and even addressing that manifestation will not remove from our life the rest of the phenomenon.  Hence my longstanding criticism of WN as a belief in social isostasy and inevitablism, and hence my unease with Daniel’s rule-making.  We Europeans are not imprisoned under lock and key by others or by bad behavioural norms.  Our life is no good, not just in respect to its nihilism or because of Jewish meddling or liberalism or any such negative influences, but in respect to its gross expression as and by us.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 16:23 | #

The article adds nothing much that is’t already incorporated in what I’m saying. It articulates that from awareness of the arbitrary flux of the throwness in which we find ourselves, that an energizing fire is lit under people, and that may instigate a motivating crisis for those who’ve been asleep with the idea of less existential “foundations.” However, my colleagues (if I may call them that) and I have been drawing on the same resource (I continually recognize this and that is why GW’s will to render what I am saying unimportant or besides the point is unbearably tedious) as de Benoist and Heidegger - and in recognizing the arbitrary thrownness that is compounded through the trajectory of modernity, the careful reader will recognize the first necessity thereafter, of coherence, as in keeping, albeit in more ordinary language, with Heidegger’s philosophy.

But there are important differences in emphasis from both of them in that I (we, for those who agree with me) am incorporating the importance of the biological significance of people and race; and in important social interactive emphasis by contrast to Heidegger, who I see as still too individualistic in his emphasis for our circumstances now to sponsor authentic coherence, and go beyond the nihilism compounded in upshot of modernity. Still not liberated enough from modernity, its emphasis on Cartesian detachment of individual from interaction, from thinking (thankian) and its narcissistic incapacity to distinguish other groups and coordinate with them in such a way so as not to put our resources and theirs at significant risk.

The Existentialist protest against dehumanization and objectivation, together with its courage to be as oneself, have turned into the most elaborate and oppressive forms of collectivism that have appeared in history
                  - Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be.

 

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 18:42 | #

Daniel, Tillich was a disciple of Heidegger.  It was Sartre - “the Socrates of nothingness” - whom Tillich disdained.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 18:58 | #

My reason for quoting Tillich there is not about opposing Heidegger. Or even the stance against objectification, but rather that it shows some recognition of the dehumanization - including dangerous notion of necessity - that ensues from an over emphasis on subhuman subjectivism, that is to say below and in disregard of interactive praxis.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 19:30 | #

The experience of existence is that of a subject which possesses relation.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 20:31 | #

It’s a matter of emphasis: in my opinion, over emphasis on individualism and de-emphasis on interaction and social responsibility in Heidegger - he has it, but it is too de-emphasized in my opinion.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 21:00 | #

The subject is not an individual.  Likewise relation is not social.  You are mixing philosophical metaphors.  Best to keep the disciplines apart.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:01 | #

If Heidegger took a shit in the woods, and Tillich wasn’t there to hear it, would it still make a sound?

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 Oct 2018 01:25 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 16:00 | #

The subject is not an individual.  Likewise relation is not social.  You are mixing philosophical metaphors.  Best to keep the disciplines apart.

Your problem, GW, is that you were never toilet trained. Best to keep your shit in the toilet. Though Tanstaafl’s Jewish wife may think it’s cool, your gaslighting is shit - talking about a shit.

Let me clear it away then. Subjectivism is of the individual. Relation absolutely is, can and should be looked upon as social. In my estimation, Heidegger is too individualistic and not paying enough emphasis on the social and interactive.

Next, I’ll add that trying to follow Heidegger verbatim isn’t the bottom line for me that it is for you. It’s part of your narcissistic contentiousness to pretend that your ‘understanding’ of Heidegger is enough - but if you only know one thing, you don’t even know that very well.

You use your ‘understanding’ of Heidegger to try to divert focus onto your conceits and away from other people’s contributions.

To repeat: Don’t you think it is rather arbitrary that all you ever do is try to find a way to disagree with something that I say?

Furthermore, Heidegger could take for granted the uniformity and homogeneity of his population and thus focus on its diversion from authenticity.

While in your generation, collectivism was an even bigger scare, and with good reason.. The YKW had gone hyperbolic with the social (as I said, that is what they do, they take an idea for their group defense and then go hyperbolic, distorting it beyond all reason for the ‘goyim’) and with that, you had full perspective on Hitler’s collectivized reaction.

Our main problem now is not collectivism - it is atomization, and finding a proper way to foster social mindedness by contrast without compromising the individual. I’ve indicated some of the ways - while you and Bowery and others are remaining in exaggerated reaction to collectivism.

Your right wing reaction is an expression of advanced parasitism - like the cricket about to jump into the pool.

An emphasis, meditation on nihilism and that sort of alienated shit - reacting exactly as the YKW would want you to, against the bogey collective - You contend “A race, a nation, is not (something that can be likened to) a union.” What destructive shit you are infected with and are reacting to GW.

You still think (or pretend) you are fighting this ‘good fight’ but what you are doing for our people is a disservice, like fighting a new war with tactics and equipment designed for previous wars.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 02 Oct 2018 03:21 | #

“A James Bowery” would say this.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 Oct 2018 03:29 | #

And a person who is dealing responsibly with the issue of trying to negotiate the coordination of human ecology, helping to regain its homeostasis against the indifferent and antagonistic, isn’t quite so narrowly focused on quantifying the ‘purely best’, particularly not outside of its service to our human ecology and our qualities - recognizing, rather, that different races and individuals within fit different necessary and qualitative niches, and that ecological health and loyalty will be fostered by sufficient accountability thereof.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:34 | #

“Subjectivism is of the individual. Relation absolutely is, can and should be looked upon as social.”

Look at the words.  Penetrate to their meaning.  Cleave the lines.  “The subject” (ie, “I”) and “subjectivisation” (ie, the experience of existence of a subject which possesses relation ... whose Being is Being-in-kind) are highly specific terms which do not automatically open to “subjectivism” (ie, “the endemic notion of the single, infinitely remote human island in an unfathomable cosmic ocean of Being”).  Ontologically, relation describes the Being of human beings, which in my personal opinion is Being-in-kind (beyond Heidegger’s occasional or variant Being-with, which I think you agree is a good deal too loose in its address of relation).

This all goes very much to the point.  Yes, sociologists describe Man as a social animal.  But that’s no use in ontology, which is another discipline entirely.  You, Daniel, have tended to take bits of Heidegger and incorporate them in the language of your essentially sociopolitical analysis, which I have tried to restrain on the grounds that there is an holistic foundation there on which you should build, rather than cherry-pick; for you miss its revolutionary nature and utility thereby, and the opportunity is lost for it to properly inform your work, rather as I tried to explain here:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_specificatory_structure_as_opposed_to_the_car_engine#c155543

Now, you routinely use some harshly, at times, ridiculously insulting words to ward off my clear and consistent demand that this latter be the case, and in the past you have scorned the very idea of an underpinning which is “perennial and resolute, and affords a certain rooted and a-historical understanding to the second”:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_specificatory_structure_as_opposed_to_the_car_engine#c155546

But this idea of a-historicity is important.  I am not sure that you have understood that the very notion of an emergent, original authenticity ineluctably breaks through the veil of the historical, and leaves history’s devotees struggling to assert their prior analysis, and therefore defensive and confused.  Their question should, of course, be not how is this new factor to be picked up and incorporated in their existing philosophical and political work, but what will truly and certainly carry it forward and give it agency and revolutionary historical force; for this is the destiny of our nationalism.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 Oct 2018 11:15 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Oct 2018 04:34 | #

“Subjectivism is of the individual. Relation absolutely is, can and should be looked upon as social.”

Look at the words.  Penetrate to their meaning.  Cleave the lines.

I have.

To repeat: Don’t you think it is rather arbitrary that all you ever do is try to find a way to disagree with something that I say?

“The subject” (ie, “I”) and “subjectivisation” (ie, the experience of existence of a subject which possesses relation ... whose Being is Being-in-kind) are highly specific terms which do not automatically open to “subjectivism” (ie, “the endemic notion of the single, infinitely remote human island in an unfathomable cosmic ocean of Being”).  Ontologically, relation describes the Being of human beings, which in my personal opinion is Being-in-kind (beyond Heidegger’s occasional or variant Being-with, which I think you agree is a good deal too loose in its address of relation).

I was talking about sujectivism, relativism and objectivism, not what you were talking about - I’m not into getting caught up with your deck of card tricks.

Being in kind is fine. I don’t say that you don’t occasionally come up with a decent idea….the problem is that your sick, and unmeritedly large ego does not give credit to others for significant ideas contributed.

This all goes very much to the point.  Yes, sociologists describe Man as a social animal.  But that’s no use in ontology, which is another discipline entirely.

And the Jews will be very grateful to you for wasting your time there and obstructing us by trying to suggest that you are doing something about which all else should wait, as if we don’t know enough about ontology to proceed, while you try to separate the two disciplines absolutely when discussing human nature.

You, Daniel, have tended to take bits of Heidegger and incorporate them in the language of your essentially sociopolitical analysis,

I take to heart, deploy and give thanks for the most essential aspects of Heidegger for our requirements. I am open to more, but when you accuse me of cherry picking and then try to remove talk of hermeneutics, then I know that you are not only a hypocrite, but we’ve established that you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

which I have tried to restrain on the grounds that there is an holistic foundation there on which you should build,

These kinds of statements of yours reveal your consummate arm chair amateur philosopher status. Which wouldn’t be bad, but you try to pose as if you know more than everyone else, or in this case, that I should be fascinated by your amateur model building projects, ‘the personality’ an ontology of the world…

rather than cherry-pick;

Again, I was able to anticipate that, coming from the man who says I shouldn’t criticize and offer alternatives to modernity, Cartesianism with hermeneutics and more.

for you miss its revolutionary nature and utility thereby,

No I don’t. That is your conceited wish, for other people to miss the revolutionary nature of what I say, so that you can position yourself as the supremely worthy, irreplaceable man on the top of a corporate ladder.

and the opportunity is lost for it to properly inform your work, rather as I tried to explain here:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_specificatory_structure_as_opposed_to_the_car_engine#c155543

You persuaded me of nothing there but only demonstrate your recalcitrance.

Now, you routinely use some harshly, at times, ridiculously insulting words to ward off my clear and consistent demand that this latter be the case,

I am not warding off what is clear and consistent in any positive sense. I am warding off your impervious maintenance of the outmoded and destructive modernist notion of coherence.

and in the past you have scorned the very idea of an underpinning which is “perennial and resolute, and affords a certain rooted and a-historical understanding to the second”:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_specificatory_structure_as_opposed_to_the_car_engine#c155546

We have that already and I am doing that, for salient example, in this DNA Nation project. I am not scorning anything but shallow philosophy posing as deep and well informed philosophy.

But this idea of a-historicity is important.  I am not sure that you have understood that the very notion of an emergent, original authenticity

I understand the emergent, respect vigilance and diligence in its regard, and I also understand that you abuse it - for what I am now prepared to suggest are not only egotistical and socially irresponsible reasons, but intellectual laziness (that project):

ineluctably breaks through the veil of the historical, and leaves history’s devotees struggling to assert their prior analysis, and therefore defensive and confused.

With bullshit like that.

Their question should, of course, be not how is this new factor to be picked up and incorporated in their existing philosophical and political work, but what will truly and certainly carry it forward and give it agency and revolutionary historical force; for this is the destiny of our nationalism.

That was a false dichotomy - self serving as always; horrifically obstructive of important ideas.

Do ontology and personality to your heart’s content, don’t tell me to waste time with your diversionary conceits. Don’t try to tell me that I have not done what I’ve done or try bury the significance of what I bring to bear without expecting me to defend my self and the resource I bring. I don’t respect what you are doing because you have demonstrated time and again arbitrary impervious contentiousness to anything that I say, and with that a lack of the philosophical judgment to appreciate and foster what is necessary and essential. On the contrary, you obstruct it in favor of your conceited positioning.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Oct 2018 17:17 | #

You make errors, Daniel.  You become very angry very easily when these are pointed out.

For example, hermeneutics, as an epistemological discipline, cannot be employed by a whole population.  Can it.  Populations don’t intellectualise.  They instinctivise.  They identify.  They stand their ground side by side, advancing arms locked, bloody-minded and independent.  No, only academics can make use of hermeneutics, and most usually do so in the interpretation of texts.  That leaves you having to undertake your own hermeneutic process and then, from on high, turning toward the plebs and ordering them to think and behave this way or that.  Doesn’t it.  I suppose it could work in East Asia, where conformism and authoritarianism function as two halves of a highly successful evolutionary survival strategy.  It can’t work in Europe.  That simply isn’t how a mass movement for revolution is fired up here.

What you have created is a quite ingenious blend of psychological, sociological and ethical theories and “tools” picked up from your own academic studies, whose rightful place is the lecture hall, where you could address the intellectual advance guard of our people’s army from your lectern, and expect that the necessary notes will be taken down and the background reading dutifully undertaken.  Essays in by Friday week.  We, after all, walk through the ideological door marked “Nationalist” not like the “common people” - simply by some inchoate response to the trespasses of the political world and an equally inchoate sense of history, freedom and self - but by encountering ideas which stimulate that appetite for truth and light which also inhabits us all but which is most refined and evident among the intellectually able fraction.  But that’s the extent of your reach.  You cannot talk to the masses whose IQ is less than 120 and you cannot lay rules upon them.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:24 | #

No, I don’t get angry when errors are pointed out. I get angry when for five years all you do is try to overturn (important and carefully considered) resource that I impart, while you obviously don’t understand it’s significant advance over what elsewhere is supposed to pass as theory in White nationalism; and rather all you do is TRY to trivialize or dismiss what I say as somehow ‘incorrect’, even if that means resorting to some patently absurd straw man argument, as it almost invariably does, as you have done here, straight off the bat, with the false claim that hemeneutic application cannot be popular, when in fact, it already is - any talk of ‘narrative’ is a popular applcation of hermeneutics; whether it is an effective use and deployed for ethnonational ends is another matter; it nevertheless can be used properly as such by normal people.

I will punctuate here before addressing the rest of your invariably contentiuos slop.

But first, I will ask, doesnt it strike you as arbitrary, that all you ever do is try to find something or some way to deconsruct and devalue what I say?

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:37 | #

Ok, so I’ve read through the first paragraph of your itransigent, narcissistic contentiousness of perceived academia, and the straw manning it requires when your autobiography cannot allow for the possibility of good and useful ideas that may have passed by way of its halls. Yes, Europeans can and do make good use of OUR ideas; these are many intelligent people who are not reflected by your jealousy.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 02 Oct 2018 21:41 | #

“...you cannot lay down rules upon them.”

Those smart enough to understand why the rules exist get a gold star and a pat on the head; those not smart enough get a jackboot in the ass if they disobey.  Chavs are sterilized and sent to the concentration camp.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Oct 2018 21:50 | #

Daniel, I don’t attack everything you say by a long chalk.  I support most of it.  I certainly share your aspirations in respect to the DNA Nation - something I have told you before.  Actually, I also share and understand your criticism of Heidegger’s fateful isolationism, because it is all too true.  But there are problems in your thinking.  I have mentioned on this very thread problems in your mixing of terminologies and with cherry-picking Heidegger.  At different times I have tried to help, talking about not “losing Dasein”, for example, or explaining the contest between the Cartesian and Heideggerian epistemologies.  I am bound to do this, not because I reflexively oppose everything you say but because I sincerely want you to succeed on the basis of a functioning intellectual platform.  I would want that same help from others who saw mistakes (which we all make) in my own interpretation and conceptual systematisation.  I remember taking some heavy hits in the past from perfectly sincere people with something different to say.  It’s OK.  Accordingly, I have tried to model calm, thoughtfulness, and tolerance in my dealing with you.  And also brevity.

Now, where we really clash is at the interface of foundation and action.  That was always the seat of the trouble.  For a long time you denied that foundation was a necessary concern, or even possible to arrive at.  That denial seems to be softening as the slow but steady Heideggerian seep into your thinking has proceeded.  So there is a work in progress there, which is entirely normal.  We all never stop thinking and building up our own understanding.  None of us complete this work.  Perhaps you just need to be more accepting of that fact, and a little more ready to respond to the emerging ground beneath your feet.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 03 Oct 2018 06:01 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Oct 2018 16:50 | #

Daniel, I don’t attack everything you say by a long chalk.  I support most of it.

In you comments, it has been easily 99.9% attack. I don’t claim to have the key to somehow get you to take a more positive disposition, to suspend disbelief and cooperate in the elaboration of ideas. Frankly, I don’t think I could have, even with utmost politeness. You are not the first non-academic that I’ve known who has this kind of vendetta against perceived academics and academia (he was English too, and critical of the YKW too, father in the RAF).

However, in trying to overcome this destructive singularity of yours - ‘everything academic needs to be smashed’ - I have resorted to some rather cruel postings. The idea was rather spontaneous and just unfolded in the first piece I did to try to unfold and examine your personality type as one whose autobiography features a vendetta against academia and an iron will to destroy its “chimera” once and for all for the sake of the common, right wing, nationalist man.

While that may have been a bad psychology to take with you, and important ways unfair, you were not being fair to what I was saying and this did help me to understand and get to the bottom of a feature of your personality.

Now, it would be, of course, unfair for me to not recognize an enormously cooperative side to your engagement with me.

You literally insisted that I be included in the conversation with Red Ice and others. Colin Liddell, for another example, an interview which I didn’t feel worked because I had arranged it for you and him to talk about things English. For some reason at the last moment you wanted to talk about things American. I don’t do spontaneity in these recordings very well - need to plan more before or have more say the content editing afterward. I wasn’t happy with the results of that and other podcasts. Though I think when you are in podcasts alone with other interlocutors, you are great - you have a great speaking voice and presentation in audio.

On the other hand, you said to me that you think we are a very good podcast team, and this makes me guilty of not appreciating the fact that indeed you are extremely cooperative and helpful on a relational level.

You asked me to take direction of the site which you started, allowing me to develop the platform’s direction as I am sure it should go.

I liken it to an airline. The airships are getting tight and air worthy. The air traffic control in place. The flight paths coordinated. etc.

Though I believe that your ontology project is a mistaken emphasis on your part, it is perfectly fine with me, of course, if you want to work on it. It is an epistemological blunder, however, to think of national and racial advocacy removed from praxis. It is not deeper in a philosophical sense to focus sheerly on ontology - particularly not the way you do, saying all else must be smashed and the ground laid bare for pure emergentism, as if I (and others) have not thought about matters carefully.

I suspect that you may not change your disposition and continue to take an antagonistic view to what I say, trying to trivialize it and so on, and be forewarned, that I will continue to vigorously defend what I say, because I am sure of it.

Your orientation is more like a scientist than a philosopher (Bowery’s too, of course). Science is, of course, invaluable. But it is not philosophy - which, if it is good philosophy, is not opposed to science, not running against the laws (those are rules too) of nature and so on. I would never work with academics who were developing philosophies and outlooks so stupid. On the contrary, the people that I’ve learned from and worked with are way - way too sophisticated to be guilty of the kind of stereotyped perfidy that you are reacting to in your experience of some popular expressions of hermeneutics and social constructionism.

Now, it is true, that the same philosopher that confirmed that the first key to understanding Heidegger was sort of a rebellion against Cartesianism also said that he believed that in Being and Time Part II, whatever it would have been named, that he believed that Heidegger was headed to aligning people (and perhaps even foundationalizing them) in nature.

Even if that were true, I am satisfied that would be a mistake - an epistemological blunder. 

You seem to take for granted that our pure organisms are adapted for survival in such a way that it will necessarily lead to racial and national fidelity. I see all kinds of evidence that that isn’t true and that we need a much deeper more competent philosophy than that from the get-go. I have purveyed the best of these ideas where not encouraging what is best in others - I commend your focus on emergentism. Your critique of Christianity. Your commitment to nationalism and more.

Perhaps Heidegger would have done more to cultivate his thoughts on social responsibility - which he does allude to, but not much.

But my point is this, if you want to pursue your ontology project, foundational personality or whatever, I am not stopping you.

You cannot expect me to focus on those things, however, because I am satisfied that that is not what we need of philosophy; and that we have enough ontology to proceed, while adding its inquiries to corrective feedback in hermeneutic process.

Go ahead with your ontology and personality project, but be forewarned that if you try to play the angle of treating me like a foil for your anti-academc autobiography, as if what you are doing is deeper and more important than what I am bringing to bear, that it is a sham and trivial, I will vigorously defend my efforts, because that is not true.

That it is so untrue is why I have fought you so hard, because I cannot allow proper philosophical bearings to get buried and put aside, and especially not for foolishness.

I certainly share your aspirations in respect to the DNA Nation - something I have told you before.

Yes, you did mention that in private conversation at least once. More online and practical support would be appreciated, but I’ve learned to expect from you that basically you will be looking for something to criticize and nothing more - e.g., taking issue with geriatric service, even after I revised the notion of geriatric service to voluntary, incentivized and an option that particular states do not have to adopt. Nothing more was said. Here we are in the very thread and I am getting roped into the trap of your Heideggarian language games (like your trick deck of cards).

Actually, I also share and understand your criticism of Heidegger’s fateful isolationism, because it is all too true.

Well, that’s surprising and good to hear from you, because from what I can tell, it seems that Heidegger’s philosophy does lend itself to an overly individualistic and even hedonistic course.

But there are problems in your thinking.  I have mentioned on this very thread problems in your mixing of terminologies and with cherry-picking Heidegger.

 
And I have responded to this before. First of all, I don’t consider myself beholden to follow Heidegger verbatim nor to understand him like the book of rules as you seem to (may need a tweak here and there, but otherwise, all you need).

Rather, I am aware of the philosophical project that Heidegger was working-on, and I see him as one of the best, though not perfect either - and I take, to use his words, to heart what is essential, what I need from his work and I give thanks - that is thinking according to him - thankian, more like poetry (poesis) than like science, as you apparently are wont to treat the idea of “thinking.”

I agree with Heiddegger and not you.

While you ‘cherry pick’ yourself by excluding aspects of Heidegger that I make use of.

At different times I have tried to help, talking about not “losing Dasein”, for example,

And I quickly corrected that, saying that I should have said, “losing MidtDasein” - she was losing her connection to her folk and its reliable ensconcement.

or explaining the contest between the Cartesian and Heideggerian epistemologies.

Well, you are mistaken there. You are refusing to see what is being done with the term Cartesian and its place.

Cartesianism has prompted people to too much social detachment and even, absurdly, to attempt interactive detachment. That promting is seen to have social and environmental problems, problems which require a currency of thought more attuned to social accountability. It is not that Cartesianism cannot be used as a provisional frame - again, a microwave engineer tells me that he still uses Cartesian coordinates. I am not going to scold him for doing that.

I am bound to do this, not because I reflexively oppose everything you say but because I sincerely want you to succeed on the basis of a functioning intellectual platform. I would want that same help from others who saw mistakes (which we all make) in my own interpretation and conceptual systematisation.

And as I have said just above and many times before, you are mistaken and doing just the opposite, obstructing an intellectually functioning platform; and you don’t have to do that in order to basically satisfy your predilections. You do need to see how they are not necessarily mutually exclusive to what I am saying, however.

Your taking the stance that they are, is the problem. Not the other way around.

So, I am giving you the help that you say that you want.

I remember taking some heavy hits in the past from perfectly sincere people with something different to say.  It’s OK.  Accordingly, I have tried to model calm, thoughtfulness, and tolerance in my dealing with you.  And also brevity.

Now, where we really clash is at the interface of foundation and action. That was always the seat of the trouble.

Not actually, the seat of conflict is in your wish to see mutual exclusivity as a necessity in what we are doing. The hermenutic circle resolves it, but you have been resistant apparently for the stereotypes of the notion in abused form.

While its true that much of the philosophy that I engage is resistant to the word “foundation” because it is trying, again, to foster a more engaged and processual way of thinking, not so stuck in Cartesian detachment, there is nothing wrong with wanting to rigorously identify more fundamental concepts and language of our biology, our nature, call it foundational, if you will - but don’t call it, as a project, something that calls for the rest of philosophy and the world to wait until you have re-written the Tractatus.

Especially not as you persist in attacking and not recognizing better philosophy and ideas.

For a long time you denied that foundation was a necessary concern, or even possible to arrive at.

Not exactly. I explain my position above.

That denial seems to be softening as the slow but steady Heideggerian seep into your thinking has proceeded.

I do not deny science, I do not deny that there cannot be refinement of language and what I call check points - I recognize, however, in your quest for foundations that would do violence to all else, the quintessential modernist and the quintessential philosophical novice, both.  One who does not understand and appreciate the broader philosophical project in which Heidegger was engaged.

I strongly suspect this imperviousness of yours stems from your reaction to academic abuses, and an autobiography as the dragon slayer thereof that has taken you beyond all reason and judgment - to where you can’t distinguish “friendly idea"from “foe idea.”

So there is a work in progress there, which is entirely normal.  We all never stop thinking and building up our own understanding.  None of us complete this work.  Perhaps you just need to be more accepting of that fact, and a little more ready to respond to the emerging ground beneath your feet.

I would say that the opposite is much, much more true, and you need to take your own advice.

In fact, it has not been a ‘clearing away’ that you’ve conducted, but a relentless strawmanning, burying in obfuscation of necessary resource (for five years now), while it was never averse to emergentism or ethnonationalism, on the contrary.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:47 | #

To the precise extent that humans are responsible for culture, they are responsible for defining “The Best”, hence the evolutionary direction of culture as artificial selection.  Differences in that definition are, by assortative migration if not collective normative cullling, collective differences, identical with differences in culture.  The result of selection, artificial and natural, is ecological hence racial.  Any evolutionary direction is inescapably ecological and social even as the mutant individual crowds out the type.

These are the choices Men make that matter—that make Man the Moral Animal. Denying their primacy in social relations denies Man his unique character.  There are worse fates, of course.  Even animals retain their sexual Being, which is superior to that of the sterile workers parasitically castrated by their Royals to fight wars or mere cells of sexual Being—although the latter can at least be said to participate in the long-term pattern of Creation.

The attempt to sideline positions such as this as on one side or the other of the “individual vs collective” divide is, itself, a most egregious Cartesian attack.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2fy7707oyroqyf0/CLFoMEqualized.mp3?dl=0

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 Oct 2018 23:12 | #

Bowery prescribes single deadly combat as a eugenic, social-ordering force.  Yet he will not challenge a nigger to single deadly combat.  And whenever someone points out this glaring contradiction between his words and actions he loses his shit like an emotionally incontinent punk.  Isn’t the type of cowardly hypocrisy that Bowery displays just the kind of thing we should wish to weed out of our gene pool?

Posted by Little brother's concerns were not looked-after on Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:29 | #

... that is to say, necessary philosophical corrections of the Gen-Xers.

The attempt to sideline positions such as this as on one side or the other of the “individual vs collective” divide is, itself, a most egregious Cartesian attack. - Bowery

The Hermeneuticist doesn’t side track issues by balancing concern for individual and collective (for example), in circulating corrective of Cartesian runaway, in this case of the boomer generations’ emphasis, which is now an over emphasis on concerns over collectivization - rather, by recognizing that the destructive emphasis for our people now, even to our individualism, is the atomization, the rupture of ethnonationalist unionization and accountability thereof which is destroying the very grounds of what distinct individualism that European species affords.

All American highschoolers of the 50s and 60s were assigned (((Kafka’s))) book, with a sci-fi nightmare culmination in eusocial take-over. They were also assigned Orwell’s 1984 story of the horrors of collectivism, to where the YKW had taken accountability, that is to say, accounts requested, beyond all reason (producing the insanity of the Stasi and a Merkel).

It is apparent now, that the parasite is encouraging WN in right wing reaction against the so called left (against the cartoon exaggerations of their international left as disingenuously lumped with proper White and non-Jewish left ethnonationalism); that right wing reactions that double down in the reaction against YKW abuse of left conceptualization of the social and group, are being encouraged, where not prescribed by them as the parasite merges with the host Whites to drive over the top and to ultimate dissolution those aspects which will not be totally merged and controlled by its Jewish agenda for thorough supremacy over the “gentiles.”

The WN Right Wing merges with and then reacts in accordance to the parasite’s directives and drives.

Posted by Billy Roper on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 08:02 | #

Billy Roper discusses prospects and projects of balkanization on racial lines.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 22:41 | #

The parasite wants the Hermeneuticist Cricket to ignore the reality that “individuals” will, if left to make their own conscious choice of so-called “social contract,” will largely choose to assort along lines that correspond to what I, in 1998 (long before “DNA Nation” was coined by anyone), described as DNA-testing-based nations.  Of course I got the idea basically from Wilmot Robertson’s Ethnostate—and simply adorned it with the then-emerging DNA sequencing technology. 

What of the Deracinated Crickets who will not so-choose?  It is reasonable to presume they suffer from a similar infection to the Hermeneuticist Cricket, but with a far less egregious ecological consequence:

The Deracinated Crickets may be decisively divided into those that choose to permit individuals to choose a DNA-based “social contract” and those that will oppose such individuals. 

The Deracinated Crickets that so-permit individuals to separate from them will be voluntarily consigning themselves to quarantine—even if they perceive the racinated individuals to be placed into quarantine.  In so doing, their parasite will seek to detach and flee to find a host but be blocked by the quarantine.  Many of these, relatively benign, Deracinated Crickets, may find themselves freed from “the parasite’s directives”.

The Deracinated Crickets that oppose racinated individuals will identify themselves as opposed to the individual’s choice to be racinated, and thereby laser designate themselves as the target of a Declaration of War.

The Hermeneuticist Cricket, by opposing such assortation as “Cartesian”, is serving the parasite that is terrified of any human ecologies free of its “directives”, as well as of being exposed as a parasite.  That this fear of comparison bears some relationship to “experimental controls to discover causation” should be taken as a mere side effect of trusting Euroman’s DNA to choose wisely, rather than imposing on Euroman an authority structure which is exactly the body politic type the parasite seeks to create for its own ends.

PS:  At the appropriate extrema, I would hope that the nigger hiding behind the pseudonym of “Captain Chaos” and I would end up in what The Fair Church℠ calls one of the “Natural Ecclesia”.  (CTRL-F “Natural Ecclesia”)

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 07 Oct 2018 04:15 | #

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 17:41 | #

The parasite wants the Hermeneuticist Cricket to ignore the reality that “individuals” will,

Maybe he does, but the Hermeneuticist is keen, in fact, provides a key understanding and means of agency, by either corporeal or autobiographical self, so as to not let that individual will be ignored.

if left to make their own conscious choice of so-called “social contract,”

I don’t talk much in terms of ‘social contract’. I believed that term has been tarnished a bit by being among the Lockeatine repertoire that we’re trying to correct for, but it doesn’t bother me.

will largely choose to assort along lines that correspond

Probably would sort on racial lines (as they do in the lunch room or in jail), but there apparently has to be more deconstruction of Jewish language games that have White people mystified (with tangles, confusion, paradoxes, loops, the golden rule and so on) and in fear (with bugaboos like Christianity). I can give myself credit for doing well in that regard.

to what I, in 1998 (long before “DNA Nation” was coined by anyone), described as DNA-testing-based nations. Of course I got the idea basically from Wilmot Robertson’s Ethnostate—and simply adorned it with the then-emerging DNA sequencing technology.

I never claimed the idea of a DNA Nation came to me ex nihilo - for me it is a matter of trying to put into effect the idea of ‘your nation is your skin” or “O.R.I.O.N.”

I put your name and the seeds of your Sortocracy idea in there hoping that you would see that your efforts were respected, that your competence to help guide the project would be encouraged - that you would see that the project was not antagonistic to your interests.

I also did that to try to re-direct your competitive tendency to take an “I did that first, long ago”, angle with ideas that I’d propose. That you were a bit too competitive in that regard, so I tried to create a collaborative atmosphere and project.

You do acknowledge that you are not an originator of the notion either. I too, sought to operationalize it in genetic form - a logical inference, that I made originally on my own, but which any reasonable person might.

Knowing that you tended to be a bit too competitive was part of why I put your name front and center, to try to encourage you to a collaborative disposition in its regard.

But briefly touching on where I have found you to be (perhaps) too competitive (I say perhaps, because one must be careful, and lock step association is not particularly careful), I could give examples.

You messed it up - really didn’t get it with the (to paraphrase!), ‘you Johnny come latelies to the YKW coopting of the Right, are not appreciating that I have (since 1892) been trying to encourage this so that I could gain their leverage in fostering our right wingers.’

First of all, you were not respecting what was being done here with your ‘I did that first bit’ and you were not seeing that that’s not exactly what we need (you won’t agree and I don’t care; I understand that your being thrown in the pan mixia of America makes you keen on extricating yourself from social entanglements - but the horror of that and reaction to Jewish abuses of language games had you not appreciating that I am conceiving of the social as delimiting ours, yours, them ..as in people you want to be social with).

Such also as refusing to see the way Cartesian is being used. The way social constructionism is being used (if it makes you feel better, Harre says that only individuals have agency, not groups. I’m not sure that I’d agree and I don’t know if he calls himself a social constructionist anymore, but he’s contributed to the post modern project; and he is a trained neural scientist: talking in terms of the corporeal and autobiographical both). With all these terms, I assume the proper understanding of them, not the straw men that GW sets up or that you might.

But there are other instances in which you were probably a bit too competitive, if not unfair - taking something that I said, then you say that you said it. You’ve done that a couple times. You were going to tell me about the irony of the “grooming’ term. Another example that comes off the top of my head is where I had inferred that the hippies were about “being” as prompted by the San Francisco “Be-in” ...sometime later, you plucked out the Wikipedia page on “The Be-In” and suggested that I needed to be apprised of this - you were going to tell me.

Another one that bothered me a bit, was my application of the idea from “Women, Fire and Other Dangerous Things” ...that people have the need to classify (that book says ‘categorize’, but its basically the same thing) from which I drew inferences, and you felt the need to say how you’d had this idea long ago… well, I’d made several important inferences from there and I can’t really think of any good reason why you’d try to diminish these inferences (which I didn’t see coming from you) with another instance of “I did that first.”

What of the Deracinated Crickets who will not so-choose?  It is reasonable to presume they suffer from a similar infection to the Hermeneuticist Cricket, but with a far less egregious ecological consequence:

I can agree that the Hermeneuticist Cricket is capable of egregious ecological consequence if its imaginative side is left to go crazy; but the saving grace is that it is duty bound in its non-Cartesian circularity to empirical verification.

However, the real salvation of the Hermeneuticist Cricket is that it liberates agency from the already egregious ecological consequences of The Cartesian Cricket and the runaway it has caused with its detached, non-interactively conceived and impervious linearity that runs rough shod over ecology, interactive indebtedness and human accountability generally.

The Deracinated Crickets may be decisively divided into those that choose to permit individuals to choose a DNA-based “social contract” and those that will oppose such individuals.

I’m glad you’re thinking about this, because it is a problem, e.g., what to do about people, say, who are indeed White, but identify as Christian first and foremost.

The Deracinated Crickets that so-permit individuals to separate from them will be voluntarily consigning themselves to quarantine—even if they perceive the racinated individuals to be placed into quarantine.

Yes, that’s good, but becomes more problematic to coordinate on the nation scale, which is a necessary scale, if not confederation size, if we are to have sufficient power. One thought is that, “you can do it - e.g., believe in the golden rule, but it is not sanctioned by the state and not encouraged, as it does not recognize important differences.” ...something like that.

In so doing, their parasite will seek to detach and flee to find a host but be blocked by the quarantine.  Many of these, relatively benign, Deracinated Crickets, may find themselves freed from “the parasite’s directives”.

That would be good, and is probably true.

The Deracinated Crickets that oppose racinated individuals will identify themselves as opposed to the individual’s choice to be racinated, and thereby laser designate themselves as the target of a Declaration of War.

I suppose.

The Hermeneuticist Cricket, by opposing such assortation as “Cartesian”, is serving the parasite that is terrified of any human ecologies free of its “directives”, as well as of being exposed as a parasite.

You are again persisting in misunderstanding the philosophical use of the term Cartesian. There has been much abuse of the idea (of post modern, anti-Cartesianism) on the imaginative side as well as the rigorous side (you are balking against the imaginative side). I suppose that YKW or other ill disposed liberal sorts could accuse your sortocracism of being ‘Cartesian’, but that would not be something a proper heremeneuticist/ social constructionist would do if its not true of your sorting and association.

I mean, as long as you don’t tell me that I have to be a part of some trip about “shield maidens, sovereigns and pair wise duels.” ...still, it is more boring than threatening to me. If I observe that something should be called “Cartesian” however, that is not an aid to the parasite, it is an aid to our own consciousness as European peoples. We are more vulnerable to the parasite when stuck in the rational blindness of Cartesianism.

I’m sure that you are anticipating ‘native American’ claims being launched against you, with the aid of YKW and other potential antagonists, but you should understand that hermeneutics is not only about history, but is capable of taking a myriad of factors into account with deftness.

That this fear of comparison bears some relationship to “experimental controls to discover causation”

The fear is not of comparison itself. The concern, is rather when two qualitatively different but necessary parts of systemic function are compared as if they are necessarily supposed to perform the same function; and one is deemed redundant and inferior - to discard irrespective of ecological niche and systemic balance.

This false comparison can happen between groups as well.

should be taken as a mere side effect of trusting Euroman’s DNA to choose wisely, rather than imposing on Euroman an authority structure which is exactly the body politic type the parasite seeks to create for its own ends.

Well, quantitative comparison may be a part of choosing wisely, but it requires practical judgment (phronesis) in the matter of praxis.

PS:  At the appropriate extrema, I would hope that the nigger hiding behind the pseudonym of “Captain Chaos” and I would end up in what The Fair Church℠ calls one of the “Natural Ecclesia”.  (CTRL-F “Natural Ecclesia”)

It is very important to note that Captainchaos drew a way, way too thin comparison by saying that your individuality vs. eusociality was likened to me with Hermeneutics as opposed to Cartesianism.

Firstly, again, you all persist in misunderstanding Hermeneutics proper as if it is anti-Science/empiricism - which it cannot be or that would be against its non-Cartesian mandate.

But the major point to make is that the White Post Modern project is not reduced to Hermeneutics vs Cartesiansm.

Again, CC is going back to Majorityrights STEM fetish for the one line zinger that would bring the whole house of cards down.

And typically of STEM mentality, it is trying to find the “one problem” that breaks the lineal chain, to isolate it and remove it.

Its a reductionary straw man

In so doing, he vastly misrepresents the several aspects of the White Post Modern Project. (Maybe I should call it the European Post Modern Project…I can’t see White Post Modern catching on… “White” works in tandem with some words - such as “White Class” but not others). ..You’d have to add Social Constructionism, emergentism, pragmatism, and more as being just as important components in correction of Modernity and its Cartesianism.

 

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 07 Oct 2018 06:08 | #

Group selection does not exist in nature.  Therefore eusociality cannot result from it.  This makes single deadly combat as a counterbalancing selective process pointless.

So what need does Bowery serve by prescribing single deadly combat?  It serves as a revenge fantasy in which Bowery imagines himself to be a great warrior who gallantly cuts the throats of all the Chads who have figuratively (and literally?) stuffed him into his locker throughout his life.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 08 Oct 2018 11:32 | #

Daniel, it’s clear you have not understood the very comprehensive, clear and concise operational definition of sortocracy.  Even if you did understand it, the absence of an equally comprehensive, clear and concise description of “DNA Nation” would render your critiques “boring”, as you say—boring as anything from the culture of critique.  And this has become the fate of Majority Rights.  It’s unclear why you think anyone cares what your very verbose writings say.

My “competitiveness” is simply trying to get you to pay attention to what I’ve said—just as would I if I ran across something Wilmot Robertson said about the Ethnostate years later.  Indeed, I did when I collected Instauration issues in the 90s. 

Anyway, ‘nuff said.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Oct 2018 12:37 | #

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 08 Oct 2018 06:32 | #

Daniel, it’s clear you have not understood the very comprehensive, clear and concise operational definition of sortocracy.

Nice try. ..to try to distract from the fact that I have answered and overturned your objections.

Even if you did understand it,

You mean, even if I would waste my time with your God talk and straw men about how answers to Cartesianism are, according to you, supposed to be Jewish language games, to be answered by your “pure empiricism.” ... God talk, etc.

the absence of an equally comprehensive, clear and concise description of “DNA Nation” would render your critiques “boring”, as you say—boring as anything from the culture of critique.

They are not boring at all. Your talk of shield maidens, sovereigns, pairwise duels, and your self serving refusal to understand the beneficial resource of White post modernity is what is boring.

And this has become the fate of Majority Rights.

I’ve unwittingly come to the infertile soil of right wing reactionaries, the scientisic, the Jesus freaksih, Hitler fetishists and Jewish trolls…

I would expect you and GW to be cooperative, to see in what I bring resources that are more than useful, but necessary; that you would seek to integrate them with the aspects that you like to focus on - in GW’s case, emregentism, and in your case, empirical verification. In both cases its possible. Had you done that, we’d be much further along (contributing, instead of trying to deconstruct the very necessary resource that I bring, instead of demanding that I drop better philosophical resource to work on your anachronistic pet projects; instead of trying vainly to see what I bring as one and the same as the Jewish abuse of terms and concepts that you react to).

It’s unclear why you think anyone cares what your very verbose writings say.

Tanstaafl’s Jewish wife would perhaps appreciate your misdirection. As would Hitler fetishists (the scientisitc), Jesus Freaks and Jews - i.e., people more concerned for their bullshit as opposed to White advocacy.

As if your text is so compelling. It will cause eyes to glaze over, while you might gain some limited backing if in audio form - perhaps not generating a small, bizarre cult. Perhaps.

I send “to whom it may concern messages” ..and thus, sooner or later, those who want the best resource for White advocacy, will find my words.

My “competitiveness” is simply trying to get you to pay attention to what I’ve said—just as would I if I ran across something Wilmot Robertson said about the Ethnostate years later.  Indeed, I did when I collected Instauration issues in the 90s.

Anyway, ‘nuff said.

Your competitiveness is a way of life for you, as in the case of GW, it is arbitrarily based, evident by the fact that it has you remaining in the habit of taking an antagonistic, deconstructive stance to whatever I say, rather than trying to connect with it in mutual cultivation. ..in recognizing that not only does what I say make clear and consistent sense, but it is decidedly in the interests of White peoples, as groups and as individuals.

James, you have said that if some other race would prove a better vehicle for individuals, then you would side with them. That is your priority, individualism, not White people. But your philosophy is so lame and scientistic, that it would destroy the very grounds of individualism.

As it would rather suit your training and predilection, you want strict science to be the only feature to be focused-on; and one and the same as philosophy; however that simply does not make for a compete enough philosophy. You are apparently too old, too stubborn and too self centered to learn and integrate up-to-date philosophy.

..can’t say that I didn’t try with you and it will be evident to anybody who looks at “the verbosity” which you required of me to answer your objections.

‘nuf said.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 08 Oct 2018 14:03 | #

“corporeal or autobiographical self”

These terms are shallow almost to the point of meaninglessness.  Certainly, there is no self of the body, and the notion of autobiography is already put beyond use by its association with the liberal project.  Actually, the very word “self” is so loaded with misconceptions, it is used only very sparingly and particularly by serious Heideggerians.  By “corporeal self” do you mean the natural identity ... the totality of all that is ownmost ... that belongs to us?  Being natural and the product of our descent, these things are to a great extent collectively held ... for example, the behavioural dictates of the primary characteristics of the sociobiology (in Europeans, for example, conflict with Nature, intelligence, individualism, male life-time commitment to the female, high-K parenting, and so forth).  Accordingly, they express collectively in our mores, tradition and religious feeling (the first of these most directly), and our penchant for freedom and a fair deal for our brother.

We have discussed this very matter before, and you obviously reacted without applying yourself intellectually to the question of what is in human beings.  For here you are, as always, repeating the same claim, turning to the other notion, for a “self” which socially constructs Reality and which, by a mere wave of the sociologist’s hand, is no longer of postmodernism like the rest of the social construction guff but of a conveniently “real” and “white” postmodernism.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Oct 2018 14:24 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 08 Oct 2018 09:03 | #

“corporeal or autobiographical self”

These terms are shallow almost to the point of meaninglessness.

No they are not at all. The autobiographical aspect of self is one of those things that helps (helped me) past Cartesian riddles of self reflexiveness, paradox and so on…was so helpful in my experience, (in addition to proprioceptive corporeality) that I could never have my confidence shaken by your jealous contentiosness.

You want to believe these things are in opposition to emerentism. They are not.

These concepts are only as shallow as the interpeter - i.e., the shallowness is all yours.

Certainly, there is no self of the body, and the notion of autobiography is already put beyond use by its association with the liberal project.

That’s one of the most stupid things that you’ve ever said.

For example, one’s self twenty years ago was entirely the same as today? Certainly not in all respects. Cutting short on examples, which can be many of the importance of the autobiographical self, it is in fact necessary to participate in any non-liberal project (lest it fail to see beyond moment and episode and be subject to misdirection).

Actually, the very word “self” is so loaded with misconceptions, it is used only very sparingly and particularly by serious Heideggerians.

Do you know what? I don’t give a fuck what you say, because you are only looking for things to dispute; and then you refer to your Heideggerian book of rules, which you don’t understand anyway (and which I don’t need to corroborate everything that that I say, even if you did understand it).

Do you mean the natural identity ... that which belongs to us?

Here we go with the pure nature shit again…

I mean GW. Even when your objections have been answered, you keep trying it over and over again.

Being natural and the product of our descent, these things are to a great extent collectively held ...

Good.

for example, the behavioural dictates of the primary characteristics of the sociobiology (in Europeans, for example, conflict with Nature, intelligence, individualism, male life-time commitment to the female, high-K parenting, and so forth) ...

There’s nothing there that isn’t accommodated in terms of inquiry within what I say…

and they will express collectively in our mores, tradition and religious feeling (the first of these most directly), and our penchant for freedom and a fair deal for our brother.

Listen GW, write your ontology project, your personality stuff. I am not stopping you, but if you try to misrepresent and belittle what I bring to bear I will fight for it, because it is in the interest of our people and it is infinitely more important than your conceited contentiousness and wish to show your jealousy as “all we need.”

We have discussed this very matter before, and you obviously reacted without applying yourself intellectually to the question of what is in human beings.

Most of us are not jacks of all trades, not neural scientists, nor do we have to be - we attend to different important aspects of the project of our homeostasis. I attend to not only what is in human beings, but runs through them into their social systemic realm.

For here you are, as always, repeating the same claim for a “self” which socially constructs Reality and which, by a mere wave of the sociologist’s hand, is no longer of postmodernism like the rest of the social construction guff but of a conveniently “real” and “white” postmodernism.

GW, you are full of shit and I am ashamed of you.

If you think saying that “I am ashamed of you” is one of the roughest things that I can say to an adult man, you are right. But you deserve it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 08 Oct 2018 14:40 | #

Oh come on, it’s long past time for this stubbornness.  You cannot coerce the nationalism of the European race, which is our life-cause, into the tiny ideological space you have created out of your university education.  You must listen and avoid warring with everyone, which only results in isolation.  You have so much right.  It’s just these ideological issues which stand in your way, if only you could see it.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Oct 2018 15:37 | #

GW, clearly you are the one who is improperly stubborn.

I am not coercing anyone, and certainly not to narrow ideological space - you are.

Here we go again with your autobiography of hero of the common man (who has been misled, particularly by the YKW, for centuries, and you want me to heed them through the likes of Gottfried and Framegames to retreat to modernity or traditionalism, against “the left and post modernity”) when I have seen my way past their misdirected language games, and have explained it, shall continue to do so, for all to see - all who are concerned for our interests, our White ethnonationalism.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 08 Oct 2018 17:08 | #

CC, surely group selection must exist in nature in so much as the selection for adaptive traits is ethnic-specific, the ethnic group being the repository of genes for fitness.  The individual selector is behaving adaptively by transmitting 100% group-distinctive genes to the next generation.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 08 Oct 2018 19:13 | #

Daniel, you are creating the very barriers that you “see your way past”.  You are setting the rules of your own game.  How do I know?  Because right here on this thread you redefined a reference to the traditional (taken, apparently, from my remark that the sociobiology configures “our mores, tradition and religious feeling ... and our penchant for freedom and a fair deal for our brother”) and turned it into some sign of my being taken in by Jewish sleight of hand!  This is absurd.

It’s not that you are wrong about absolutely everything.  Far from it.  It’s that those things you are wrong about are clear to everybody, and you won’t heed a word anyone says.  We have to connect to communicate, not isolate ourselves on an ideological island for one.

This is really, really obvious, trust me.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 00:37 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 08 Oct 2018 14:13 | #

Daniel, you are creating the very barriers that you “see your way past”.

No I am not, GW. Why do you lie?

Here is a barrier: confusion created by YKW et al (not by me) = “there’s no such thing as right or left; or it is not a useful distinction.”

More (not created by me): “The left and its implicitness for social classification, unionization and social justice is our enemy”

More (not created by me): “The Left and Liberalism are synonymous” - in fact, a paradox, when understood for one’s own group interests - e.g., the nation.

Here’s an obstruction that you set out with that - “race and nation” can’t be thought of as “a union.”

Stupid.

and much more…

Why do you insist on denying whatever I bring to the table? What makes you such a fucking asshole?

Never mind, I already know. Your gargantuan, unmerited ego, your ridiculous autobiographical tilt against perceived academia, supposedly on behalf of “the common man.”

You are setting the rules of your own game.

No, I’m not, I observe them and break them in the favor of White ethnonationalism; as I have shown in the few examples above (could do more), of rules, while showing how they can and should be broken in our favor - as in the example: “The Left is Liberalism” ...not when it is our left, our union, on ethnonational scale.

How do I know?  Because right here on this thread you redefined a reference to the traditional (taken, apparently, from my remark that the sociobiology configures “our mores, tradition and religious feeling ...

This is absolutely not true. I did not re-define tradition. When I use the word tradition, I use the word consistently and generally to encompass a broad array of customs and practices.

and our penchant for freedom and a fair deal for our brother”)

I was not even paying a great deal of attention to your example of one of our inclinations, which I often describe as our comparative inclination to Augustinianism (stretching it to call that “tradtion” but I would place it in a double entry rubric as our inherited forms and ways/and traditions - both of which can be valuable to protect and typically coincide).

and turned it into some sign of my being taken in by Jewish sleight of hand!  This is absurd.

I was not even speaking of that example.

You talk as if I see your words as well considered and am trying to address your strawmen.

There are a myriad of ways in which White people have been fooled generally and yourself included - by misrepresentations of post modern conceptions.

You point to the long history of Europe, as if it has perfectly trustworthy record of self interest. A lot of people can be fooled into inauthenticity for a long time - Christianity

But it is because you are such an egomaniac that you thought I was absorbed in your one, overly particular, example.

It’s not that you are wrong about absolutely everything.

You haven’t disproved or deconstructed anything, though that is all you try to do.

Far from it.  It’s that those things you are wrong about are clear to everybody

You don’t know everybody. And you don’t draw upon any opinion that I respect, as evidence by the ridiculous, contentious arguments that you make, aimed invariably at simply disagreeing before you understand what you are disagreeing with.

GW, Don’t you find it a bit arbitrary that all you ever try to do is deconstruct and diminish anything that I say?

, and you won’t heed a word anyone says.

No, I won’t heed your misguided reactions and misapprehensions. I have been forced to address them for five years, have answered them already and you have the nerve to say that I am the one not heeding.

We have to connect to communicate, not isolate ourselves on an ideological island for one.

The ideological isolation is more your fault than anyone. People come here and see your contentiousness, your uwillingness to acknowledge good ideas and to help cultivate them and it hinders their trust - mainly in you, because GW, it is plain for anyone to see that you are not especially well educated, senselessly contentious and very stubborn.

This is really, really obvious, trust me.

How can anyone trust you? Can’t you see how arbitrary it is that all you ever do is try to deconstruct anything that I say - no matter how well it holds up and serves?

You are not to be trusted for your narcissism - nothing but placing your ego and contentiousness above all.

It would be bad enough that you are contentious (disagreeing just to disagree) but you are not even good at it (even though you probably think you are by the fact that you keep doing it). Your gaslighting is not well motivated: your egotism, encouraged by the aforementioned right-wing types (“Carolyn Yeager is an ‘original thinker” - lol; add business cronies who want to encourage your right wing reaction to the list, along with Nazis, Jesus freaks, scientistic fuck-heads) and our enemies, YKW - way more than just Gottfried and Frame Games are encouraging the kind of social deconstructionism you endlessly engage. ...anti-“leftism”, pro Zio-Trump, etc.

Anybody who can’t see through your gaslighting is a fool or badly motivated.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 01:22 | #

Daniel, I think GW does it because he thinks it’s good for lulz to see a sperg get stuffed into his locker.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 11:39 | #

It’s not a comedy event, CC.  I am serious.  I want Daniel to understand that he didn’t somehow massively luck-in and discover the key to all our troubles when he first walked into the sociology lecture theatre and heard the case for social constructionism and communicationism.  He’s a very smart guy, and he has spent decades shaping the things he heard at that time into what, today, he earnestly believes is a superior strategy for white advocacy and agency.  His attachment to it is very powerful, and he protects it with some ruthless handling of other people’s like attachments, with the completely predictable result that he becomes isolated because, obviously, no one can be convinced that way, and no thinking nationalist can be convinced anyway of the utility of “autobiographical selves” who are constructing reality together and who would do it in a more “white” way, ushering in “white postmodernity”, if only they take a rule or three set by a self-appointed hermeneutic, pansophic elite.

That way Daniel never moves beyond his own world of thought - the point being that particulars of one’s worldview must contain the possibility to connect to the like nodes of other worldviews, and by that connection to enter the consideration of the holders of those worldviews.  For Daniel to fulfil his intellectual potential in our movement he has to have something to connect with, and he has to be tolerant of what most other people currently believe.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 12:20 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 06:39 | #

It’s not a comedy event, CC.  I am serious.  I want Daniel to understand that he didn’t somehow massively luck-in and discover the key to all our troubles when he first walked into the sociology lecture theatre and heard the case for social constructionism and communicationism.

GW. I didn’t walk into a sociology lecture and hear the case for he communications perspective and social constructionism and say that I had massively lucked-in to discover the key to all our troubles.

I weighed the evidence of the various ways of investigation and recognized this one as best.

Your problem is that you have now spent a good part of your life arguing against misrepresentations and misunderstandings of it and it is very difficult for you to accept the fact that you have been an idiot.

It is easier for your ego to remain an obnoxious obstruction, and say that “everyone”, i.e., all people who have been maneuvered into reaction, and who are now aligning themselves with a Jewish perspective against our group evolutionary interests, are seeing the “obvious” fact, while clinging to their misapprehension in reaction to Jewish misrperehentions and distortions, that I am not taking a left nationalist perspective in reasoned inference of our interests, but as “a Jewish affectation” rather than a re-appopriation of ancient and contemporary European resource in means to that inference.

You are on the level of a churchman in the late 1800s arguing against evolution.

 

 

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 12:31 | #

He’s a very smart guy, and he has spent decades shaping the things he heard at that time into what, today, he earnestly believes is a superior strategy for white advocacy and agency.

GW is a man who, as I have said, has cultivated over the course of his life an autobiography the central component of which is to debunk academic chimera.

The problem is that he has gotten so heavily into reaction to vast abuses coming out of (((academia))), that it is now probably impossible for his ego to accept that he has spent a good part of his life chasing after red capes; that he has not been piercing the bull but rather throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 12:50 | #

His attachment to it is very powerful, and he protects it with some ruthless handling of other people’s like attachments, with the completely predictable

GW’s white knuckle clinging to a reactionary position in vain pursuit of “universal foundations” while our ship is being sunk by our enemies, and while he relentlessly and ironically attacks our own vessel as it is being soundly rebuilt, is a completely predictable result of parasitic infection - and exactly acting in their interests.

You’d think he’d take a look around and find it ((Cohencidental))) that since taking complete hegemony over elite positions in 2008, that their elites would no longer have as much use for “social justice warring”, let alone to allow anyone to make the inconvenient (to (((them))) inference that something like White Left Nationalism could be an entirely different matter than international “leftism” and its bizarre distortions arrayed in liberal hyperbole against White classificatory interests. That (((their))) elite interests are Cohencidentally merging politically and more and more genetically, with White reaction against “The Left.” ..steering our very nerve center against the means to organize our White group interests.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 13:04 | #

..predictable result that he becomes isolated because, obviously, no one can be convinced that way,

With the predictable result that the parasite would do everything in its power of itself and through its host to isolate and eliminate the cure for its host - as the cure would expel and immunize the host from the parasite.

 

 

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 13:48 | #

GW said: That way Daniel never moves beyond his own world of thought - the point being that particulars of one’s worldview must contain the possibility to connect to the like nodes of other worldviews, and by that connection to enter the consideration of the holders of those worldviews.  For Daniel to fulfil his intellectual potential in our movement he has to have something to connect with, and he has to be tolerant of what most other people currently believe.

Perhaps the most salient feature of sortocracy is its material and operational recognition that each of us are deeply and inescapably immersed in our “own world of thought”.  Disputes may be materially and non-violently resolved without resort to verbal communication.  The most vital aspect of identity is necessarily ineffable and if not accorded operational respect in “social construction” leads to senseless destruction, as we’ve seen happen to Majority Rights, if not violence.  Clearly, Daniel needs his own material space.  Within sortocracy, he would have territory in proportion to his outreach to “connect to the like nodes of other worldviews”.  His “nonsense” would, to those he reached, be their “common sense”, constructing a culture—creating an artificial selection regime with their “race” the result.  His misunderstanding of my comments about “race” arises from his inability to understand that “social construction” is the construction of culture and, for the “white race” more than any other, that culture is artificial selection with “race” the result.  The “social construction” of culture is, indeed, radical constructionism.  His inability to “be tolerant of what most other people currently believe” even as he is incapable of communicating what he believes, to them, would be fully and materially honored within the boundary of his material territory.  Radical construction of culture is materially rooted in the ineffable “world of thought” each of us is doomed, and blessed, to inhabit as individuals as well as parts of a larger, ineffable, whole. 

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:15 | #

GW: obviously, no one can be convinced that way, and no thinking nationalist can be convinced anyway of the utility of

This is the way that the parasite has its host operating.

It has people of its host group say that “nobody agrees with you.”

In fact, there were two key moments in my life, both at the instigation of Jews who tried to place anti-racism on a completely taken-for-granted level, making it impossible for me to simply bite the bullet and tarry along with rationalizations and tolerance of terrible abuses in the liberal scheme.

I had set one rule for myself. I don’t want a woman who has dated a black.

I said that I don’t want, not “you can’t.”

A (((social worker))) that I was using in hopes that she would help my calm when studying for the Series 7, tried to undermine this foundational assertion of mine, to undermine this “final grammar” as Rorty would say.

She coyly tried to, you know, get under my skin a little bit and subvert my assertion with a slow, pseudo-beleaguered, pesudo-ultra-humble question, like I was the oppressor.....“w…w…well…we…well, even if it was a long time ago?”

After having made what was to me an enormous concession to liberalism, in order to participate in its positive opportunities, but needing confirmation that the liberal political scheme was at least reasonable enough to accept MY choice, and not impose values on me, that was the first eruptive moment for me that I had to try to take things to the source of our people’s social conception.

And so after some erudition, weighing and recognizing invaluable resource in my quest to fight in advocacy of White men against anti-racism and feminism, I did write to Pearce (didn’t just walk into a sociology lecture); and though I did stubbornly cling to some of the outdated arguments that GW clings to and with the same motives that he has (reacting to Frankfurt school abuses), I came to see that the resources of the communicology studies that I acted into were actually better suited to our interests, even where it was hoped and assumed by academic antagonists that I would not apply them that way.

The second great awakening was when a Jewish professor, sensing where I was headed, tried to create a sense of overwhelming hegemony arrayed against me, saying before the class, “of course, nobody agrees with racism anymore.”

That caused a melt down in me, attacking the second final grammar, “we don’t want.”

Sensing that my work was going places, but that I was suffering for the liberal, pc attack, my department contacted my family and enlisted my father, sister and sister in law to go along with this thing (which GW’s parasitic infection now expresses), that “nobody agrees with you, nobody thinks like that”, viz., in racial terms (causing estrangement even from my family, but that’s another story).

So, in the first instance, YKW were saying, that “I can’t discriminate in my interests”, causing me to not be able to suspend disbelief in the good will of liberal society enough to participate in the shallow world of business (GW’s world). In the second instance and meltdown of any possibility of serious non antagonistic participation in this society’s academia, a YKW was trying to say that “We cannot discriminate in our interests.”

It was then that I realized that I had to drop the notion of participating in academia for an advanced degree - I had to take a critical and oppositional stance to it, taking from it what was ours and deploying it for our interests as it converged in confirmation of my experience of what was good and healthy for me and us ethnonationalsts.

In other words, not only did I make sacrifices of time and effort, sacrifices of business and academic career, sacrificing that career rather than selling our interests out, but now, because GW is such a conceited ignoramus in his anti-academic autobiography, he is going to try to say that I am beholden to Jewish academic premises, rather than having rejected academia as it was beholden to the Jewish agenda, even if it meant sacrificing a promising career, working with a department doing public relations for the President of the United States.

..because I had critically weighed and sorted though my thought, learning and experience, what was in our interests and what not.

...but he’s going to try to act like I am the one who doesn’t know what is going on, like I’m the one who is just going along with the program.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:28 | #

I wasn’t finished answering GW yet, but to digress in answer to an error by Bowery:

Perhaps the most salient feature of sortocracy is its material and operational recognition that each of us are deeply and inescapably immersed in our “own world of thought”.  Disputes may be materially and non-violently resolved without resort to verbal communication.  The most vital aspect of identity is necessarily ineffable and if not accorded operational respect in “social construction” leads to senseless destruction, as we’ve seen happen to Majority Rights, if not violence.

This again results from a shallow understanding of social constructionism and the communications perspective. Which holds rather that “we live in communication.”

That Bowery would try to say it is all about verbal communication is the most crass misunderstanding.

To even maintain that it is all about understanding is a misunderstanding. In fact, for an example, one of the earlier studies conducted by Pearce found that it was precisely because a particular couple did not understand each other that they got along. The same would hold true for groups, that coordination (non conflictual co-existence) does not necessarily require understanding - in fact, understanding can sometimes make relations worse.

Clearly, Daniel needs his own material space.

I have my own material space and ethnostate already - very nice.

Now, let me address the rest of the diarrhea that should be spewing out of your ass and into the toilet instead:

Within sortocracy, he would have territory in proportion to his outreach to “connect to the like nodes of other worldviews”.  His “nonsense” would, to those he reached, be their “common sense”, constructing a culture—creating an artificial selection regime with their “race” the result

Like I said, you make it sound daunting for me, but because my world view is in fact not nonsense, but is based in reality and life as it works, I already have an ethnostate, while yours relies on trying to get people to play dungeons and dragons with you and hope that you don’t spawn another doomsday cult on top of your already bizarre worldview.

His misunderstanding of my comments about “race” arises from his inability to understand that “social construction” is the construction

I’m the one who doesn’t understand social constructionism? You’ve got that backwards.

of culture and, for the “white race” more than any other, that culture is artificial selection with “race” the result.

Again, that is a shallow misunderstanding of the communications/ social constructionist perspective as applied competently in White interests.

The “social construction” of culture is, indeed, radical constructionism.

We’ve already established there that your are not relying on sufficiently competent sources - von Glasersfeld. Sheesh.

His inability to “be tolerant of what most other people currently believe”

Most people do not believe in Hitler, Jesus, are not Jews….but together in WN they form an Alt-Right anti-social club (the only thing they have in common) which, together with the scientistic dinosaurs, does make for a pain in the ass which I will not tolerate for our interests, no - let them go elsewhere if they are that stupid.

When we’ve solidified our position and have more cooperation, we can talk to some of those sorts and try to disabuse them.

even as he is incapable of communicating what he believes, to them,

Anybody of good will can read what I say and understand it.

would be fully and materially honored within the boundary of his material territory.  Radical construction of culture is materially rooted in the ineffable “world of thought” each of us is doomed, and blessed, to inhabit as individuals as well as parts of a larger, ineffable, whole.

Again, all you do is reveal your shallow, obsolete understanding of “communication”..

In the communications perspective, we live in communication. It is not the lineal, modernist, transmission model that you and GW still think in terms of. Rather it is interactive, hermeneutic, not Cartesian: as such it verifies facts as need be, but is liberated from the arbitrary tosses of mere facticity.

... preparing the way for coherence, accountability, agency, warrant, individual and human group homeostasis, and some capacity in management of pervasive ecology.

 

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:44 | #

Now, where was I?

Yes, I was saying to GW, who’d said:

obviously, no one can be convinced that way, and no thinking nationalist can be convinced anyway of the utility of

Let me take it from the top and go a little farther:

obviously, no one can be convinced that way, and no thinking nationalist can be convinced anyway of the utility of

This is the way that the parasite has its host operating.

It has people of its host group say that “nobody agrees with you.”

In fact, there were two key moments in my life, both at the instigation of Jews who tried to place anti-racism on a completely taken-for-granted level, making it impossible for me to simply bite the bullet and tarry along with rationalizations and tolerance of terrible abuses in the liberal scheme.

I had set one rule for myself. I don’t want a woman who has dated a black.

I said that I don’t want, not “you can’t.”

A (((social worker))) that I was using in hopes that she would help my calm when studying for the Series 7, tried to undermine this foundational assertion of mine, to undermine this “final grammar” as Rorty would say.

She coyly tried to, you know, get under my skin a little bit and subvert my assertion with a slow, pseudo-beleaguered, pesudo-ultra-humble question, like I was the oppressor.....“w…w…well…we…well, even if it was a long time ago?”

After having made what was to me an enormous concession to liberalism, in order to participate in its positive opportunities, but needing confirmation that the liberal political scheme was at least reasonable enough to accept MY choice, and not impose values on me, that was the first eruptive moment, instigating the awareness that I had to try to take things to the source of our people’s social conception.

And so after some erudition, weighing and recognizing invaluable resource in my quest to fight in advocacy of White men against anti-racism and feminism, I did write to Pearce (didn’t just walk into a sociology lecture); and though I did stubbornly cling to some of the outdated arguments that GW clings to and with the same motives that he has (reacting to Frankfurt school abuses), I came to see that the resources of the communicology studies that I acted into were actually better suited to our interests, even where it was hoped and assumed by academic antagonists that I would not apply them that way.

The second great awakening was when a Jewish professor, sensing where I was headed, tried to create a sense of overwhelming hegemony arrayed against me, saying before the class, “of course, nobody agrees with racism anymore.”

That caused a melt down in me, attacking the second final grammar, “we don’t want.”

Sensing that my work was going places, but that I was suffering for the liberal, pc attack, my department contacted my family and enlisted my father, sister and sister in law to go along with this thing (which GW’s parasitic infection now expresses), that “nobody agrees with you, nobody thinks like that”, viz., in racial terms (causing estrangement even from my family, but that’s another story).

In the first instance of my awaking to this parasitic strategy, they were saying, that “I can’t discriminate in my interests”, causing me to not be able to suspend disbelief in the good will of liberal society enough to participate in the shallow world of business (GW’s world). In the second instance and meltdown of any possibility of serious non antagonistic participation in this society’s academia, a YKW was trying to say that “We cannot discriminate in our interests.”

It was then that I realized that I had to drop the notion of participating in academia for an advanced degree - I had to take a critical and oppositional stance to it, taking from it what was ours and deploying it for our interests as it converged in confirmation of my experience of what was good and healthy for me and us ethnonationalsts.

In other words, not only did I make sacrifices of time and effort, sacrifices of business and academic career, sacrificing that career rather than selling our interests out, but now, because GW is such a conceited ignoramus in his anti-academic autobiography, he is going to try to say that I am beholden to Jewish academic premises, rather than having rejected academia as it was beholden to the Jewish agenda, even if it meant sacrificing a promising career, working with a department doing public relations for the President of the United States

…because I had critically weighed and sorted though my thought, learning and experience, what was in our interests and what not.

...but he’s going to try to act like I am the one who doesn’t know what is going on, like I’m the one who is just going along with the program.

and then GW is going to go on to say:

and no thinking nationalist can be convinced anyway of the utility of “autobiographical selves” who are constructing reality together

Nobody, or at least not I, am saying what your straw man is saying, that that is all there is to it - your straw man that “autobiographical selves” are constructing reality together goes to the incredibly superficial understanding of the communications perspective, which is that we live in communication - so its not all about autobiographical selves constructing reality together, we have inherent corporeality and hard facts around us, which no competent philosopher or communicologist denies; about which we have some determination as to how matters count (how to ‘constuct’ them); but by the same token, about which not just any construct would do, on penalty of being correctly recognized as insane, vastly diminished quality of life or even death.

GW adds, in jealous sarcasm: and who would do it in a more “white” way, ushering in “white postmodernity”, if only they take a rule or three set by a self-appointed hermeneutic, pansophic elite.

Well that’s what a jealous idiot might say. As if there is something wrong with deploying philosophy in White/European interests…and recognizing, as any competent philosopher does, that modernity has been destructive to our ethnocentrism as it has to others, and therefore calls for a proper understanding of post modernity, which I have called White Post modernity to distinguish the fact that it is crafted in our interests.

I do not appoint myself an elite. I propose a collaborative effort and am beset by dinosaurs of a prior generation who were lucky enough to have profited for themselves from the modernist project and for their confirmation bias cannot adjust to the fact that its overall trajectory is destruction; thus do not collaborate in the corrective White Post Modern project.

Which they could do if they had good will. But they don’t, so that’s that.

 

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Oct 2018 15:06 | #

That way Daniel never moves beyond his own world of thought - the point being that particulars of one’s worldview must contain the possibility to connect to the like nodes of other worldviews, and by that connection to enter the consideration of the holders of those worldviews.  For Daniel to fulfil his intellectual potential in our movement he has to have something to connect with, and he has to be tolerant of what most other people currently believe.

Indeed my world view is primarily geared for connecting (with our people) - and for ways for coordinating with views of other interests (though not having to tolerate them where they are clearly not conducive to our interests) - but I’m having to fight against people infected with the parasite’s directives in reaction to their insane misrepresentation of these ideas.

So overwhelming has their hegemony in academia and media been to misrepresent these ideas and infect people with reaction, that they can say with confidence, that “nobody agrees with you”...while they refuse to see what is obvious for all to see, Zio-Trump’s Jewish family and complicity with elite YKW; Gottfried, Frame Games, Black Pigeon Speaks and other YKW’s desperate wish to have people go along with the “anti-left” “anti-social justice warrior” “anti-equality” agenda as that perfectly serves the parasite.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 10 Oct 2018 02:52 | #

Daniel insists he is not a sperg.  Yet he displays rather obvious mental abnormalities.  Perhaps Daniel has hydrocephalus.  For his own safety it should be insisted that he wear one of those special retard helmets at all times.

Posted by Stahlhelm on Wed, 10 Oct 2018 04:28 | #

Boy, oh Boy CC.

You never stop trying to put people into that special retard helmet!.                           

Posted by Gregory Bateson on Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:39 | #

Form, Substance and Difference*

by Gregory Bateson

Let me say that it is an extraordinary honor to be here tonight, and a pleasure. I am a little frightened of you all, because I am sure there are people here who know every field of knowledge that I have touched much better than I know it. It is true that I have touched a number of fields, and I probably can face any one of you and say I have touched a field that you have not touched. But I am sure that for every field I have touched, there are people here who are much more expert than I. I am not a well-read philosopher, and philosophy is not my business. I am not a very well-read anthropologist and anthropology is not exactly my business.

But I have tried to do something which Korzybski was very much concerned with doing, and with which the whole semantic movement has been concerned, namely, I have studied the area of impact between very abstract and formal philosophic thought on the one hand and the natural history of man and other creatures on the other. This overlap between formal premises and actual behavior is, I assert, of quite dreadful importance today. We face a world which is threatened not only with disorganization of many kinds, but also with the destruction of its environment, and we, today, are still unable to think clearly about the relations between an organism and its environment. What sort of thing is this, which we call “organism plus environment”?

Let us go back to the original statement for which Korzybski is most famous—the statement that the map is not the territory. This statement came out of a very wide range of philosophic thinking, going back to Greece, and wriggling through the history of European thought over the last 2000 years. In this history, there has been a sort of rough dichotomy and often deep controversy. There has been violent enmity and bloodshed. It all starts, I suppose, with the Pythagoreans versus their predecessors, and the argument took the shape of “Do you ask what it’s made of—earth, fire, water, etc.?” Or do you ask, “What is its pattern?” Pythagoras stood for inquiry into pattern rather than inquiry into substance.1 That controversy has gone through the ages, and the Pythagorean half of it has, until recently, been on the whole the submerged half. The Gnostics follow the Pythagoreans, and the alchemists follow the Gnostics, and so on. The argument reached a sort of climax at the end of the eighteenth century when a Pythagorean evolutionary theory was built and then discarded—a theory which involved Mind.

The evolutionary theory of the late eighteenth century, the Lamarckian theory, which was the first organized transformist theory of evolution, was built out of a curious historical background which has been described by Lovejoy in The Great Chain of Being. Before Lamarck, the organic world, the living world, was believed to be hierarchic in structure, with Mind at the top. The chain, or ladder, went down through the angles, through men, through the apes, down to the infusoria or protozoa, and below that to the plants and stones.

What Lamarck did was to turn that chain upside down. He observed that animals changed under environmental pressure. He was incorrect, of course, in believing that those changes were inherited, but in any case, these changes were for him the evidence of evolution. When he turned the ladder upside down, what had been the explanation, namely, the Mind at the top, now became that which had to be explained. His problem was to explain Mind. He was convinced about evolution, and there his interest in it stopped. So that if you read the Philosophie Zoologique (1809), you will find that the first third of it is devoted to solving the problem of evolution and the turning upside down of the taxonomy, and the rest of the book is really devoted to comparative psychology, a science which he founded. Mind was what he was really interested in. He had used habit as one of the axiomatic phenomena in his theory of evolution, and this of course also took him into the problem of comparative psychology.

Now mind and pattern as the explanatory principles which, above all, required investigation were pushed out of biological thinking the later evolutionary theories which were developed in the mid-nineteenth century by Darwin, Huxley, etc. There were still some naughty boys, like Samuel Butler, who said that mind could not be ignored in this way—but they were weak voices, and incidentally, they never looked at organisms. I don’t think Butler ever looked at anything except his own cat, but he still knew more about evolution than some of the more conventional thinkers.

Now, at last, with the discovery of cybernetics, systems theory, information theory, and so on, we begin to have a formal base enabling us to think about mind and enabling us to think about all these problems in a way which was totally heterodox from about 1850 through to World War II. What I have to talk about is how the great dichotomy of epistemology has shifted under the impact of cybernetics and information theory.

We can now say—or at any rate, can begin to say—what we think a mind is. In the next twenty years there will be other ways of saying it and, because the discoveries are new, I can only give you my personal version. The old versions are surely wrong, but which of the revised pictures will survive, we do not know.

Let us start from the evolutionary side. It is now empirically clear that Darwinian evolutionary theory contained a very great error in its identification of the unit of survival under natural selection. The unit which was believed to be crucial and around which the theory was set up was either the breeding individual or the family line or the subspecies or some similar homogeneous set of conspecifics. Now I suggest that the last hundred years have demonstrated empirically that if an organism or aggregate of organisms sets to work with a focus on its own survival and thinks that is the way to select its adaptive moves, its “progress” ends up with a destroyed environment. If the organism ends up destroying its environment, it has in fact destroyed itself. And we may very easily see this process carried to its ultimate reductio ad absurdum in the next twenty years. The unit of survival is not the breeding organism, or the family line, or the society.

The old unit has already been partly corrected by the population geneticists. They have insisted that the evolutionary unit is, in fact, not homogeneous. A wild population of any species consists always of individuals whose genetic constitution varies widely. In other words, potentiality and readiness for change is already built into the survival unit. The heterogeneity of the wild population is already one-half of that trial-and-error system which is necessary for dealing with environment.

The artificially homogenized populations of man’s domestic animals and plants are scarcely fit for survival.

And today a further correction of the unit is necessary. The flexible environment must also be included along with the flexible organism because, as I have already said, the organism which destroys its environment destroys itself. The unit of survival is a flexible organism-in-its-environment.

Now, let me leave evolution for a moment to consider what is the unit of mind. Let us go back to the map and the territory and ask: “What is it in the territory that gets onto the map?” We know the territory does not get onto the map. That is the central point about which we here are all agreed. Now, if the territory were uniform, nothing would get onto the map except its boundaries, which are the points at which it ceases to be uniform against some large matrix. What gets onto the map, in fact, is difference, be it a difference in altitude, a difference in vegetation, a difference in population structure, difference in surface, or whatever. Differences are the things that get onto a map.

But what is a difference? A difference is a very peculiar and obscure concept. It is certainly not a thing or an event. This piece of paper is different from the wood of this lectern. There are many differences between them—of color, texture, shape, etc. But if we start to ask about the localization of those differences, we get into trouble. Obviously the difference between the paper and the wood is not in the paper; it is obviously not in the wood; it is obviously not in the space between them, and it is obviously not in the time between them. (Difference which occurs across time is what we call “change.”)

A difference, then, is an abstract matter.

In the hard sciences, effects are, in general, caused by rather concrete conditions or events—impacts, forces, and so forth. But when you enter the world of communication, organization, etc., you leave behind that whole world in which effects are brought about by forces and impacts and energy exchange. You enter a world in which “effects”—and I am not sure one should still use the same word—are brought about by differences. That is, they are brought about by the sort of “thing” that gets onto the map from the territory. This is difference.

Difference travels from the wood and paper into my retina. It then gets picked up and worked on by this fancy piece of computing machinery in my head.

The whole energy relation is different. In the world of mind, nothing—that which is not—can be a cause. In the hard sciences, we ask for causes and we expect them to exist and be “real.” But remember that zero is different from one, and because zero is different from one, zero can be a cause in the psychological world, the world of communication. The letter which you do not write can get an angry reply; and the income tax form which you do not fill in can trigger the Internal Revenue boys into energetic action, because they, too, have their breakfast, lunch, tea, and dinner and can react with energy which they derive from their metabolism. The letter which never existed is no source of energy.

It follows, of course, that we must change our whole way of thinking about mental and communicational processes. The ordinary analogies of energy theory which people borrow from the hard sciences to provide a conceptual frame upon which they try to build theories about psychology and behavior—that entire Procrustean structure—is non-sense. It is in error.

I suggest to you, now, that the word “idea,” in its most elementary sense, is synonymous with “difference.” Kant, in the Critique of Judgment—if I understand him correctly—asserts that the most elementary aesthetic act is the selection of a fact. He argues that in a piece of chalk there are an infinite number of potential facts. The Ding an sich, the piece of chalk, can never enter into communication or mental process because of this infinitude. The sensory receptors cannot accept it; they filter it out. What they do is to select certain facts out of the piece of chalk, which then become, in modern terminology, information.

I suggest that Kant’s statement can be modified to say that there is an infinite number of differences around and within the piece of chalk. There are differences between the chalk and the rest of the universe, between the chalk and the sun or the moon. And within the piece of chalk, there is for every molecule an infinite number of differences between its location and the locations in which it might have been. Of this infinitude, we select a very limited number, which become information. In fact, what we mean by information—the elementary unit of information—is a difference which makes a difference, and it is able to make a difference because the neural pathways along which it travels and is continually transformed are themselves provided with energy. The pathways are ready to be triggered. We may even say that the question is already implicit in them.

There is, however, an important contrast between most of the pathways of information inside the body and most of the pathways outside it. The differences between the paper and the wood are first transformed into differences in the propagation of light or sound, and travel in this form to my sensory end organs. The first part of their journey is energized in the ordinary hard-science way, from “behind.” But when the difference enter my body by triggering an end organ, this type of travel is replaced by travel which is energized at every step by the metabolic energy latent in protoplasm which receives the difference, recreates or transforms it, and passes it on.

When I strike the head of a nail with a hammer, an impulse is transmitted to its point. But it is a semantic error, a misleading metaphor, to say that what travels in an axion is an “impulse>” It could correctly be called “news of a difference.”

Be that as it may this contrast between internal and external pathways is not absolute. Exceptions occur on both sides of the line. Some external chains of events are energized by relays, and some chains of events internal to the body are energized from “behind.” Notably, the mechanical interaction of muscles can be used as a computational model.2

In spite of these exceptions, it is still broadly true that the coding and transmission of differences outside the body is very different from the coding and transmission inside, and this difference must be mentioned because it can lead us into error. We commonly think of the external “physical world” as somehow separate from an internal “mental world.” I believe that this division is based on the contrast in coding and transmission inside and outside the body.

The mental world—the mind—the world of information processing—is not limited by the skin.

Let us now go back to the notion that the transform of a difference traveling in a circuit is an elementary idea. If this be correct, let us ask what a mind is. We say the map is different from the territory. But what is the territory? Operationally, somebody went out with a retina or a measuring stick and made representations which we then put upon paper. What is on the paper map is a representation of what was in the retinal representation of the man who made the map/ and as you push the question back, what you find is an infinite regress, an infinite series of maps. The territory never gets in at all. The territory is Ding an sich and you can’t do anything with it. Always the process of representation will filter it out so that the mental world is only maps of maps of maps, ad infinitum.3 All “phenomena” are literally “appearances.”

Or we can follow the chain forward. I receive various sorts of mappings which I call data or information. Upon receipt of these I act. But my actions, my muscular contractions, are transforms of differences in the input material. And I receive again data which are transforms of my actions. We get thus a picture of the mental world which has somehow jumped loose from our conventional picture of the physical world.

This is not new, and for historic background we go again to the alchemists and Gnostics. Carl Jung once wrote a very curious little book, which I recommend to all of you. It is called Septem Sermones ad Mortuos, Seven Sermons to the Dead.4 In his Memoirs, Dreams and Reflections, Jung tells us that his house was full of ghosts, and they were noisy. They bothered him, they bothered his wife, and they bothered the children. In the vulgar jargon of psychiatry, we might say that everybody in the house was as psychotic as hooty owls, and for quite good reason. If you get your epistemology confused, you go psychotic, and Jung was going through an epistemological crisis. So he sat down at his desk and picked up a pen and started to write. When he started to write the ghosts all disappeared, and he wrote this little book. From this he dates all his later insight. He signed it “Baslides,” who was a famous Gnostic in Alexandria in the second century.

He points out that there are two worlds. We might call them two worlds of explanation. He names them pleroma and the creatura, these being Gnostic terms. The pleroma is the world in which events are caused by forces and impacts and in which there are no “distinctions.” Or, as I would say, no “differences.” In the creatura, effects are brought about precisely by difference. In fact, this is the same old dichotomy between mind and substance.

We can study and describe the pleroma, but always the distinctions which we draw are attributed by us to the pleroma. The pleroma knows nothing of differences and distinction; it contains no “ideas” in the sense in which I am using the word. When we study and describe the creatura, we must correctly identify those differences which are effective within it.

I suggest that “pleroma” and “creatura” are words which we could usefully adopt, and it is therefore worthwhile to look at the bridges which exist between these two “worlds.” It is an oversimplification to say that the “hard sciences” deal only with the pleroma and that the sciences of the mind deal only with the creatura. There is more to it than that.

First, consider the relation between energy and negative entropy. The classical Carnot heat engine consists of a cylinder of gas with a piston. This cylinder is alternately placed in contact with a container of hot gas and with a container of cold gas. The gas in the cylinder alternately expands and contracts as it is heated or cooled by the hot and cold sources. The piston is thus driven up and down.

But with each cycle of the engine, the difference between the temperature of the hot source and that of the cold source is reduced. When this difference becomes zero, the engine will stop.

The physicist, describing the pleroma, will write equations to translate the temperature difference into “available energy,” which he will call “negative entropy,” and will go on from there.

The analyst of the creatura will note that the whole system is a sense organ which is triggered by temperature difference. He will call this difference which makes a difference “information” or “negative entropy.” For him, this is only a special case in which the effective difference happens to be a mater of energetics. He is equally interested in all differences which can activate some sense organ. For him, any such difference is “negative entropy.”

Or consider the phenomenon which the neurophysiolgists call “synaptic summation.” What is observed is that in certain cases, when two neurons, A and B, have synaptic connection to a third neuron, C, the firing of neither neuron by itself is sufficient to fire C; but that when both A and B fire simultaneously (or nearly so), the combined “impulses” will cause C to fire.

In pleromatic language, this combining of events to surmount a threshold is called “summation.”

But from the point of view of the student of creatura (and the neruophysioligist must surely have one foot in the pleroma and the other in creatura), this is not summation at all. What happens is that the system operates to create differences. There are two differentiated classes of firings by A: those firings which are accompanied by B and those which are unaccompanied. Similarly there are two classes of firings by B. The so called “summation” when both fire, is not an additive process from this point of view. It is the formation of a logical product—a process of fractionation rather than summation.

The creatura is thus the world seen as mind, whenever such a view is appropriate. And whenever this view is appropriate, there arises a species of complexity which is absent from pleromatic description: creatural description is always hierarchic.

I have said that what gets from territory to map is transforms of difference and that these (somehow selected) differences are elementary ideas.

But there are differences between differences. Every effective difference denotes a demarcation, a line of classification, and all classification is hierarchic. In other words differences are themselves to be differentiated and classified. In this context I will only touch lightly on the matter of classes of difference, because to carry the matter further would land us in problems of Principia Mathematica.

Let me invite you to a psychological experience, if only to demonstrate the frailty of the human computer. First note that differences in texture are different (a) from differences in color. Now note that differences in size are different (b) from differences in shape. Similarly rations are different (c) from subtractive differences.

Now let me invite you, as disciples of Korzybski, to define the differences between “different (a),” “different (b),” and “different (c)” in the above paragraph. The computer in the human head boggles at the task. But not all classes of difference are as awkward to handle

One such class you are all familiar with. Namely, the class of differences which are created by the process of transformation whereby the differences immanent in the territory become differences immanent in the map. In the corner of every serious map you will find these rules of transformation spelled out—usually in words. Within the human mind, it is absolutely essential to recognize the differences of this class, and, indeed, it is these that form the central subject matter of “Science and Sanity.”

An hallucination or a dream image is surely a transformation of something. But of what? And by what rules of transformation?

Lastly there is that hierarchy of differences which biologists call “levels.” I mean such differences as that between a cell and a tissue, between tissue and organ, organ and organism, and organism and society.

These are the hierarchies of units or Gestalten, in which each sub unit is a part of the unit of next larger scope. And, always in biology, this difference or relationship which I call “parT of” is such that certain differences in the part have informational effect upon the larger unit, and vice versa.

Having sated this relationship between biological part and whole, I can now go on from the notion of creatura as mind in general to the question of what Is a mind.

What do I mean by “my” mind?

I suggest that the delimitation of an individual mind must always depend upon what phenomena we wish to understand or explain. Obviously there are lots of message pathways outside the skin, and these and the messages which they carry must be included as part of the mental system whenever they are relevant.

Consider a tree and a man and an ax. We observe that the ax flies through the air and makes certain sorts of gashes in a pre-existing cut in the side of the tree. If now we want to explain this set of phenomena, we shall be concerned with differences in the cut face of the tree, differences in the retina of the man, differences in this central nervous system, differences in his efferent neural messages, differences in the behavior of his muscles, differences in how the ax flies, to the differences which the ax then makes on the face of the tree. Our explanation (for certain purposes) will go round and round that circuit. In principle, if you want to explain or understand anything in human behavior, you are always dealing with total circuits, completed circuits. This is the elementary cybernetic thought.

The elementary cybernetic system with its messages in circuit is, in fact, the simplest unit of mind; and the transform of a difference traveling in a circuit is the elementary idea. More complicated systems are perhaps more worthy to be called mental systems but essentially this is what we are talking about. The unit which shows the characteristic of trial and error will be legitimately called a mental system

But what about “me”? Suppose I am a blind man, and I use a stick. I go tap, tap, tap. Where do I start? Is my mental system bounded at the handle of the stick? Is it bounded by my skin? Does it start halfway up the stick? Does it start at the tip of the stick? But these are nonsense questions. The stick is a pathway along which transforms of difference are being transmitted. The way to delineate the system is to draw the limiting line in such a way that you do not cut any of these pathways in ways which leave things inexplicable. If what you are trying to explain is a given piece of behavior, such as the locomotion of the blind man, then, for this purpose, you will need the street, the stick, the man; the street, the stick, and so on, round and round.

But when the blind man sits down to eat his lunch, his stick and its messages will no longer be relevant—if it is his eating that you want to understand.

And in addition to what I have said to define the individual mind, I think it necessary to include the relevant parts of memory and data “banks.” After all, the simplest cybernetic circuit can be said to have memory of a dynamic kind—not based upon static storage but upon the travel of information around the circuit. The behavior of the governor of a steam engine at Time 2 is partly determined by what it did at Time 1—where the interval between Time 1 and Time 2 is that time necessary for the information to complete the circuit.

We get a picture, then, of mind as synonymous with cybernetic system—the relevant total information-processing, trial-and-error completing unit. And we know that within Mind in the widest sense there will be a hierarchy of subsystems, any one of which we can call an individual mind.

But this picture is precisely the same as the picture which I arrived at in discussing the unit of evolution. I believe that this identity is the most important generalization which I have to offer you tonight.

In considering units of evolution, I argued that you have at each step to include the completed pathways outside the protoplasmic aggregate, be it DNA-in-the-cell, or cell-in-the-body, or body-in-the-environment. The hierarchic structure is not new. Formerly we talked about the breeding individual or the family line or the taxon, and so on. Now each step of the hierarchy is to be thought of as a system, instead of a chunk cut off and visualized as against the surrounding matrix.

This identity between the unit of mind and the unit of evolutionary survival is of very great importance, not only theoretical, but also ethical.

It means, you see, that I now localize something which I am calling “Mind” immanent in the large biological system—the ecosystem. Or, if I draw the system boundaries at a different level, then mind is immanent in the total evolutionary structure. If this identity between mental and evolutionary units is broadly right, then we face a number of shifts in our thinking.

First, let us consider ecology. Ecology as currently two faces to it: the face which is called bioenergetics—the economics of energy and materials within a coral reef, a redwood forest, or a city—and, second, an economics of information, of entropy, negentropy, etc. These two do not fit together very well precisely because the units are differently bounded in the two sorts of ecology. In bioenergetics it is natural and appropriate to think of units bounded at the cell membrane, or at the skin; or of units composed of sets of tiers at which measurements can be made to determine the additive-subtractive budget of energy for the given unit. In contrast, informational or entropic ecology deals with the budgeting of pathways and of probability. The resulting budgets are fractionating (not subtractive). The boundaries must enclose, not cut, the relevant pathways.

Moreover, the very meaning of “survival” becomes different when we stop talking about the survival of something bounded by the skin and start to think of the survival of the system of ideas in a circuit. The contents of the skin are randomized at death and the pathways within the skin are randomized. But the ideas, under further transformation, may go on out in the world in books or works of art. Socrates as a bioenergetic individual is dead. But much of him still lives in the contemporary ecology of ideas.5

It is also clear that theology becomes changed and perhaps renewed. The Mediterranean religions of 5000 years have swung to and fro between immanence and transcendence. In Babylon the gods were transcendent on the tops of hills; in Egypt, there was god immanent in Pharaoh; and Christianity is a complex combination of these two beliefs.

The cybernetic epistemology which I have offered you would suggest a new approach. The individual mind is immanent but not only in the body. It is immanent also in pathways and messages outside the body; and there is a larger Mind of which the individual mind is only a subsystem. This larger Mind is comparable to God and is perhaps what some people mean by “God,” but it is still immanent in the total interconnected social system and planetary ecology.

Freudian psychology expanded the concept of mind inwards to include the whole communication system within the body—the automatic, the habitual, and the vast range of unconscious process. What I am saying expands mind outwards. And both of these changes reduce the scope of the conscious self. A certain humility becomes appropriate, tempered by the dignity or joy of being part of something much bigger. A part—if you will—of God.

If you put God outside and set him vis-a-vis his creation and if you have the idea that you are created in his image, you will logically and naturally see yourself as outside and against the things around you. And as you arrogate all mind to yourself, you will see the world around you as mindless and therefore not entitled to moral or ethical consideration. The environment will seem to be yours to exploit. Your survival unit will be you and your folks or conspecifics against the environment of other social units, other races and the brutes and vegetables.

If this is your estimate of your relation to nature and you have an advanced technology, your likelihood of survival will be that of a snowball in hell. You will die either of the toxic by-products of your own hate, or, simply, of over-population and overgrazing. The raw materials of the world are finite.

If I am right, the whole of our thinking about what we are and what other people are has got to be restructured. This is not funny, and I do not know how long we have to do it in. If we continue to operate on the premises that were fashionable in the prescybernetic era, and which were especially underlined and strengthened during the Industrial Revolution, which seemed to validate the Darwinian unit of survival, we may have twenty or thirty years before the logical reductio ad absurdum of our old positions destroy us. Nobody knows how long we have, under the present system, before some disaster strikes us, more serious than the destruction of any group of nations. The most important task today is, perhaps, to learn to think in the new way. Let me say that I don’t know how to think that way. Intellectually, I can stand here and I can give you a reasoned exposition of this matter; but if I am cutting down a tree, I still think “Gregory Bateson” is cutting down the tree. I am cutting down the tree. “Myself” is to me still an excessively concrete object, different from the rest of what I have been calling “mind.”

The step to realizing—to making habitual—the other way of thinking so that one naturally thinks that way when one reaches out for a glass of water or cuts down a tree—that step is not an easy one.

And, quite seriously, I suggest to you that we should trust no policy decisions which emanate from persons who do not yet have that habit.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:57 | #

Obviously, Bateson never read Rushton’s cold-climate commentary.  Perhaps that would have been a better place to start than AGW.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:04 | #

I must say, that I do not see the conflict between looking after the survival of our social group and the environment.

Whites are apparently some of the worst in terms of environmental impact, but also some the best, most conscious and most capable of deploying corrective measures in that regard - forethought in adaptation to harsh cycles of weather would be one reason.

Nor was he apprised of the “Culture of Critique” and our concerns at present - viz. that our human ecological system has been the target of hate, slated for extinction; and therefore in need of cybernetic, homeostatic correction.

He was writing at a time before YKW hegemony had taken hold. It’s hard to anticipate such malice, though he does see it in the Abrahamic religion.

He does note that for the Mind system of creatura, and by extension the hierarchical classification of people known as a race, that “boundaries must enclose, not cut, the relevant pathways.”

And I do think this way.

...relevance would include (but not be limited to) pathways to and from the social world.

“The way to delineate the system is to draw the limiting line in such a way that you do not cut any of these pathways.” ...

...

I was rather expecting you to criticize the “map is not the territory” metaphor a bit…

It can be said that there is a bit of Cartesianism going on. Looked at from an emergent perspective, the map could be said to stem from the territory to a large extent. Perhaps not always accurately and not invariably avoiding misdirection (especially not without cybernetic feedback, hermeneutic, social constructionist, pragmatic correction), but it does not come out of pure mind stuff.

We are more or less co-evolved with the territory.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:57 | #

I am happy to criticise the map/territory allusion.  Perhaps,. in doing so, I can connect James’s comment @ 93 in respect to “worlds of thought” to Bateson on Mind, and both to Heidegger.  The quote is from a piece I wrote for the Ontology Project twenty months ago:

Now, from somewhere in the Mind’s very genotype there expresses the trait of speaking to self by means ancient and varied.  As no self-respecting philosopher would deny, a primordial isolation does indeed belong to Being.  It is its essential and tragic condition.  Each thought, feeling, and sensation addresses that condition, reaches beyond it, consoles it, penetrates it to a degree, but never changes it.  Speaking to the Other in the sense which communicationists intend is never an open and direct possibility ... never free of speaking primarily to self, or elements thereof.  In any case, the process works two ways - the isolation is equally of the Other, and is intrinsic to the Other’s private act of interpretation.  Communication is a finite possibility and communication from intellect to intellect, with its reliance on an imperfectly and accidentally acquired communicative method, most profoundly so.  The point of departure with Descartes – Heidegger’s, point of departure, really - lies in the mode by which meaning is disclosed, and certainly not in this original, existential isolation.  In the same way that Heidegger has to accept this aspect of the Cartesian model, so have we.

Of course, we can say also that while this singular isolatory state, in which we all live and all die, and cannot leave, is prior to every other state, the organism’s function in Nature (ie, as a reproductive entity functioning for the transmission of data through Time) is, if not prior itself, certainly conditional to it – a curious victory: to place restrictions on what went before!  But such it was, and isolation’s bitter fate was that way changed, or at least ameliorated.

So we find that, evolutionarily speaking (for respectable philosophy cannot propose in contravention of scientific knowledge, where the latter touches upon it), Nature conditions and constrains the organism to seek its own survival and its own reproduction in accordance with fitness.  Mind’s work of perception, interpretation, and decision is a grand fitness gain, basically.  All the while, beneath everything is a system of regulatory categories of driving, animalistic necessity: reproduction, evolutionarily adaptive choice-making, defence and advance of genetic interests.  Our individual life – as with the life of all individual organisms - really is this elemental, and it is an active elementality which reaches upward into the processes of daily living, motivating, informing, shaping, and, through the like nature of others (and only through their like nature), connecting, complementing, completing.

In terms of the ultimate foundation of origin, of course, we have no such certainties.  But we might speculate that the repeating mechanics which initialised a momentarily living organism ... an original, single organism … not once but millions or tens or hundreds of millions of times, only for extinction to follow immediately each time … those mechanics set in train a self-sustaining process belonging not to mechanicity but to a finally original organism, resulting in an identity as that which has the novel action of Being and continuing to be.  The continuity might only have been a product of a less finite fuel source or a more efficient way of consuming fuel.  But however that worked, it was creatively sufficient, and identity assumed its cosmic role as the holder of interest or care for its Being, out of which came all other things … evolution, reproduction, Mind ... everything.

So, by this reading we can infer ontologically that identity’s care is for the overcoming of isolation’s tending towards death, rather than the overcoming of isolation itself.  In itself, isolation does not offend against identity, but belongs to it and serves it in other ways.  We can assign the positive value to identity’s care and the negative to identity’s vestigial but no longer mono-form isolation.  Poetically, we could associate the former with instinct, energy and movement, extroversion, self-actualisation, and the struggle for life, and identity’s vestigial but no longer mono-form isolation with essence, stillness, introversion, self-realisation, entropy and death.  The struggle for life finds its path in the struggle to know.  Its outward orientation has something of the natural tension and energy of the relation of the sexes, driving the organism into a world revealed in perspective, to be experienced as relational and non-relational, empathetic and antipathetic, and giving of life and taking of life.

We can take that idea of relation further, and translate it into the detail of human being.  For now, for the first time in this exegesis, there arises the possibility for Being to come into possession of its complete and natural constitution.  It is only through the idea that being is a property of identity that Heidegger’s notion of a constituted character of the being of beings, subject to variation in the way of being, makes sense.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:22 | #

Buried in these lovely prose is an apparent wish that “identity” and “adaptation” must necessarily correspond with loyalty to one’s inborn and specific racial kind: “There can be no other.”  ..one can make a better argument that it is safest and best to treat identity and adaptation as heavily corresponding with racial loyalty, but…

I can stand by all that I say; and for the criticism that I’ve received above for being verbose, I’ll stand by the parsimony of comment 102 by contrast.

Let me add that one cannot Not communicate.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Oct 2018 21:50 | #

it is safest and best to treat identity and adaptation as heavily corresponding with racial loyalty

So ... is the Being of a normal, whole male identical to the Being of a normal, whole female?  Is Being amorphous and universal, a common ground of every being nailed to the intersection of Time and Place, as every being is?  Or is it particular?  Is Being a property of Identity?  Well, if you accept, as you should, that care for life informs there-being, is the care for life of a Man identical to the care for life of a woman?  Because if it isn’t (and it obviously isn’t) then there-being cannot be identical either.  It is sexed.  Its ownself’s appropriation is identitarian, and it is Ereignis: every being discloses itself as itself with and to itself.  This is the condition of the isolated being.

Let me add that one cannot Not communicate.

As a condition of the relational being, yes.  But we are, in different ways, isolation and relation, and my quoted passage above tries to address this most human dichotomy, and does so not merely to disagree with you, Daniel, but to take the matters which you raise here towards a proper ontological exposition.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:03 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:50 | #

“it is safest and best to treat identity and adaptation as heavily corresponding with racial loyalty”

So ... is the Being of a normal, whole male identical to the Being of a normal, whole female?

...and normally best to correspond to a normal male and female depending on the sex/gender.

..but now that you mention it, all this stuff, overdone though it undoubtedly is (I don’t pay attention to it where it is ridiculous) which would take it to the point where you can apparently make of yourself just whatever, is doing a disservice to the point behind that it can be liberating, truthful and healthy to recognize that “the they” of tradition can impose some stereotypes that constrain us in various negative ways - for example, against intellectualism (there is something of a negative corollary to a mandate for sheer confidence, action and assertion on the part of men; or sheer decorative compliance on the part of women), against sufficient zig-zag (Bateson uses the learning to ride a bike analogy - you peddle a bit too much in one direction and then correct it in the other) - enough meandering, as it were, to have some empathy for the other gender’s role.

I can agree that male and female do not have the same identity but I differ from the typical reaction to the gender flexibility stuff. While I agree that masculine females and especially effeminate males are vulgar, some flexibility in our gender identity is helpful to find a more conducive fit to our nature in balance and circumstance.

My father had nothing feminine about him. This was stultifying intellectually. Even verbal communication was treated as an effeminate nuisance, questions were an outrageous affront to his manliness. He frequently made no sense but became infuriated if you did not understand him. As if that wasn’t bad enough, everyone, including the women in my family were the same kind of macho men - - yes, no wonder I took to study of interpersonal communication.

So, when someone like Kumiko comes along and writes an article and says, you know? I see different ways to be a woman, and for me, having a child is not the end game. I side with her - not in her choice to not have a child. I still think it would be tragic to not pass on her brilliant genes and her type. But in her dedication to the concept of flexibility in gender.

And I disagreed with your response that it is THE thing to do for a woman to have a child.

Most should be encouraged to follow a nature that will seek that end. But the others should not be made to feel as if they are worthless. That would be a shallow understanding of nature even. And as a matter of fact, for those who cannot have children, they can see a great advantage in taking an identity as one who “has arrived” ..the culmination of nature as it were. Not only capable of harvesting the fruits of our heritage, having more capacity to live life on one’s own terms and to fulfill the reward that our forebears have prepared…

But as Aristotle advises, to make use of one’s leisure:

That is not to say that one should be a sheer hedonist and socially irresponsible. Again, epicurianism is about a hierarchy of pleasures and fulfillment - intellectualism ranking high; but one can indulge in doing more work for our people than they otherwise might if saddled with having to pay for and take care of children. Our genetic mandate prefers us to have children of our own, but helping our extended family is a part of the natural system as well, of course.

Is Being amorphous and universal, a common ground of every being nailed to the intersection of Time and Place, as every being is?

“The thrownness” of our condition, never “threw me” philosophically, rather it resonated with me as an honest appraisal of our human condition [and it is what the pragmatists are talking about when they reject “foundationalism”] - a fairly arbitrary and ambiguous condition that imposes a requirement to coherence - identity if you will, though its a more limited term than coherence - if we are to liberate ourselves from arbitrary facticity and become accountable, agentive, warranted human beings.

Or is it particular?  Is Being a property of Identity?

I would say being is the property of coherence, which is a way of saying Yes, and a little more, if we are to be authentic and not too rigidly bound to identity per se as the fundamental matter.

Well, if you accept, as you should, that care for life informs there-being, is the care for life of a Man identical to the care for life of a woman?

I can agree that it is not the same, though there will be some overlap and perhaps some cases where men and women care for life in ways quite like the opposite gender.

Because if it isn’t (and it obviously isn’t) then there-being cannot be identical either.  It is sexed.  Its ownself’s appropriation is identitarian, and it is Ereignis: every being discloses itself as itself with and to itself.  This is the condition of the isolated being.

Yes, there is a good point you have in observing the natural sex differentiation is a very radical point and is at the onset of individuation.

I’ve already indicated appreciation of how our interactive linkages and possibilities become more complex as we move up the hierarchy of emergence and interaction. I won’t trouble your poor Frankfurt abused mind with talk of gender and autobiography at this point.

Let me add that one cannot Not communicate.

As a condition of the relational being, yes.  But we are, in different ways, isolation and relation, and my quoted passage above tries to address this most human dichotomy, and does so not merely to disagree with you, Daniel, but to take the matters which you raise here towards a proper ontological exposition.

Ok, well you’ve done that very well. I know that Heidegger speaks in terms of identity, but again, I find coherence more generally useful (it can encompass identity while including more considerations, and more flexibility in negotiation of the thrownness).

One of the worst things to come to terms with for me on that very profound level was that our people (of course, in my case, my concern was our co-evolutionary women) could betray us and might. I didn’t see interracial couples around growing up but dreaded the possibility that the Televitz augured more and more. So, I perhaps hoped for some kind of natural mechanism that would not allow for it.

The only saving grace to the capacity for miscegenation is that it is indicative of some flexibility, and therefore the possibility for agency (for our antagonists too, which then allows us to take psychology out of the head, out of self blame and into social critique). So, I channel my grief in that direction. However, if your ontology project were to lead to a White nature that simply would not allow for it, as in “there could be no other”, well that would be just fine and perhaps our wishes would coincide.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:18 | #

According to GW’s sock puppets at Chateau Heartiste women are all lying whores.  Lulz

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:26 | #

I think Otto’s “Being Of” and my “Being-in-kind” likely cover all the ontological bases, but I need to understand what you mean by coherence ... specifically, it’s definitional extent, if any, beyond the relation of interests.  You sometimes conceptualise rather broadly and with a bias for the nuts and bolts of things, such that their nature and relation become mislaid somewhere along the way.  For example, the fact - and it is a fact - that there is an habitual memory-retrieval process inherent in sensing a self does not imply anything of executive value in that.  On the contrary, it only shows us how at all times the consciousness carries an ascriptive and immediate process of appropriating, which generally alights wherever attention wanders.  In this state of general absence (or ordinary waking consciousness), “I am” where my attention is, and because the memory has no capacity for discrimination, “I” can be anything.  Authenticity is not known here, and discrimination for it only enters at the turn.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:27 | #

On the contrary, it only shows us how at all times the consciousness carries an ascriptive and immediate process of appropriating,

No, it is not a sheer matter of appropriation (though it can do that), it is more a matter of integrating given lines (from the thrownness) into coherence. ..and it is probably here, where the corporeal and autobiographical (and biographical) are interweaved (where the Cartesian duality is handled in hermeneutic circularity).

It is more general (and more basic, even, than identity), but that’s part of how it allows for the non-impervious (healthily interactive and integrative where it should, for the sake of overall consistency) liberation from the arbitrary tosses and turns of the thrownness…and into the possibility for authentic being.

It does not render unimportant the more concrete project of identity, but provides for it a more flexible and generally applicable frame (topoi) in grounding the project of racial homeostasis (in its authentic systemic breadth and alternative range of functional autonomy).

Posted by DNA Databases Can Identify Most White Americans on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 05:51 | #

“Race Does Not Exist, But “Most White Americans’ DNA Can be Identified Through Genealogy Databases”

UNZ Review, “Race Does Not Exist, But “Most White Americans’ DNA Can be Identified Through Genealogy Databases”, 12 Oct 2018:

Steve Sailer

Law enforcement investigators have recently begun to solve old cold cases by tracking down criminals via their relatives’ DNA. From the New York Times:

  Most White Americans’ DNA Can Be Identified Through Genealogy Databases

  Only two percent of the population needs to have done a DNA test to identify nearly everyone else, researchers found.

  By Heather Murphy
  Oct. 11, 2018

  … Already, 60 percent of Americans of Northern European descent — the primary group using these sites — can be identified through such databases whether or not they’ve joined one themselves, according to a study published today in the journal Science.

  Within two or three years, 90 percent of Americans of European descent will be identifiable from their DNA, researchers found. The science-fiction future, in which everyone is known whether or not they want to be, is nigh.

  The science involves a search for third cousins. To identify a person through a DNA sample, an investigator uploads a previously analyzed genetic sequence to a database. The goal is to find someone who shares enough DNA to place them in the third cousin or closer range. Most of us have at least 800 people out there, somewhere in the world, who fall into this category.

I’m too lazy to check the arithmetic on that number. If you want to: assume a stable replacement rate of two children per generation for ease of calculation. The complication is that you have a lot of direct ancestors closer to you genetically than 3rd cousins and a fair number of uncles/aunts/nephews/nieces.

  The team found that a DNA sample from an American of Northern European heritage could be tracked successfully to a third-cousin distance of its owner in 60 percent of cases. A comparable analysis on the MyHeritage site had similar results.The analysis focused on Americans of North European background because 75 percent of the users on GEDmatch and other genealogy sites belong to that demographic. To identify an individual of any ancestral background, all that is needed is a database containing two percent of the target population, according to Dr. Erlich.

In other words, even though we are constantly told that race doesn’t exist, in practice race turns out to look a lot like extended family.

 

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 06:02 | #

This part (in bold) needed to be rephrased a bit, as the idea of “coherence” does no ground a project of itself, but rather as topoi, it frames and guides grounding of identity, or as I prefer to say, the grounding of racial and other group homeostasis (in its authentic systemic breadth and alternative range of functional autonomy).

It does not render unimportant the more concrete project of identity, but provides for it a more flexible and generally applicable frame in grounding the project of racial homeostasis (in its authentic systemic breadth and alternative range of functional autonomy).

* “Frame” should not imply some sort of closed system as apparently Heidegger was warding off with the term “enframing.”

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 08:27 | #

Daniel, do you know what the crowning irony of Michael Ravioli whining about Nordicism and in the next breath touting EGI is?  It is precisely concern for their EGI that should motivate Nordics to embrace Nordicism.  No wonder Ravioli is so embittered and neurotic.  Reality is just not his friend.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 09:23 | #

it is not a sheer matter of appropriation (though it can do that)

Shared interest, aligned or not, cannot appropriate the natural identity.  I understand what you are trying to say, but unless you approach this little mystery from the right direction you only generate yet another reification of the personality, no different in its inauthenticity to any other.  It may march in torchlight parades and vote for the Neo-National Party of Greater Germania.  It may join up and fire bullets at the prescribed enemy.  But it is not qualitatively what we are after.

Step back and look at your own intellectual derivations of, respectively, identity and interest.  Identity can be ascribed to certain indiscriminate activity in the brain, the generic term for which is “personality” in my reading, or it can be the appropriation of that which emerges sheer from the wreckage when we actively attend.  Thus Heidegger said in his essay of 1923, titled Ontology: the Hermeneutics of Facticity, “Our Own is rather a how of being, an indication which points to a possible path of being-wakeful.”  This, as you know, is my reading of that path:

ABSENCE ◄ habituality (mechanicity) ◄ immersion ◄ negation ◄ reverie ◄ sloth ◄ passive attention ◄INTENT► active attention ► stillness ► detachment ► affirmation ► appropriation ► PRESENCE ► non-ascription of identity ► self-annihilation ► unalloyed Being

I would term this emergent entity the natural or organic identity.  This is not “Cartesian”.  This is not mysticism.  This is the human truth at the level of the individual and the group alike.  And active attention?  Here is a very small example of its power.  But focus on the soldiers and not on their focus.  And remember, no one here actually knows what they are doing.  This is just by accident.

https://www.facebook.com/thetommyrobinson/videos/596129387457097/?t=0

As for the aligning (cohering) of shared interests, that belongs in a separate category entirely, namely properties of the above identity.  Nationalisms always endeavour to align all the interests of the group.  It is what socialism means in nationalism.  But in respect to the authentic it is necessarily post-facto.  Derivationally, you can’t switch around that which belongs and that which owns.

it is probably here, where the corporeal and autobiographical (and biographical) are interweaved (where the Cartesian duality is handled in hermeneutic circularity).

Really, Daniel, this is all fiction serving only to alienate you from the rest of the movement.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 10:49 | #

A passage from Being-in-kind, part 2 which is key to what is missing in your sociologically-derived psychology of selves:

personality is the expression of neurological data generated by influences external to the organism, and laid down associatively in the three perceptual systems (intellectual, emotional, motor).  This data constitutes every acquired principle, ideal, belief, value, taste, attitude, ambition, prejudice, vanity, presumption, impression, impulse, accent and inflexion, action and reaction, fad and fashion … everything behavioural that is nurtured, everything that is habituated, everything that is prescribed, everything that is not native.

This, which is neither singular nor self-conscious nor agentive, is illusion.  But it is illusion over which the brain automatically pronounces the word “I”, a primordial and wholesale appropriation done quite without consideration for authenticity.  The appropriation includes that of memory.  Indeed, I would say that it goes back into memory after the initial event, papering over the cracks.  It reifies the most fundamental and the most brilliantly convincing of all our lies: that that which does not belong to us but to the world distinguishes us from that world.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 12:36 | #

Shared interest, aligned or not, cannot appropriate the natural identity.

It is reconstruction that would be appropriated or re-appropriate in that case.One would take from shared identity passed on in language and practice to reconstruct their historical and inherited identity where one did not just naturally stay on track by their brute corporeality….assuming, of course, that one wants to maintain the coherence of national identity.

One professor that I worked with did not like Harre’s use of “appropriation” either, but preferred Shotter’s “acting-into.” ..which is meant exactly to address the Cartesian mechanism with which you quibble.

I tend to use both, but understand that most radically it is an acting into or acting out of that is meant, even with “appropriation.”

 

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 12:54 | #

I understand what you are trying to say, but unless you approach this little mystery from the right direction you only generate yet another reification of the personality, no different in its inauthenticity to any other.

But it is approached from the right direction, the acting into a corrective, circulating non Cartesian process of hermeneutics.

It may march in torchlight parades and vote for the Neo-National Party of Greater Germania. It may join up and fire bullets at the prescribed enemy.  But it is not qualitatively what we are after.

Hitler’s world view did not allow enough for the corrective aspect of human nature in praxis. Too much emphasis on the other side, of the inhuman, “natural” puritianical, where people were directed to react-into their a brute nature, more toward the mindless end of pleroma as Bateson would say, not allowing for sufficient hermenetuic authentication in praxis.

Failing the authentication of distinctly human nuance in praxis, “nature” can give way to the kind of headlong collectivism and destruction that it unleashed, that at some level, is only a part of the parasitic process that he was trying to throw off.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 13:08 | #

Hitler’s world view did not allow enough for the corrective aspect of human nature in praxis. Too much emphasis on the other side, of the inhuman, “natural” puritianical, where people were directed to react-into their a brute nature, more toward the mindless end of pleroma as Bateson would say, not allowing for sufficient hermenetuic authentication in praxis.

Failing the authentication of distinctly human nuance in praxis, “nature” can give way to the kind of headlong collectivism and destruction that it unleashed, that at some some level, is only a part of the parasitic process that he was trying to throw off.

And it is because we should be active, not reactive like that in our group interests that we should not go along with the Jewish directives that we react as right wingers, along with them, against our social corrective processes.

Rather, we should actively embrace our processes as a part of our ongoing hermeneutic corrective for our systemic homeostasis.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 13:24 | #

Step back and look at your own intellectual derivations of, respectively, identity and interest.

If you look above and look at what I have been saying over the years, you’ll see that I have thought about these things.

Which you unflatteringly refer to as “intellectual derivations” to be cleared away in order to (pretend to) lay bare (but actually obfuscate, and bury, and push aside in favor of) your giant ego project.

I mean, look here, what are we talking about in a thread that is supposed to be about the DNA Nations? Of course, were are being frapped in the web of your ego project instead.  ...where what you say is basically what is to be respected..it’s supposed light unto our pure nature.

...which is just a convenient excuse for ignoring people and for lack of some useful erudition.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 13:41 | #

Identity can be ascribed to certain indiscriminate activity in the brain, the generic term for which is “personality” in my reading, or it can be the appropriation of that which emerges sheer from the wreckage when we actively attend.  Thus Heidegger said in his essay of 1923, titled Ontology: the Hermeneutics of Facticity, “Our Own is rather a how of being, an indication which points to a possible path of being-wakeful.”  This, as you know, is my reading of that path:

ABSENCE ◄ habituality (mechanicity) ◄ immersion ◄ negation ◄ reverie ◄ sloth ◄ passive attention ◄INTENT► active attention ► stillness ► detachment ► affirmation ► appropriation ► PRESENCE ► non-ascription of identity ► self-annihilation ► unalloyed Being

I’s a process and a routine that you may invoke, others may construe the check points a bit differently. For my part, I don’t see myself checking this list every morning along with my sit ups, push ups and coffee.

But maybe you will find some sort of useful algorithm. It’s just a shame that you continue to bury all the questions and contentions I’ve answered and managed to direct this thread to your ego project.

And while I don’t much care for talk of personality in particular, find identity lacking comrpehensive practicality, thus do not find your remark all that well considered where you say:

Identity can be ascribed to certain indiscriminate activity in the brain, the generic term for which is “personality” in my reading, or it can be the appropriation of that which emerges sheer from the wreckage when we actively attend.

Regarding Heidegger’s remark, it is perfectly fine:

Thus Heidegger said in his essay of 1923, titled Ontology: the Hermeneutics of Facticity, “Our Own is rather a how of being, an indication which points to a possible path of being-wakeful.”  This, as you know, is my reading of that path

But you are a fucking liar.

I am the one who has been saying all along that hermeneutics was not averse to the empirical end. You have been fighting me on this for five years (more).

I welcome you to finally adjust, but even to use the word “reading’ in this context was not something you would have done.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 13:52 | #

I would term this emergent entity the natural or organic identity.

You would term it that.

This is not “Cartesian”.

 

If you want to say that your “terming it that” comes from some pure relation to truth, devoid of any input from others, it is indeed Cartesian. If you want to argue that it can be socially constructed to count in that way, then it would not be Cartesian.

This is not mysticism.

The way you try to present your voice and output as the only thing that matters does indeed require you to adopt the stance of a pseudo mystic and to try to mystify others with gaslighting and strawmen.

 

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 13:55 | #

This is the human truth at the level of the individual and the group alike.

Is it the human truth at the level of the individual and the group alike?

A dung beetle’s worth of good it is if there are not other people to talk about it, agree with you, or correct you, as they should.

 

 

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 14:04 | #

And active attention?

Gestalt Therapy put a great premium on active attention as if that was always what was necessary to direct health.

Your emphasis on that dates you GW, as being stuck in 50s-60s pop psychology.

One does not have to be a great philosopher to be aware that that is false and ridiculously shallow a priority. Which, again, does not assure loyal identity and loyal adaptation.

One might be aware in a moment that the African is kicking the White man’s ass. ...and be saved by the “autistic sperg” day dream which invokes the majesty and victory of our broader patterns as a people.

 

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 14:12 | #

Here is a very small example of its power.  But focus on the soldiers and not on their focus.  And remember, no one here actually knows what they are doing.  This is just by accident.

https://www.facebook.com/thetommyrobinson/videos/596129387457097/?t=0

Interesting that you would propose a Tommy Robinson video as a vehicle to endorse what you say and to try to make what I’m saying redundant.

As if what I am saying doesn’t provide for an authentic shared understanding of purpose while Tommy Robinson and those behind him don’t intend to get you to focus “awareness on their goal”  - join the parasite and fight the parasites enemies!

Don’t let your mind wander to Tommy Robinson, stay focused, fight the “real enemy” fight “the left.”

Don’t sperg! Don’t let any of that social minded left White Nationalist stuff seep in, with all that “university stuff”! Stay focused!

Just listen to GW and his Jewish guided friends!

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 14:30 | #

As for the aligning (cohering) of shared interests, that belongs in a separate category entirely, namely properties of the above identity.

It grows out of but can transcend the thrownness. It is not a property above identity, it is a necessary condition - either descriptive or prescriptive, of its maintenance, particularly necessary in the real world, the complex world beyond your wish to return to the natural innocence of mood signs.

 

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 14:36 | #

Nationalisms always endeavour to align all the interests of the group.  It is what socialism means in nationalism.

That’s what I mean by social, aligning the parameters, anyway.

But in respect to the authentic it is necessarily post-facto.  Derivationally, you can’t switch around that which belongs and that which owns.

You don’t have a good understanding of what is meant by authentic. The authentic implies agency and legitimacy in sufficient latitude, alternative range of functional autonomy to arrive at a choice for one’s own at an optimal point. This requires boundaries and borders, somewhat post hoc for people, but more like co-evolutionary if you want to be super naturalistic about it.

- on an ethnosocial, and in our world, practically speaking, on an ethnonational scale.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 14:47 | #

DanielS: it is probably here, where the corporeal and autobiographical (and biographical) are interweaved (where the Cartesian duality is handled in hermeneutic circularity).

GW: Really, Daniel, this is all fiction serving only to alienate you from the rest of the movement.

GW, there has never been a good idea that you did not try to dismiss and destroy.

If you were truly a thoughtful man, and not coming from this herd mind of Jewish reaction, you would see that that comment of mine is the place for discussion, teasing apart and elaboration - not your jealous dismissal. But what else is new?

You insist on being a fossilized dinosaur shit to be moved around, then so be it - people can probably get my drift by seeing what I say in response to your fossilized ego.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:03 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 11:49 | #

A passage from Being-in-kind, part 2:

First of all, I was being kind to you when I said “Being-in-kind” was ok.  It is ok, but it is already handled in the concept of “Midtdasein”, which I “derived” of Michael O’Meara in his analysis of Heidegger.

I try to be kind, just as I was with “Being-Of” - it is good to help hold fast on the emergent, but if it is not taken into there being and the rest of the hermeneutic circularity, all it will do is reconstruct the Cartesian position.

which is key to what is missing in your sociologically-derived psychology of selves:

GW, Fuck You for constantly trying to minimize,misrepresent, diminish, bury and sweep aside what I say.

Fuck you for your Jewish derived reaction to what I bring to bear.

You get credit for holding fast to emergentism and I am glad to pay more respect to it, but I was never, ever averse to that and it was always encompassed in my philosophy. If you were less of an ego maniac, you could be satisfied with your contributions and collaborate with others, instead of trying to destroy what other people say, really misrepresent what they say in service of your ego issuing forth as if the only one saying something of merit. While obfuscating the truly necessary.

 

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:25 | #

GW: personality is the expression of neurological data generated by influences external to the organism, and laid down associatively in the three perceptual systems (intellectual, emotional, motor).  This data constitutes every acquired principle, ideal, belief, value, taste, attitude, ambition, prejudice, vanity, presumption, impression, impulse, accent and inflexion, action and reaction, fad and fashion … everything behavioural that is nurtured, everything that is habituated, everything that is prescribed, everything that is not native.

Isn’t it a shame that you are talking about that in this thread?

Are you that determined that everyone should only focus on your ego project?

 

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:36 | #

This, which is neither singular nor self-conscious nor agentive, is illusion.  But it is illusion over which the brain automatically pronounces the word “I”, a primordial and wholesale appropriation done quite without consideration for authenticity.

Well, if you say so. To say it is an illusion is an indication that you are beholden to Lockeatine, empiricist duality.

I have heard of cultures where there this concept of “I” is weak - they will say, “arm hurts” not “my arm hurts”... as in, it is our arm. Whether the example is true or not; or whether the “I” is primordially appropriated or not, it’s ascription has almost certainly co-evolved more complexity, depending upon the people and requires a more sophisticated understanding than your massive ego will thus far permit in order for the “I” to operate in coherent ethnonational identity.

 

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:41 | #

The appropriation includes that of memory.

 

Oh, I get it. Now you are going to pretend that you are generating an idea that I have been apprised of for years, that memory is circulating in the social sphere.

Why don’t you try for intelligence circulating in the social sphere as well?

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:46 | #

GW: Indeed, I would say that it goes back into memory after the initial event, papering over the cracks.  It reifies the most fundamental and the most brilliantly convincing of all our lies: that that which does not belong to us but to the world distinguishes us from that world

Speak for yourself

Posted by mancinblack on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 20:29 | #

Daniel, why post one comment when a dozen or more will easily do? (hehe). It appears GW is concerned that you are alienating yourself from the rest of the “movement”. Would that be the same “movement” whose only “success” over the last fifty years has been to help elect the most pro-Zionist POTUS ever into office? The same movement that self congratulates itself on pushing all the most harmful ideas and individuals with regard to the survival of its own group imaginable? If so, long may you continue. However there is nothing I can see on this thread that’s going to have any immediate appeal to the age demographic that needs to be reached. The only person at Majority Rights to have fully grasped this rather urgent necessity was Kumiko. So if whoever is responsible for her no longer being here would take a bottle of scotch (I recommend Fettercain single malt) and a Purdey (be classy about it) into the nearest woods and do the decent thing, I’ll feel happier.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 22:30 | #

Speak for yourself

Well, obviously I do.  What I don’t do is make seventeen comments on the roll in response to one argument for interest and one for identity.

I am the one who has been saying all along that hermeneutics was not averse to the empirical end. You have been fighting me on this for five years (more).

I welcome you to finally adjust, but even to use the word “reading’ in this context was not something you would have done.

I am trying to connect with you Daniel, as per my comment @ 88.

But it is problematic because you have invented your own treasured ideological world which does not contain the possibility of communicating itself to another living soul.  It’s positively hermetic.  Everyone tells you, but you absolutely will not accept the fact.  You are like the young army cadet’s mother who watches on proudly at her son’s passing-out parade.  She’s completely sure that of all the young soldiers marching and wheeling to the command of the RSM, he’s the only one in step with the beat of the music.

And I don’t know why.  When you write pieces about your own personal life-experience you do so with a lovely, simple style of expression that works brilliantly.  But as soon as you turn to the more ambitious material you get all trussed up in logic-knots and academic verbosity that Alan Sokal himself would be proud of.

Please listen to what people are telling you.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Oct 2018 01:12 | #

I am trying to connect with you Daniel, as per my comment @ 88.

No you aren’t. You do anything you can to find a way to try to deconstruct anything that I say.

But it is problematic because you have invented your own treasured ideological world

Like that projection

> this >follows > then > and >

which does not contain the possibility of communicating itself to another living soul.

Bull fucking shit.

I make consistent sense. I can explain everything that I say. It explains a sound way to proceed, it makes consistent sense of our antagonists. It even allows me to consistently overturn your gaslighting

It’s positively hermetic:

No it isn’t. You are a liar.

This shit is hermetic:  > this >follows > then > and >

Everyone tells you,

You don’t know everybody.

but you absolutely will not accept the fact.

It is not a fact. Your ego will not let you accept the truth.

You are like the young army cadet’s mother who watches on proudly at her son’s passing-out parade.  She’s completely sure that of all the young soldiers marching and wheeling to the command of the RSM, he’s the only one in step with the beat of the music.

GW. What I say makes consistent sense. I explain it. I will continue to do so.

No, I am not going to march with “everybody” as Tommy Robinson leads the way.

And I don’t know why.

I’ve explained why a thousand times. And I will continue to explain for people who are not obstructed by their own ego as you are.

When you write pieces about your own personal life-experience you do so with a lovely, simple style of expression that works brilliantly.  But as soon as you turn to the more ambitious material you get all trussed up in logic-knots and academic verbosity that Alan Sokal himself would be proud of.

I don’t agree. I don’t write for writing sake. When I say something a certain way, it is because I see that as the way to complete a thought.

It does happen sometimes that I’ll put up a first draft before I should, whether in a post or comment. But at least I correct and clarify them in those cases where I find that I’ve rushed a response (often in response to some obnoxious gaslighting or straw man).

Please listen to what people are telling you.

You have your egotistical and reactionary reasons for only looking for things to object to what I say.

That forms an impromptu coalition with people who don’t like me for reasons Hitler, Jesus, ‘let’s include Jews’, let’s replace philosophy with scientism.

That would include people like Daniel A, Tanstaafl and a few others.

These people are not motivated by trying to ‘help me.’ They are motivated by their wish to direct this platform in those ways.

 

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Oct 2018 02:58 | #

Posted by mancinblack on Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:29 | #

Daniel, why post one comment when a dozen or more will easily do? (hehe).

I don’t usually do that, but as it turned out, there were a lot of little bits in GW’s posts that were best teased-out by themselves.

There are a dozen comments but they are short.

It appears GW is concerned that you are alienating yourself from the rest of the “movement”. Would that be the same “movement” whose only “success” over the last fifty years has been to help elect the most pro-Zionist POTUS ever into office?

Yup, that’s the one. LOL.

The same movement that self congratulates itself on pushing all the most harmful ideas and individuals with regard to the survival of its own group imaginable?

Yep. LolZ

If so, long may you continue.

Thanks Mancinblack. I am so grateful to have your sane voice and reasoned judgment here.

However there is nothing I can see on this thread that’s going to have any immediate appeal to the age demographic that needs to be reached.

Well, I don’t know about that Mancinblack. I think there is lots for them, from the DNA Nation project to even discussion of how to set about the issue of identity by recognizing the need for coherence ...while a complex world, call it modern or post modern, makes that challenging, White Post Modernity and its notion of coherence provides a way to negotiate these complexities.

The only person at Majority Rights to have fully grasped this rather urgent necessity was Kumiko.

I don’t know if Kumiko’s strongest point is speaking to the young, but she has many strong points; and whomever she may reach, she has been and remains more than welcome to do so here.

So if whoever is responsible for her no longer being here would take a bottle of scotch (I recommend Fettercain single malt) and a Purdey (be classy about it) into the nearest woods and do the decent thing, I’ll feel happier.

Drinking Scotch is not a problem for me. I had a double on Friday. Fettercain single malt? I’ll look it up.

But I have all but begged Kumiko to put up articles at times. She has not been chased away deliberately.

Her backing off has mostly to do with the most obvious fact that she is not White. Her interest group is primarily Asians, while this site is dedicated to the interests of European peoples.

I have conceived of the project so that our ethnonational interests can coincide.

However, especially with WN having gotten behind Trump and Russia, Americans taking a less useful position to Asians (i.e., disinclined to fight international Islam and Jewry; more inclined to back feudalistic compradors of that ilk (as they did in the Eisenhower past), she does not trust the audience here. Not in Europe (Merkel), Not in America (Trump) and Not in Russia (Putin).

There is another difficulty in priority that ties to that. As an Asian, Kumiko’s priority is economic and some liberalism from repressive arrangements there as elsewhere, before coming to Left ethno-Nationalism (which has tended to be targeted by America’s right wingism, while it has installed the poison of Islamic compradors to suppress this natural form nationalism). Thus, seeing the relative wealth of Americans, she is not as sympathetic to the genetic destruction that Whites are undergoing as we might hope; and especially not as she is an advocate of Asians, which includes everyone from H1B dot heads in Silicon Valley, to the Orientals pouring out of the MIT (institutions that our patterns created while theirs opportunistically horn our people out) to the Native Americans who have undergone genetic destruction of their own against the White man and his diseases.

I have not always been as gingerly with her as I would have liked in retrospct, but it is not entirely my fault. Where not holding back on postings, she has had a tendency to spring things on me all of a sudden. She would make a world of difference if she would unfold her genius in a way so as to explain her positions, so that I could help coordinate her interests with ours. She doesn’t appreciate enough that Westerners need her to explain some things. She sort of expects people to just know what she knows sometimes.

At the extremities of European diaspora, there is a bit of a rub. With regard to Russia, she has rather wanted Westerners to retain the cold-war era mentality with regard to Russia, a perspective that served Asian interests.

After my knee jerk reactions, sometimes involving my yelling - “you want us to go and fight beautiful Russian women, so that we can make Ukraine like France, where beautiful women are walking around with apes!”? -

She will explain things about Russia that make sense, as to why we should be critical. And I do all I can to accommodate her perspective, because I believe, that to the extent that we possibly can, alliance with Japan and the rest of Asia is our best ally against Jewry (and Islam and Mulatto supremacism).

While Israel is ZOG number one, USA ZOG number two, Russia is quite ZOGISH too, but very significantly, the Russian Federation is imperialist (aggrandizement for parasitic cleptocracy, etc, as opposed to ethnonational development of industry). As ethnonationalsts, there’s room to broker war of position that might make us all more secure, including a reigned-in Russian ethnostate.

At the other extreme of diaspora, Kumiko does not trust White Americans with regard to Asians in America (particularly not as WN/Alt-Right has been so co-opted by Jewish direction against its emerging great adversary - Asia) and as Whites would use the West Coast as an imperialist launching pad toward Asia. After she bursts into impassioned denunciations about Eisenhower I react, not understanding why I have to hear about this?! ... but when she takes time to explain things like MacArthur’s father’s slaughter in the Philippines, Eisenhower’s imposition of Muslim compradors in Asia, and the destruction that’s created… she starts to make sense to me and there emerges potential ways to negotiate a better way than might come about by accident.

I try to broker a situation where we might coexist as sovereign enclaves (Kumiko is as against race-mixing as anyone, at least on the large scale, while she might not get as fumed as me over individual cases).

My condition would be that Whites would get to have enclaves in all of the Americas and US States and so would Asians and Natives, but that we’d cooperate against Jewry and the deracination and supremacist imperialism of right wingers along with their black, Mulatto and Muslim recruits.

Still, I’m not sure that she appreciates the fact that the border control issue is as much about carrying capacity and ecology as anything. She doesn’t understand that normal Americans don’t dislike Asians anywhere near to the extent they do blacks.

Evidence her reaction to Silver’s statement that “we Americans hate Asians” as if that’s exemplary of White Americans. It isn’t. That’s Jewry trying to drive a wedge against its most dreaded alliance: White and Asian ethnonationalists.

But I guess that at this point, she doesn’t feel the need to fight the right wing WN, she can kick back and watch the West Coast turn Asian despite them.

I might make it harder for her to come back by making some things a bit too plain. Like maybe she is not delighted that Russia controls what should be Japan’s northernmost and oil rich island while it is so starved for oil that it had to resort to Fukushima. The Russian Federation represents an imperialist expanse that probably killed a lot of Asians just like White Americans did. And she has a case that they take land so they can sell raw materials, while their cleptocracy does not manage a highly competent economy the way Japan does.

I respond that I can see the justice in Russia’s contraction to Lake Baikal. But also that killing has been two way. No doubt the Mongols killed a lot of Russians, and not only. They wiped out the entire Polish population in Wroclaw. That’s when the Germans moved in and it became Breslau for several hundred years.

We have reached some understanding, although we still disagree when looking at some of the primeval Asian/European soup people - the proto-people before they branched off to become Europeans and Asians. She will claim them as distinctly Asian, while I might see them as more mixed, if not White. And to my surprise as well, though I see this as a matter of mutual concern, if a person is even just a little bit Asian, she will want to automatically group them with Asians, whereas I think there can be more gray areas, particularly if someone is only ten percent Asian.

I’ve been very averse to the term “Hispanic” because I’ve seen it as a device for ignorant Nordic types to lump beautiful Italian and Spanish girls as partner material for blacks and Mulattoes. But the classification of White and non White Hispanic might help. I still prefer the terms which indicate whether or not there is black in the mix.

But generally, while I can see my White Left Ethnonationalism as a means to coordinate with her Asian advocacy, she has something of the opposite complaint from GW. She thinks I am making things too plain for the slack jawed knuckle draggers; and that these idiots can become a powerful force arrayed against Asians and some of her more liberal concerns. She is concerned about “beta uprisings.” That’s a difficult one, because you can’t prove your innocence.

Islam is one of the horror scenarios she seeks to avoid and I don’t blame her.

Still, I don’t see Islam being a beta uprising, but rather a primitive kind of Alpha hegemonic feudalism.

With regard to Europe, she has more of a military and economic perspective then the demographer’s perspective that we take.

Not that I don’t welcome that perspective and not that there should not be overlap, but it is a slightly different priority.

Nevertheless, I believe that we can and should try to work with Kumiko.

I still talk to her and she might come back, she said she would.

Anyway, I am working on an audio project with Per from Sweden, that should go up before long (he’s pretty young, not sure if he’s even 30 yet). Hopefully GW and I can somehow get on the same page. It is possible in theory (actually quite simple in theory).

But I will definitely try to encourage Kumiko to participate a little more directly at Majorityrights (she still points out some stories and we talk, though not as much since she is engaged with her other concerns).

Another difficulty though, she really wasn’t getting the appreciation that she deserved. I mean, you appreciate her, but one hardly has to tell me what it’s like to not be appreciated by the audience to date. Nevertheless, I try to encourage her, and I believe this to be true, that we need to generate the audience. We still have not gotten to a marketing phase. The theoretical position is still being nailed down. With that done, especially with her kind of talent, the audience could be huge.

Posted by Silver Rule / Golden Rule on Sun, 14 Oct 2018 06:47 | #

To bring things back GW’s way, among other huge and thoughtful contributions, GW did try to help cultivate some things that I was merely hinting at in regard to the Silver as opposed to the Golden Rule, by pointing-out the work of Professor Jan Tullberg.

No small item for European interests.

I tried to get the Professor to talk with us, and he did respond affirmatively that he would at one point, then went silent.

I imagine that the site is too controversial for him to engage.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 15 Oct 2018 03:18 | #

Daniel, why do you think so many people have expressed the opinion that your writing is pretentious gibberish?

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Oct 2018 05:14 | #

Well, I would chalk that up to political malice for the most part, because I never write for writing sake, to speak decoratively or even in some sort of phatic communication. I am ALWAYS writing for a purpose and with utility in mind - viz., of conveying information, not of pretending, for the sake of disinformation.

There are times when I will accidentally leave out a word, partial word, or a punctuation mark, etc., and that can make a great deal of difference to the meaning. Some people may see enough of that and lose patience, not waiting for the correction, which will come through my own editing; and if the oversight remains, someone else notices first that something doesn’t make sense and requests an explanation, then I will explain it to them and show them that it is not “gibberish.”

Because that is how I operate, I can say that the “so many” people you are talking about are antagonistically motivated: Christians, Nazis, Jews, scientistic…maybe just snobs.

As might be additionally explained in this comment that I was just about to post:

People may think that I think that I am smarter than people like GW or Bowery. That is of course ridiculous, and I think something quite the opposite. When Bowery tells me (and has) that he is “light years” beyond me (in intelligence) and GW tells me (and has) that he is “a quanta” beyond me (in intelligence), that is, on balance, true.

I don’t want to go too quickly to the notion that there are “different kinds of intelligence”, as Hegel suggests, though some of that is pretty obvious and even well studied.

There is something that has struck me for quite some time [it bears analysis certainly of article length], viz., in addition to the different kinds of intelligence, that there are different levels of intelligence:

That while higher levels must necessarily build on lower levels to some extent, providing a necessary basis for higher intelligence, in some ways the higher levels may become sufficiently autonomous so as to lose track of their dependence on the lower basis. That is, the disposition of taking the basic grounds - markedly, the social world - for granted, in a stance of objectivity, allows one to proceed with more efficiency in logical elaboration, juggling, rationalization, negotiation, sorting and integration of facts and ideas.

Moreover, there might be a sort of alternation (perhaps particularly if there is enough social pressure to produce engineering and independence), so that one trades-off basic intelligence for higher intelligence.

This disposition can create, and I would imagine even select for, a very powerful individual cognitive machinery - capable of wonderful things, particularly regarding technology.

A problem here, however, may be that that machinery may be so strong, that it can rupture the thin membranes of social and other interactive relation that were absolutely necessary to its initial stages of differentiated, individuated evolution.

And there is vis a versa in this level prioritization being too heavy, and this capacity for trade off alternation in levels of intelligence that I propose to be a phenomenon. There will be a cybernetic call back, a correction, through individuals or group, when the social system has been violated enough.

Taking for granted and ignoring concern for the perhaps thin membranes of social responsibility might not be disastrous to the social group for a time, so long as there remains enough homogeneity of this strongly individualist type so that their interdependence and indebtedness to their social network can continue to take their “objectivity’ and accomplishments as sheer self made men and rugged individualists for granted - the group of individuals “just falls together as a happenstance of nature”, not by any social and mutual interdependence.

Now, that is obviously ridiculous on some level.

For whatever reason, perhaps almost entirely inborn as the right wingers maintain, but perhaps significantly in my case, for what I can legitimately claim were family and social circumstances harrowing and unfavorable enough emotionally and intellectually, to render me unable to securely take those initial stages of cognitive development for granted, I could not develop the logical and rationalizing machinery to simply ignore the dearth of social felicity and accountability. Now, I do not think my inability is entirely inborn, as I call attention to my oldest brother’s 143 I.Q., my sister’s having passed her New York and New Jersey Bar Exams on the first try, my other brother contracting building restoration in New York City and having gotten such lucrative contracts as the Waldorf Astoria, Amex, The New York City Post Office, etc.

But my circumstance as the youngest by significant distance of 4 years from my siblings who were all 2 years apart, and experiencing the brunt edge of their nasty egocentrism and overcompensations in regard to our parents pathological communication, only deteriorated with my parents as I came of age, and so did the society and its reliability; while my older siblings were a bit more buffered and out of harms way.

My three siblings were all two years apart, born in the 50’s, while I was four years younger than the last of them; and though I was born in the early sixties, by force of the difference in relation and rapidly changing family and social circumstance, I was of another generation - an “Xer.”

My parents and siblings all grew up taking for granted Whiter times, while my class photos show me being sent to blacker and blacker schools; and again, given my family and social circumtance, less able to take what I ‘hypothesize’ are those initial stages of development that one needs to be able to take as stable social network enough for granted - at least if you are going to be able to think with any elaboration about other things, of course.

What I am proposing is that I became something of a guinea pig.

That given my personal condition, if something is going to work philosophically, so to speak, it has to be really solid. Because I simply do not have the machinery firmly in place enough to plow-on despite insufficient basic circumstances that we all rely upon at least at the onset.

I mean, if you have machinery like GW does, and you are able to take your social situation for granted as “sheerly natural” the way he largely still can, of course you are going to focus on taking care of your family, yourself, elaborating on your business concerns - that’s normal.

And you will see the YKW misrepresenting those basic social levels antagonistically, as if something that only pertains to other group’s interests, and of course you are going to be repulsed by all that “social stuff.”

In a sense, what I am saying is, that GW and Bowery have been smart enough, their machinery has been powerful enough to allow them to be fairly stupid on very basic, but important levels - to run roughshod over it and despite overall network insufficiency on that level. While I have been too obtuse, too stupid to be able to run rough shod over those levels, unable to function full tilt despite basic social level insufficiency - stupid enough to be smart on basic levels, if I want to be a bit more flattering to myself. A mentally retarded genius as it were.

By the same token, that’s not necessarily a problem, as I am not looking to constrain them where their personal interests and achievements do no run roughshod over our national/group interests and bounds and a sufficient modicum of accountability thereof. Nevertheless, that should leave them a great deal of latitude - alternative range of functional autonomy as I like to say.

.....

Now then, and with that, when I cite GW for being “a liar” that is not the ultimate indictment, as the capacity for that can be very necessary; and on the other hand, one’s having to be sheerly honest in order to maintain coherence can obviously be a terrible liability.

Bowery could have a point, for example, that I have been rather explicit where he conceived of Sortocracy to function on an implicit level, for tactical, deceptive (“dishonest”) reasons.

My position is that our boat is leaking (in fact, gushing casualties) such that it is past the time to try to be too fine, tactful and implicit - we are going to have horrible casualties. And we will do better to get the ship in shape and on course with more explicitness. If antagonists are going to try target people for wanting to catalog and curate their DNA, let them try to come after me. I will defend that openly and in good faith.

And if people won’t stand for that, don’t care about that (curating their DNA) then I think they are not only displaying ridiculous cowardice, but indeed the weird ones, into “gibberish"or whatever - and with backing I think that, given the popularity of DNA testing.

Posted by mancinblack on Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:11 | #

@135 The feedback I’ve had from younger people who have read the blog is what leads me to say that Kumiko’s approach is appealing to the twenty somethings, most of them being female, which I suppose accounts for some that appreciation. However, they also have an advantage, unavailable to earlier generations, of relatively cheap international travel and therefore are more inclined to adopt a more global perspective on what is a global problem than would a forty five plus year old WNist. They feel and I concur with them, that having the views of someone who isn’t addressing issues through a strictly Eurocentric lens is advantageous as a better and more nuanced balance can be achieved.

Unfortunately, whilst the Alt-Righters etc seemed to like the idea of having Asian (and in particular Japanese) allies, this would only last if the Asian was wholly sycophantic and slavish towards white interests even if those interests were at the expense of Asia. Under those circumstances, yes, it’s very difficult to see how any alliance would work. I would argue that they are not the people to ally with anyway as few seem to be genuine ethno-nationalists but rather racial supremacists. With regard to Kumiko specifically, they also seemed to be more than a little put out by her not appearing to be “ojo-sama” possessing the qualities of “yamato nadeshiko”*.

Asian or not Asian, that is the question. Reminds me of Theseus’s Paradox when identity is the object. I’d be content to dodge that and let the individual decide.

I would say that one should never underestimate the importance of economics. I’ve read your disagreement with Kumiko’s comment made along the lines of “what’s in it for me?”. You’ve taken a financial hit yourself (nice guy that you are) but, y’know, most people do put their personal financial security at the top of their list of priorities in life. Even if they swear they don’t. “What’s in it for me?” would be running through their mind even if they didn’t actually say it.

* ojo-sama - a woman who is courteous, servile and modest to the point of self-effacing, the qualities of yamato nadeshiko - the idealized Japanese woman. Would they also expect every French woman to mirror La Pucelle d’Orléans? y’know, they probably do lol.

Posted by mancinblack on Mon, 15 Oct 2018 17:14 | #

The exchange I was referring to is here, Daniel

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_satanic_alliance_you_really_are_either_with_us_or_against_us_04122015

I hadn’t misread what was being said and indeed there is no personal angle. You should read it and refresh your memory.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Oct 2018 18:18 | #

Before I go and start re-reading there, I’d like to just give you my general understanding, as I actually remember the gist of that disagreement very well.

As with 95% of her articles, I find that one brilliant and I count that one among the ones I like very much.  ...except for one little thing.

And that article occurred at a time when we were giving each other quite a bit of feedback.

Sometimes there was some resistance on my part or hers, but the struggle more often than not produced better and even excellent results:

I felt that this article, “White Privilege as Expropriation”, turned out to be a master piece and I helped it by forcing the issue on some minor points.

I felt that this one was perfect, about liberal feminism, deserved a Nobel Prize, and I told her so.

But then she went on to add information, details about guns and so on that I felt weighed it down and buried it a bit with some unnecessary detail. Still a great article, but I tried to advise her about a mistake that I was susceptible to myself, and the advice that I’d been given in that regard. My professor would tell me “you have some great ideas but they get buried, put that stuff in content footnotes!” ...or even in the comments, in our case.

The article was so perfect. Still great, but I wish she’d have listened to me, I wasn’t telling her to not include that info., just put it below. If you say this too should be private, you might be right and I think she might have said so too; but really, it’s always been my wish for her already bright star to shine all the more brightly.

It’s outshining me does not bother me in the least.

I suppose there are other examples, we’ve both made some editing faux pas with each other’s pieces but they were resolved fairly quickly.

Now, coming to the article that you speak of, ‘The Satanic Alliance, You are With Us or Against Us”, I thought this was a fantastic idea (really a concept of fantastic ideas), a fantastic article and just one among many brilliant concepts she is wielding. All very, very exciting. She does some things mentally that I have never experienced from anyone, not even my most brilliant professors.

Without going back to the article just yet, I remember very well that I could not honestly say that I did not have a problem with the article if she could not add a half sentence to indicate that the economic well being that she sees White men as having is not the only incentive; particularly not for a WN male audience, of course myself included - there is a huge sense in which our motivation is to get out of the hell of our genetic destruction, especially as we see our co-evolutionaries coal burning or whatever.

People who only care about money in that situation, well they may not be our audience at all.

I didn’t mind the concession to reality, ok. Talk about the monetary incentive, but please, just add another half a sentence to indicate that our genetic concerns are a reality that bears regard and incentivization as well, not just some kind of psychological White male fragility.

That time she wouldn’t agree to a small editorial suggestion (that I didn’t think would detract from her article, on the contrary) and so we had a little fight about it.

I might have been right about that one. At other times, I wish I could have backed off more. I felt it was OK to use Japanese and anime imagery sometimes, but particularly if it was not necessary to the story, that she should try to bridge the audience a little more and use imagery that shows it is speaking to westerners (even if we say, as well).

I drunkenly chided her for putting up a “Chinese” image with this article (Obviously I knew it was Japanese); that might have been the first time she got mad at me - told me to fuck off. She is actually quite funny when she is mad.

And maybe I was right that she could have used a little less Japanese imagery and anime (for the non-serious tone it connotes), but I should have conceded there, because looking back on that Roosh article, for just one example, it is fantastic and more than worth some audience not understanding the use of Japanese imagery.

In fact, I would not mind having more Japanese audience, I was just a bit concerned that WN would get the impression that the site was not speaking to them.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Oct 2018 20:01 | #

In so much as ethnic nationalism is a universal politics, an ethnic nationalist site is by definition not a white nationalist site.  A good one will extend to the ethnic nationalist forms in other polities in and outside the West, and will recognise that in all cases the people of the land has right on the land.  But for that to work there needs to be a certain generosity.  America, for example, is a European living space, not an Asian space.  It was won by Europeans by conquest, and the right of primogeniture is their descendants.  The fact that Asians are re-colonising it today does not change that.  In a natural circumstance that colonisation would be challenged and ended.  If that challenge failed, then the situation would turn around, of course.  But it hasn’t failed yet.

So I, for one, never agreed with Kumiko’s aggressive demands in respect to the Asian colonisation of the west coast cities.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 15 Oct 2018 20:21 | #

So what I got from Daniel’s comment #138 is that he is concerned with the creation and maintenance of social capital at the lower end of the socio-economic scale.  But he is not smart enough - lacking the cognitive “machinery” - to fully articulate what he allegedly knows in his bones will do this.  Also that GW and super-genius/kook Bowery are too snobby and above it all to lend a care.  Lulz

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Oct 2018 21:19 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:21 | #

So what I got from Daniel’s comment #138 is that he is concerned with the creation and maintenance of social capital at the lower end of the socio-economic scale.  But he is not smart enough - lacking the cognitive “machinery” - to fully articulate what he allegedly knows in his bones will do this.  Also that GW and super-genius/kook Bowery are too snobby and above it all to lend a care.  Lulz

Hey Captainchaos, who isn’t smart enough, ya fucking dimwit? Even when your questions are answered….gibberish? Stop listening to Tanstaafl’s Jew wife and get bent with your technokraut machinery.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:01 | #

America, for example, is a European living space, not an Asian space.  It was won by Europeans by conquest, and the right of primogeniture is their descendants.  The fact that Asians are re-colonising it today does not change that.  In a natural circumstance that colonisation would be challenged and ended.  If that challenge failed, then the situation would turn around, of course.  But it hasn’t failed yet.

So I, for one, never agreed with Kumiko’s aggressive demands in respect to the Asian colonisation of the west coast cities.

GW, While your position is otherwise charitable, there are three things going against your position with regard to America.

1) Even American White Nationalists have given up hope of taking the full continent as exclusively White from New York to Honolulu, from Florida to Alaska.

2) “Asians”, as in those who came from Altai, southern Siberia, 12,000 years ago, not only do have some claim throughout the Americas, but their reservations have been officially recognized in the US and Canada since the 1800s. That is a generosity of ethnonationalism.

If other Asians want a claim in the Americas unchallenged by counter force, let them demonstrate reasonableness by coming to an agreement over the carrying capacity of the US, demographic limits and rights; and an agreed upon position that we need to defend ourselves through mutual alliance against Jewry, Islam and blacks - Mestizos can potentially be allies in all of those regards.

Does one have to be careful with such proposals as I am floating? Absolutely. The Chinese and others will take advantage if you let them - and have, witness Vancouver.

But I do not want to relinquish California for Whites or any of the States, either. I’d be willing to work with Asians, if somehow they could be reasonable (which is questionable, I know); but the idea of simply letting blacks have the South East US and the Caribbean, is revolting.

May not be possible, but I prefer the red ants to the black, La Raza to the Bloods, Samurai to the Massad.

A White US would be good with me, but not even the most hard core WN are talking that way (listen to Billy Roper).

Given that, it is necessary to think in terms of balkanization, preferred allies and friends; and trying to get them to agree to reasonable terms.

3) A third problem. If the goal is to encourage Kumiko, talk of Asians having no place in the Americas is not very helpful.

But in addition to being impractical to go for purity about it, I just can’t help but say that so long as there are blacks there, I’d replaced them with Asians of any non-Muslim stripe, any day, if the choice were possible.

The encouraging point is that there is some genuine antipathy between the two groups; the Asians hearts don’t bleed for the YKW either.

 

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 16 Oct 2018 01:16 | #

Daniel is the goofiest sperg that ever lived.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Oct 2018 10:47 | #

Daniel, our primary goal is to secure our racial existence in all our living spaces.  We won’t achieve that by ceding territory through some novel alliance with an aggressing people, particularly when that people has a racial interest in common with one or more other aggressors on our territory.

Anyway, what is the quid pro quo?  What actual positives does this alliance offer?  Aren’t you only confessing your belief that white Americans cannot resist the Jewish/white elites design?

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:23 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Oct 2018 05:47 | #

Daniel, our primary goal is to secure our racial existence in all our living spaces.

Yes.

However, the last I checked with you on the issue, you were in favor of giving the South East of The United States to blacks (said that was “good” in the Frosty Wooldridge interview).

We won’t achieve that by ceding territory through some novel alliance with an aggressing people.

Have you changed you mind then?

particularly when that people has a racial interest in common with one or more other aggressors on our territory.

“Hispanics” have a reputation for being against blacks and being indifferent, and even antagonistic to Jewry.

I don’t favor giving them the South West of the United States.  But giving an alliance of non-black Hispanics, Amerindians proper and Asians something on the order of some counties if they can understand and cooperate on

1) Carrying capacity.

2) The J..Q.

3) Against blacks and Islam

Anyway, what is the quid pro quo? What actual positives does this alliance offer?

To help free us of Jewry, blacks and Islam in a powerful alliance with a world population that will remain and that we may as well leverage in our favor if we can as opposed to adding more powerful enemy groups.

Aren’t you only confessing your belief that white Americans cannot resist the Jewish/white elites design?

They can resist, but they could do it more effectively and comprehensively if an alliance as I propose could be worked out.

There would also be more justice to it as well.

Right wingers and Jews brought black slaves and imposed them on the natives of the Caribbean and in Texas against their will.

“Hispanics” are a big concern for Jewry now and that is why they are conditioning Whites to an alliance with Jewry and blacks against them - because these groups, along with other Asiatics, are not sympathetic to Jewry, can be extremely hostile to blacks in some of their elements…and can be indifferent where not extremely hostile to Islam.

I am proposing an alliance with Asians as opposed to a defacto alliance with Jews, blacks and “moderate Islam” as per Jewish design.

Negotiating comfortable living space with them in this alliance proposes a theory of our increased mutual security.

In all this, your renewed idea of making the Americas White, I am not hearing your plan for blacks, Jews and a nascent Muslim population. I don’t know anyone but you now, who is talking about a completely White America. And if you are not then talking about enclaves (which WN now are), then you are in more of an integrationist trajectory - worst case scenario.

If I could, I would exchange blacks, YKW and Muslim populations with natives and Asians of any non Muslim kind; and that has more promise to get the job done of an ethnonational coordination as opposed to a naive supplication of Jewish supremacism, a-racial Islamic supremacism, a-racial Christian naivete in relation to black bio-power.

 

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Oct 2018 13:18 | #

Africans did not choose to come to the New World.  What do you do with them?  Send them to Liberia?  As far as I can see, they have to remain on the American landmass, but live among themselves, doing whatever it is they want to do however they want to do it, but separated from whites.  It’s a different story with Mexicans and all the other peoples who chose to come north.  Maybe an accommodation could be made somewhere in the south-west to segregate from them.  But in the end, I think they have their own quite spacious homelands to inhabit.

I have suggested (to CC’s ire) that an initial goal of establishing a white homeland, possibly sited west of the Mississippi, possibly extended further east to secure deep water oil tanker porting, would suffice to get a physical iteration of the 14 words off the ground.  It would have a long-term expansive agenda.  It should be shared only with the native tribes.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 16 Oct 2018 16:34 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:18 | #

Africans did not choose to come to the New World.

Neither I nor rank and file Whites chose for them to come either. Right wing elitists did.

And they imposed them to our detriment and to the destruction of native peoples as well.

What do you do with them?  Send them to Liberia?

With our coalitions, I would impose carrots and sticks to guide them in the direction of Africa, yes.

As far as I can see, they have to remain on the American landmass, but live among themselves, doing whatever it is they want to do however they want to do it, but separated from whites.

 

I can see taking that disposition to Meztizos, Amerindos, but to blacks? The idea of giving them such choice lands is appalling and forcing others to live in proximity to them an ever looming nightmare and destruction.

It’s a different story with Mexicans and all the other peoples who chose to come north.

Depends. Carrying capacity has to be taken into account. But also whether or not they can cooperate in demographic maintenance.

They are already good against blacks and don’t tend to give a fig about the YKW, which is also good.

Maybe an accommodation could be made somewhere in the south-west to segregate from them.  But in the end, I think they have their own quite spacious homelands to inhabit.

Well, that’s true, they do have their spacious homelands, but if they can be deployed as allies against black, Jewish and Muslim imposition, it is a more natural fit, as they are, in fact, natives of the Americas. Thus, if they can also allow for our spaces in North, Central and South America, a quid pro quo with their alliance, exchanging black populations for Mestizos and Amerindios (and some Asian Asians) - an even exchange, I would do it, if I could.

I have suggested (to CC’s ire) that an initial goal of establishing a white homeland, possibly sited west of the Mississippi, possibly extended further east to secure deep water oil tanker porting, would suffice to get a physical iteration of the 14 words off the ground.  It would have a long-term expansive agenda.  It should be shared only with the native tribes

.

I’m not quite seeing your map or your plan. I might think it’s ok, maybe not.

But whatever the case, what I propose is border control, not adding to the overall population, but a trajectory to move-out blacks, Muslims and YKW in favor of Asians (which incl. Amerindians) and Whites.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 02:17 | #

“A foundational argument” as I see it would go like this:

1) This DNA cluster counts as this particular kind of European peoples.

2) We tend to see that species, as most all species, having inherent value.

3) If you are not entirely satisfied by that argument, then we might add discussion of the functions it performs in broader ecology.

4) What you advocate in liberal imposition against this species would-be social-systemic, homeostatic boundaries, is killing this species.

Posted by A problem for White coalition building on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:34 | #

Regarding allying with Asians, Mestizos and Amerindios, I do anticipate a significant problem.

While the right is amidst forming (unwitting or deliberate) alliance with Jewry, Jewry is not only accustomed to coalition building, organizing, wielding - having the funds and intelligentsia to make it go; but it is also small enough and tightly enough organized to hand down information intergenerationally.

Whereas, even if we were to form alliances and coalitions with Asians, etc, subsequent generations may not get the memo at all - “I’m not supposed to breed you out? not supposed to kill you? Not supposed to be cool with blacks? become a Christian, a Muslim? Not supposed to take pay-offs from YKW?  I didn’t know.”

It is a problem.

To overcome that would require a powerful hermeneutic.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:50 | #

Agreements between individuals, even those with wider influence, are fabrics which become frayed and holed with time.  Such are the designs of men.  The designs of Nature, however, have permanency.  Hence, genetic interests will always prevail upon the general orientation of the group.

Which is why ethnic nationalism is naturalistic and not propositional.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:23 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:50 | #

Agreements between individuals, even those with wider influence, are fabrics which become frayed and holed with time.

These agreements can become frayed and holed with time. They can also repair and reconstruct desired natural patterns, which can also become frayed and holed with time.

Such are the designs of men.  The designs of Nature, however, have permanency.

It depends upon the “design.”

Aren’t we sounding a bit like one of those cooky ad hock Christian theories here, of godly design in nature?

Many, actually most of these “designs” in the realm of creatura, go extinct.

(Refer to the difference between “creatura” and “pleroma”, and also “praxis” from “theoria”).

Hence, genetic interests will always prevail upon the general orientation of the group.

Perhaps not always, but genetic interests and healthy natural patterns should be a regular inquiry in guidance (or to make sure that it is not being misguided of) the hermeneutic circularity of group systemic homeostasis.

Which is why ethnic nationalism is naturalistic and not propositional.

A fundamental proposition (for we ethnonationalists) is a working hypothesis that our groups, ethnic, as you will, are natural systems.

The course of pragmatic and heremeneutic inquiry is taken to operational verifiability to establish and re-establish warranted assertability.

Clearly our nature can be misguided. That is the rubric under which we meet. A closer reading of our particular human nature can greatly help to correct that misguidance.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:22 | #

Proposition entails a conception and can commence from anything.  It is an argumentational artifice.  The naturalistic entails a perception from our reality.  It is a different derivational process.  Of course, propositions can follow from the perception of Nature in Man.  But the artifice remains as long as it is only thought.  Among the mass of a people, of course, that doesn’t function, regardless of whether the proposition is for Nature in Man.  It properly and exclusively functions as a direct and emergent, experienced force in the life of a people.  Blur this distinction and the vitality of popular nationalism is drained away.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:56 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:22 | #

Proposition entails a conception and can commence from anything.

It implies that for you. I mean it in this case as a hypothesis in regard to what is clearly a reasonable, working hypotheses with regard to empirical reality.

It is an argumentational artifice.

It is not.

Working hypotheses are a necessity.

The modicum of ambiguity which you would wish to strip from language in application to praxis STEMS from physics envy - the wish that your predilection to attend to car engines and the like transferred readily to the human realm.

It doesn’t. But your insistence upon it makes you not only prone to serious epistemological error, but a horrendous obstruction as you bury thoughtful ideas in the contentiousness of your old axe to grind against academic humanities.

The naturalistic entails a perception from our reality.

You are still insisting upon this pure Lockeatine crap?

If you were to read and bother to understand even the beginning part of the Sex as Sacrement, Sex as Celebration, Sex as Natural Fact and Other Stories, article (for one example) you would perhaps “perceive” the significance of not making that mistake for the sake of ethnonationalism.

It is a different derivational process.

In your straman, perhaps.

Of course, propositions can follow from the perception of Nature in Man.  But the artifice remains as long as it is only thought.

This is ridiculous. And it goes, I guess, to a trap you set by using the word “propositional”

I took occasion to deploy ambiguity in the word, and redeploy it as a working hypothesis.

Which, of course, you completely ignore in your “natural purity” that always ends up leading the way to your ego project and nothing else.

Among the mass of a people, of course, that doesn’t function, regardless of whether the proposition is for Nature in Man.

Again, according to your strawman, perhaps. But you’ve gone into your world of hermetic definition.

Whereas the working hypotheses of which I speak are most common: e.g., the White race and its sub groups, exist.

It properly and exclusively functions as a direct and emergent, experienced force in the life of a people.

No it doesn’t properly and only function that way. It is systemic and circulatory.

Your farts go in one direction, and even though you want this emergence to be of singular importance, making all others and all academia redundant by contrast, in reality, all they do is stink.

Blur this distinction and the vitality of popular nationalism is drained away.

You’ve got it backwards. What “vitality” you unleash will be like a train off the tracks, or an animal subject to the direction of our enemies.

Don’t you find it arbitrary that all you ever try to do is find some way to disagree with what I say?

Isn’t a shame that you bury thoughtful ideas for the shit that you spew instead?

Who should be more grateful to you for your obfuscation and misdirection, Nazis or Jews? Probably Jews.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:29 | #

Blood-nationalism is not derived from intellectual constructions.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 23:37 | #

If that is true, GW, then why do you suppose Nordics would wish to be genetically merged with grease-mongering swarthoids in North America? 

I figure if you take 7/8 Nordic and mix it with 1/8 Arab then basically you’ve got modern day Southern Europeans.  In other words you have filthy, grease-stained mongrels.  If you are so keen on the idea then try it in England.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:27 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:29 | #

Blood-nationalism is not derived from intellectual constructions.

Total straw man.

I never said it was.

* Solipsism perhaps says that. It has far more to do with your ego project and nothing to do with social constructionism proper.

*Social constructionism (proper) does not say that.

* Hermeneutics (proper) does not say that.

To say that would be a Cartesian absurdity.

* As usual, your straw-manning relies on simply ignoring everything and anything I’ve ever said.

These disciplines (proper) do not deny evolution; these disciplines rather would say something more like “blood-nationalism” is made real through joint and jointly negotiated (inter)activity.

[To be distinguished as such, even from social constructivism]

 

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Oct 2018 01:19 | #

Captainchaos: I figure if you take 7/8 Nordic and mix it with 1/8 Arab then basically you’ve got modern day Southern Europeans.

In other words you have filthy, grease-stained mongrels.  If you are so keen on the idea then try it in England.

You figure that huh?

One of the chief merits of ethnonationalism is that if you are concerned, for example, to retain your Nordic kinds (and you should be), your wish is contained within the principle - especially, and most especially, through the DNA Nation.

And on the other hand, Southern Europeans could protect European types like J-Z 467, which has been here for 10,300 years, from adulteration by your fat, blanched and blonde retarded discards like yourself.

Then again, you’d have to finally deal with a certain amount of ambiguity if you wanted to keep Hitler in the Nordicist camp given his e1b1b:

         

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:33 | #

I never said it was.

Good, then we can proceed.  How do you think a blood people expresses its shared interests?  What is the mechanism for identifying them as appropriated causes?  Does it function within the individual, or does it come into the individual from, say, some common act of the social construction of reality?  Or would that be “Lockeatine”, and really the whole thing is a social product socially executed?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:53 | #

DanielS:  I never said it was.

GW: Good, then we can proceed.

We (as in I) already have proceeded. And I am not going to let you ignore the important resource brought to bear for the last five years, with that sort of arrogance - your day one, now lets get to your ego project tactics.

GW: How do you think a blood people expresses its shared interests?

Before I answer that question more thoroughly let me remark that it is being generous to the word “social” - a generosity for the reason, again, to re-sensitize us (a re-sensitization which we direly need) to our responsibility to social interaction and group maintenance - to look upon the evolution of our closer EGI as “social” when looking back to times, for example, when our evolutionary precursors were not even human, or fully human yet, but not overly generous given that these facts need to be gauged against their utility and value to our social relationships now and projected in the future if they are to have relevance to us.

GW: What is the mechanism for identifying them as appropriated causes?

I perceive a trap here. Two words that I don’t tend to use in this kind of inquiry

“Mechanism”: Using the term “mechanism” in the sex post was an anomaly, albeit useful in that case.

“Appropriated”: We’ve been through that before and even above, in this post.

Thus, I perceive a trap by your introducing words to trap me into talking in their terms so that you can then purity spiral to your gargantuan ego project. I.e., there is no reason to believe that you will now stop obfuscating necessary resource as a hyper competitive asshole who lacks the judgement of ideas that are “friendly” to ethnonationalism or not.

GW: Does it function within the individual, or does it come into the individual from, say, some common act of the social construction of reality?

Another trap. Your hope being to show me denying evolution by introducing a phrasing with a false either/or that a competent practitioner would not render.

But one thing is for certain, whatever the means or “mechanism”, as it were, for apprehending shared genetic interests, it occurs within interaction.

I suspect that you and Bowery are suffering under the illusion that I (or social constructionists necessarily) aim to deny individual agency - “mechanisms” of apprehension, if you will ....“appropriation” .... or acting-into perhaps better, squeezing onto that instinctive response ... or perhaps allowing our emergent qualities to grasp and care about a less obvious apprehension of our group.

There are whole courses in concern of the individual from this perspective. Not trivial.

“Embodied” is a common word in discussions by Pearce et al. to convey the reality and non-Cartesian aspect of individual persons.

However, again, neither our thoughts, perceptions, apprehensions or appropriations, or individual “mechanisms” exist outside of interaction.

At very least, there would be a currency of language and concept that would call attention to the contours of group delimitation and potential exclusion (thus a means to reconstruct “the mechanism” of apprehending group interests and necessary exclusion) - negotiated through people (social accountability is one such “mechanism”) as it is clear that there are individuals also capable of denying this delimitation - crazy and destructive though we recognize that to be, particularly as that currency is devalued or even taken out of circulation as our enemies would have it.

...social accountability would facilitate corrections of the fallibility of perception given how they may interact in misguidance of language, memory, logics of meaning and action, through limitations of person positions through their life span and historical perspective..how they may not be able to see sufficiently beyond the moment, episode, autobiography, relationship or cultural pattern.

Whereas social constructivism focuses on the products of processes, social constructionism focuses on the processes that generate those products; communicology, in particular, takes interaction as the unit of analysis, while claiming (looking at) the same turf as other disciplines (whether evolution, philosophy - incl. emergentism - sociology, history, psychology, etc.)

GW: Or would that be “Lockeatine”, and really the whole thing is a social product socially executed?

Ok, so I’ve answered that. The corporeal and autobiographical individual punctuates some agency in apprehension, but it does not exist outside relationship and social interaction, and in fact, is quite obviously dependent upon these facts to some extent.

The tragedy here, and why I began this comment by calling attention to the “day one” assholery of your gargantuan and unmerited ego project, is that you are treating dismissively, in a very Boweryesque concern, the critique that I’ve set out of the Lockeatine perspective.

It is a crucial element that I brought here years ago, discussed in many articles and its wresting forth is just one of my more original contributions to the theory of our interests.

Your flouting it and Bowery’s flouting this critique, is one of the reasons why I do not have thorough respect for your opinions.

Your hope is to exhaust me. That people coming here anew will not go back and read what I’ve said many times before - crucial information in our interests. You can’t stand people giving me credit for anything significant, but want instead attention to singularly focus on your gargantuan, unmerited ego project: that is why we are talking about this here, and not DNA Nations.

Now then, just a pithy re-statement of the significance of the critique of Locke:

His position was Cartesian on the empirical end. For better or worse, he had a grudge against the exclusions of the Aristocratic class in England. He was thus motivated. He took a position of pure empiricism, maintaining that such group classifications were fictions of the mind. That all there are in empirical reality are individual “perceptions” ..that are then formed into “associations.”

To “correct” this error, he proposed the idea of civil individual rights to hold sway over such fictional and pernicious group exclusivity.

This Cartesian notion is pivotal to the American Constitution and way of life (despite what Greggy Johnson says); a Cartesian error denying the reality of group patterns, the necessity to classify and discriminate thereupon (not that the classifications are always correct and beyond critique, but some working hypotheses of that order is necessary), but anti group classification was also weaponized to hyperbole against Whites by the YKW.

Anti-racism and anti-group discrimination are among those weaponizations.

Especially when you consider the hegemony that The Unites States has had, its influence throughout the world, this, along with corresponding stories which hold individual self actualization to be the upmost ideal, become exceedingly important for us to critique and rework as ethnonationalists.

Emphasizing attention to the social aspect, yes.

And if one can grasp these obvious facts, they can grasp the significance of what I’ve brought here and the articles I’ve contributed for over five years now.

Correspondingly, my disgust with you for trying to bury this significance, as there is no good reason for you to do that, what-so-ever.

And as Locke’s Cartesianism is cited for the problem that it is, hopefully Bowery is pulling his hair our since he is so egotistical that everything is supposed to hinge upon his scientism. Similar to your ego project, maintained to the detriment of ethnonational viability.

Again, in both of your cases, the motivations are clear and understandable.

Bowery wants to extricate himself from social entanglements with people that have been imposed upon him against his will. And he wants to extricate himself from that by empirical means and idealization of the individual as the way he knows, what he does best, thus his predilection. However, he mistakenly associates all concern for group interests as comporting association with people he would not want even civil association with, with people who necessarily could not respect his individual idiosyncrasy. That is simply mistaken, a reaction to his circumstance in the motley USA, and in misapprehension of salutary social concepts by their liberal misrepresentation.

And again, you reaction to these socially liberal misrepresentations of otherwise salutary concepts, meant to protect group interests against the ravages of modernity, and with that, to protect us against naively leaving ourselves vulnerable to other group antagonism and exploitation, has been to hold fast to your people, to try to conceive of their having no real choice but to remain loyal.

Bowery has an opposite motivation, in wanting to extricate himself from any such necessity.

But in both cases, your reaction is so intense to the effects and to the source, the liberal distortion of the salutary version, i.e., to the misrepresentation of the version of these social concepts that would be applied in your interests - and your individual capacity, your “mechanisms” so powerfully able to deny and rationalize against the necessity of these radical resources - that you react against even the benign and salutatory versions as if they were Trojan horses or coming from the enemy straight up.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Oct 2018 14:41 | #

added to the above comment:

...social accountability would facilitate corrections of the fallibility of perception given how they may interact in misguidance of language, memory, logics of meaning and action, through limitations of person positions through their life span and historical perspective..how they may not be able to see sufficiently beyond the moment, episode, autobiography, relationship or cultural pattern.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:51 | #

Daniel, why do you suppose Southern Europeans look like they have been smacked vigorously across the face with the tar brush?  It is because they are heavily mixed with Arab blood.  Non-mongrelized Europeans should take great care never to breed with swarthoids.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 25 Oct 2018 05:27 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:51 | #

Daniel, why do you suppose Southern Europeans look like they have been smacked vigorously across the face with the tar brush?  It is because they are heavily mixed with Arab blood.  Non-mongrelized Europeans should take great care never to breed with swarthoids.

Not all look that way, CC.

My father could get a very deep tan even though he had zero African ancestry.

But it wasn’t a result of mongrelization with Arabs either.

J2’s origin is in Anatolia, true. However, his haplogroup is called JZ 467 and its origin is Europe Italy/Greece 10,300 years ago.

Now then, I agree that the distinct kinds of European nations should be careful about mixing. That care is a significant reason for the DNA Nations, to preserve our distinct kinds.

It is also the case that mixing European kinds can be difficult for kids: Polish and Italian was a difficult gap to bridge conceptually and identity-wise (for me, anyway, not as bad for my siblings), and perhaps for more technical reasons than I am aware of.

Part of the difficulty was because of assholes like yourself. I identified as White, of course, but there were the ubiquitous Polish jokes (a convenient target for the German majority and Jewish hegemony there) and White identity being associated with Nazism and KKK/CI as it was, significantly inhibited my White identity. Prejudice against Italians as you display was a reality too. Nor could I easily identify as Italian in defiance - e.g., while I have a photo of my father from one summer at the beach in his 20s, where he looked like he got “hit with the tar brush”, I would only get burned at the beach (my mother would get skin poisoning after a half hour in the sun). Nevertheless, even though the skin tone aspect was as superficial as that - and not many Italians look like “they’ve been hit by the tar brush”, there has been an over-prejudice against Italians as well.

Some of the stereotypes about Italians are true - at least for some, like my father, who are all too prone to fight. But I see that as an adaptation that is necessary as a buffer for Europeans. Northerners can be too nice. They have not evolved to interface Africans and think they are not such a big problem because their Nordic qualities can offer something so different that they can use their nerdishness to buffer them. Then they find their daughter, Helga, with Leroy, in a flat paid for and equipped with advanced gadgetry by father Helmut (Helmut has been attending to “THE” problems of technology and the J.Q. and is above those petty prejudices of Giuseppe, you see).

On the other hand, my father was Italian American, i.e., born of peasant farmer immigrants. Visits to Italy revealed that he was not exactly the norm, even for village standard -  I have a theory that his theatrical temper was an evolutionary part of the entertainment to break up the boredom of village life. It was also the case that with everyone so closely related, one could expect sympathy from cousins to pick up the informational deficit that this lack of communicological preparation left in its wake (a public sympathy that was not readily available in America).

Anyway, I found that a mild mannered, less feral and more civilized type was more common in Italy, more typical in fact.

These visits also revealed, to my disappointment, a lack of the kind of women that I had hoped to see there - sinewy, with raven-hair and white skin by contrast. Though I can honestly disagree with your stereotype as I found their skin was certainly white enough, even in Sicily, there was too much unbecoming adulteration from the north - creating too many motley types: dirty blonde, fat, blue eyes and an ambiguity, a loss of some of the distinctive, arduous features that can look so cool.

That was disappointing, as I really like that Southern European type woman; but to have that kind of dilution makes me especially crazy when northern White fools will toss these kinds off as partner material for blacks.

I have long been more than suspicious of the term “Hispanic” for this reason.

For their heavily weighted Northwestern European demographic, many Americans are truly ignorant about what is European and what is not.

“The” beautiful woman of American advertising always being the blonde with blue eyes, a small nose and big boobs really bothered me too.

While that look is fine, I also like women who have dark hair, contrasting white skin, brown eyes, a biggish nose and small boobs, perhaps almost flat - I know that may sound weird, but Sharon was that way (except didn’t really have a big nose) and I found her very appealing physically. Even if her Irish/Italian volatility nearly drove me to Bundyville.

Fortunately, Ola showed me how nice big boobs and mild mannered intelligence could be by contrast (still sinewy and with dark hair). I almost forgot, Ola was/is three quarters Polish and one quarter oriental, Chinese, I think it is - that was part of the reason why I shied away from her in the end. If I had to do it over again, however, I might have done well to hang on to that one (she even told me, “ok, I too don’t like N*****s”).

While the distinct species, the nations of ethnonational kinds should be maintained, regarding the genus of European interests, the lines can be drawn badly, overdrawn as it were.

Bateson spoke of differences that make a difference ..and his frustration at students not being able to tell a (lets say relatively) trivial difference from a profound difference. The Mediterranean has marked a significant genetic difference.

I believe that part of the problem that the human ecology of Europeans is having in Europe and in the America, is that Italians, Greeks, Spanish, Southern French, Bulgarian*, etc, have been under-represented as European and in some ways, thrown under the bus - thrown on the African side of the line.

Let alone respected as Europeans and for the part they play as genetic barrier, the wonder wall that they would naturally function as.

.....

* The oldest European civilizations are in Bulgaria and Ukraine.

Have you seen the thousands of Turkish skulls collected in the Bulgarian museum?

 

Posted by The kind of discussion... on Fri, 09 Nov 2018 07:38 | #

...that should be going on in this thread:

I.e. from about minute 1:11:59 - 1:16.00 -

Posted by Dennis Dale on Thu, 06 Dec 2018 09:05 | #

Dennis Dale lends weight to my (DanielS) response (#149) to GW (#148), as my experience has led me to believe that Mexicans and Asians are far preferable allies and neighbors to blacks and others…

Speaking currently from Portland, Oregon, but otherwise of his 50+ years of experience and perspective as a White man living in America among blacks, Mexicans and other groups, Dennis Dale’s perspective is in agreement with mine, that Mexicans (largely Amerindian/White mix) are far - FAR - preferable as neighbors for Whites than are blacks or Muslims - and with them he adds the wish to distance also from Puerto Ricans (largely black/Amerindian/White mix) and to distinguish from YKW

He talks about this candidly for about 5 minutes (maybe he edited it some by now)

..as it stands, the part that I’m talking about begins at about 2:08 - 2:16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AQBDcPBj2E

Discussing the fact that indeed, Mexicans have their foibles and are not exactly over-achievers, neither is interacting among and along side them comparable in their downsides as a group to the nightmare of living with blacks, up against Islam and their liberal sponsors - Dennis tends to be soft on the YKW, though he does recognize that they have some leading role in sponsoring liberal impositions of out-groups upon Whites; Dennis still buys-into their trick of “the left” (and its group organizational premises) as part and parcel of “the enemy” rather than the right and its disorganizing, atomizing objectivism as part and parcel of the enemy, and now the premier tool wielded by the YKW.

Dennis Dale (2:08 - 2:16): I like Mexicans, I grew up with them, I like them. I generally like them. And they’re not as bad as blacks. Yeah, it’s nothing like.. when I grew up, they fought with each other ..and the guys in the other gangs were like the soldiers - that’s whom they fought and they didn’t spend a lot of time messing with people who weren’t in gangs ...it’s kind of right of passage to get jumped by the Mexicans when you grow up in a place like that, but still…

It’s nothing like black gangs, right, I mean, you can live in a Barrio, you can be a White guy living in a Mexican Barrio and you know, you’d get-by. You know, you can’t be this lone White guy living in a black neighborhood - you’d just get killed. Yeah, it’s totally different.

Dennis corroborates my experience of Mexicans and Asians as far more positive or benign than blacks, who are completely different - i.e. very negative as a pattern.

He also expresses awareness that Muslims are very negative too, and starts off (1:40) expressing gratitude that The US is not over the Middle East and subject to their kind of immigration instead..

He might have added that Europe is over Africa, but does mention the menace of Somali immigration.

He expresses some awareness of the negative impact and difference of Puerto Ricans (more mixed with black) and he has a growing awareness of the YKW as imposers of liberal out-groups and mixing…

But anyway, I want you to see this because his and my view in regard to finding Mexicans and Asians far preferable to blacks and Muslims is the normal White American perspective of my experience.

Though he does recognize a problem with Asians in that while they COULD side with Whites, unfortunately they are generally siding with team coloreds against Whites, apparently seeing it as the winning side.

Posted by Holly von Roark on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:19 | #

(2:07:45) Not a criticism of what proper social constructionism would maintain (i.e., if you have to put the word “just"or “mere” before the term social construct, then it is not proper social constructionism, because you are betraying its anti-Cartesian mandate that provides for agency, social accountability, coherence and warrant by contrast), but a fun indictment of its sheer abuses:

       

On the chill-stream, “So Much Losing”, 9 Dec 2018:

Holly Roark says (2:07:57), “A lot of the trans-stuff too, isn’t it funny, how um, if gender isn’t real, but yet people that transition, they transition into this like stereotype of the other one; like, so the boy that wants to be girl or transition, wants to put on lipstick, so well, if there’s no gender why are you doing that? Why don’t you just stay how you are? It’s the most ridiculous thing. ...we’re not supposed to believe that race is real or scientific or that there are racial subspecies but we’re supposed to believe that if someone believes in their heart that they are a different gender then therefore they are. Ok, I’m supposed to just believe that.

This is insanity. I never thought that society would end up where we are… I just wonder how many people out there, at least in America, are looking at this, saying that this is just bullshit that don’t want to say it because the media out there makes it seem like everyone is on board but you. I don’t believe that though.”

Note: Like all of the best theoretical means for group defense, social constructionism is deployed by the YKW for their interests while misreprsented and made absurd to the gentiles to turn them off to what would be in their group interests for their defense - as I said, because it would provide for (White) group accountability, agency, coherence and warrant.

 

Holly Roark’s Twitter: ​https://twitter.com/hollyroark?lang=en

 

Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 18:38 | #

This study changes the perception of who a Viking actually was - no one could have predicted these significant gene flows into Scandinavia from Southern Europe and Asia before and after the Viking Age .

https://www.inverse.com/science/viking-dna-study?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 07:28 | #

Manc,

From that study:

“We find evidence for a major influx of Danish ancestry into England”

From the PoBI commentary on their 2015 study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632200/

“In particular, we see no clear genetic evidence of the Danish Viking occupation and control of a large part of England”

Repeated in a Nature article on the same study thus:
https://www.nature.com/news/uk-mapped-out-by-genetic-ancestry-1.17136

“Danish Vikings, who occupied Britain between the 700s and 1100s ad, by contrast, left little signature* in most Britons’ genomes.”

They can’t both be right.  The Copenhagen study was, however, the subject of a lengthy piece on ITV News the other night.  It’s all about diversity, doncha know.

* The exception genome-wise is the Orkneys, for which PoBI reports a 25% trace.