I would like to take occasion to set out a neglected and important matter for consideration - the hypothesis that “testing” and “lesson giving” are not only underpinnings of liberalism but can be disingenously used and enormously abused as excuses for all manner of trangression. With the false halo of innocence under the rubiric of enlightenment empiricism these ways of looking at the world moved from the laboratories of science to gain vast popularity and practice, not only for the good reasons of solid, verfiable warrant and benign remedies, but also for utility among the populous contra postive traditions and inherited forms - the enlightenment’s prejudice against the superstition of prejudice can serve as powerful and destructive warrant in the wrong hands, giving thoughtless actions, ill-considerd for their ramifications, an ostensible appearance of noble precedent.

For decades now, I have been considering the idea that “lesson giving” could provide a convenient excuse for liberalism, viz. as an excuse for those taking liberties by its means and in regard to the effect on those who are more or less violated by the taking of liberties, which is then written-off as “a lesson.”

I saw that the idea of “testing” could also be disingenuously used along with “lesson giving” to provide excuses for excessive license and liberal behavior. I suspected thus, that “testing” and “lesson giving” were being used all too conveniently to bypass accountability to social capital and human ecologies.

The excess of these ideas, their pervasiveness and popularity are set in motion at the very theoretical underpinnings of liberalism. To begin, these were a liberation from mere tradition, custom, habit, superstition - e.g., from absurd religious requirements. The evangelizing of these values gradually spread through just about all of the world. Liberalism became the water in which we swim - toxic waters for its impervious linearty, promise of limitless progress, pursued as an impervious and deliberately non-discriminatory technology to the destruction of our peoples in their distinct human ecologies. Liberalism which started out as a liberation from tradition became a pervasive tyranny of its own, requiring a second liberation. Nevertheless, to begin, and to some extent always, the empirical project of suspending belief, testing and learning from the results is a positive liberation and compelling for some very good reasons.

Even so, testing and lesson giving become overvalued for their material yield, of course, and as a holdover of the enlightenment’s own customs, habits, positive attributes in culture and peoples. There remains a willful naivete of these notions which is very compelling, seductive as it combines a promise of both innocence and powerful warrant; to get there, however, requires theoretical detachment from human agency, subjectivity, social relevativity and with that, a detachment from accountability - leaving adherents susceptible to the disingenous: the perversion of these notions to the point of hyperbolic liberalism is largely a result of Jewish academia, media and political manipulation; but also provides convenient excuses for objectivists to disingenuously accrue power; while the promotion of objectivism at the same time serves as a means of creating a naivete ripe for exploitation as it finds its way down to an intransigence in pop-culture.

Left unaccountable, unsophisticated by the post modern turn and in the wrong hands (e.g., popular puerile hands and those who would pander to them), these ideas can provide almost boundless excuses for the most destructive liberal behavior. Just about anything can be written-off as “testing” and “lesson-giving.”

Thus, it is an eminently worthy consideration for Majorityrights to engage and focus on these matters which underwrite liberalism. We need to understand where they go too far, what qualitative and quantiative limitations there should perhaps be and by contrast also the proper applications - post modernity does not only evaluate progress but the value of tradition and inherited forms as well.

I would call attention to the detriment of the popular application of the empirical view, in its tendency to focus on momentary and episodic units of analysis, while doing violence to relational and cultural/systemic processes and ecology; with that, rupturing historical evolutionary patterns.

At this very moment I realize that I have been misunderstood previously as not recognizing that science proper is capable of taking patterns into account. Of course it can. Let me correct that here by noting that it is especially in the popular manifestation of empiricism through enculturation of the enlightenment project, in turn instigated for hyperbolic liberal purposes by YKW, that this “empiricism” is conducted with crass and destructive carte blanche.

We call these problems of “modernity” while recognizing that they have been twisted and exaggerated beyond all reason by the YKW.

They (the YKW) have done the same to post modernity, to where it is unrecognizable as the postive correction to modernity that it was meant to be (e.g., a liberation from mere facticity and a capacity to reconstruct traditional and inherited forms where good and benign). That is why I have been so vigilant to articulate the post modern remedy for the public project as it is supposed to be - as a means to manage the best and worst of modernity and tradtional/inherited forms.

I have called attention to the fact that hermeneutics and social constructionism proper provide a post modern remedy - especially for the public -  to help them away from this myopic, scientistic focus and disingenuous bypassing of accountability that filters down from the specialty of the scientist to common, everyday, popular menality and practice.

I have called attention to the fact that reconstructing the validity and warrant of social classification (viz., “race”) is necessary to provide delimitation to calibrate, regulate and govern accountability to systemic historical processes and human ecology.

I have indicated that the idea of sacrament (monogamy, life-long and or partner-wise) must be introduced for people to have the authentic freedom of choice within and between group relations. Particularly as ritualized, this would re-connect the episode (the empirical) to the broader relational and historic pattern - accountability to its ennobling and caring ensconement. It is a connection of accountbility to the historical systemic group pattern. It provides integrity to the whole group - and a control variable, if you want to look at it scientifically.

But these are only the broadest outlines. I have yet to get people to participate in this critique and remedy of modernity and of its Jewish distortions, despite its obvious necessity and importance as it bears upon our experience of runaway liberalism to the detriment of our group’s human ecology.

Hence, I pluck-out and focus on the popular abuse of these two enlightenment memes: “testing and lesson giving.”

Consider with me, if you will, where the use of these memes are valid and where they become abuse.

And what to do in remedial application? How does it work?

How can you know things before you test them thoroughly? How do you know if your partner is, or will be appropriate enough unless you “test” them? Can “testing” be relied upon to provide an accurate assessment? Testing can have an episodic bias and focus to the detriment of the relational and protracted cultural/systemic patterns. A lesson may be too costly.

The problem and the question is to provide practical means for assessment when trying to correct for the potential reckage of an over-emphasis on “testing” (writing-off caution), “lesson giving” (writing off the damage) and its resultant liberalism.

Testing and lesson giving create a problem for accountability. These ideas are all too facile. The “tester” can apparently always justify the test as providing a lesson and postive feedback therefore - even if the consequences were negative in the sense of being destructive to individuals, relationships and the cultural/systemic pattern.

Hermeneutics seeks to amend this relation blindness with the inclusion of broader social systemic historical views.

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

I learned that Roman’s ace in the hole was to treat this all as “a lesson.” And that is how I learned the supreme necessity of being critical of the scientistic view on that score - one can-write off any miserable deed as a “testing” and a “lesson.”

This is in reference to a grandiose wallflower who I had the misfortune to have known in Pila, Poland.

As I got “a lesson” from him which was supererogatory, I may as well share that surpluss “learning” here and use it to help correct the egregious pattern which he’d invoked.

Marxism (esp., the Hegelian dialectic), Christianity (both Catholic and evengelical variants - apparently having no problem with assimilating OT aggression and revenge), the narrowist petty nationalism when convenient, lack of a superego restraint on social abuse for not having a biological father in his life to say “no” and counter the unconditional love of his mother, and just plain jealousy, these were all factors to his sociopathology.

However, the theoretical backing and practice of “testing and lesson giving” are the aspects that provoke the most interest for the scientistic imperviousness, halo of secular innocence and authority to underwrite liberal destruction

This man is a computer nerd whom I will call Roman Schneidemühl. He is not German, he is Polish/Ukrainian, maybe part Jewish, but has a name that sounds similar as Schneidemühl; and my dealings with him were in Pila, which had been known as Schneidemühl when it was a German city. So I will call him Schneidemühl, to designate the man and the place from which I learned just how his way of thinking, so useful in solving computer problems, could be applied imperviously, in a literal minded way (a-social theoria), to be so unreasonable and destructive when applied to praxis (the social interactive world).

My own buried memes of Christian compassion (Roman was very ugly and came across as very practical, senstive, caring about his people, thus with good reason to cooperate and incapable of such spite) and the sense of guilt that the cooperators of Pila persistently tried to invoke in me was also a part of the trap.

The naivete and disingenousness of his scientism served perfectly for him to play the role of the hypocrite. Roman played the role (in the extended prisoner’s dilema articulated by Bowery) of “the hypocrite” - the one who creates an unclear situation in interface of both outsider (in this case, me) and cooperators (in this case cooperators were an unexpected mix of Pila’s respectable people steeped in social capital, including police ties and its organized criminal element). This would allow the cooperators to “take the ten” by means of his deceptive hypocrisy of “testing” and “lesson giving.” Likely what made him more convincing and dangerous in his hypocrisy was that he deceived himself, even, into thinking that he was innocent; and that I should have to prove my innoncence (through testing) which of course, is impossible.

So much for my attempt to build community there and help defend Poland against the impending ravages of the West. It is for the illustration of its means to betray and obstruct our efforts at community building and solidarity of Whites that I take licence to use this personal account to hopefully help understand a broader essential problem for our struggle.

No matter how destructive, no matter how well founded a defense and objection, Roman Schneidemühl would always fall back on the idea that he was innocently using testing methods to make his way toward foundational knowledge. He could not even understand why I would be upset in the wake of the vast destruction he aided and abetted.

I have called it “didactic incitement” and it is in all likelihood a means by which untold millions have been betrayed. And what, after all, is more destructive and painful than betrayal.

Unfortunately, he is surely not unique as a grandiose administrator of scientistic religiosity, in providing a catch all excuse to be used by any, from the sheer pop culture, Hollywood movie consumer to those steeped and retaining the media of years gone by - Christianity (in Roman’s case, an evangelical variant) and “wisdom” of the kind.

He is surely not unique in the use of “testing” and “lesson giving” as excuses for egregious desruction.

Hence my presentation of this matter for your urgent consideration - the correct use and place of testing and lesson giving and a shared examination of the destructive warrant it provides for liberalism.

As a wise man once asked, “as teachers, are we wise?”