The Terms As DanielS Deploys Them

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 06 October 2016 00:01.

Taking the hermeneutic turn and praxis - Vico: first in defiance upon Descartes.

The Terms As DanielS Deploys Them.

Caveat: I’m likely to continue to work on these definitions for a little while even after I post this, so let that be a warning to whomever might find that disconcerting….a few more small, clarifying adjustments as of Wednesday, 2 November morning, CET

Left - social group conceptualization, unionization and accountability thereof, which, by definition thus, and by diametrical contrast to the tendency of liberalism, seeks to distinguish and designate in-groups and out-groups and ways, with an eye toward systemic maintenance of the in-group (and concomitant routinized coordination with outgroups) in leverage against destructive and unnecessary injustice to social capital, inhumaneness, natural hazard, and against out-group antagonism. It is vigilant of elite accountability because their betrayal can do most ready harm, but it sees fit to accountability to and from rank and file as well.

Because it implies a union of in-groups as opposed to out-groups, it is necessary to specify, with a prefix, which “left” one is advocating or denouncing.

Through my experience and assessment, it is clear to me that Jewish and liberal interests do not want us to deploy this organizing, unionizing function on our behalf but rather want to deploy this notion of unionized advocacy against Whites, in liberalization of our bounds and borders; thus, they obfuscate, where they do not outrghtly prohibit White organization as such. They want to confuse Whites and have them argue against their own interests, by having them argue against “The Left”, i.e., arguing against their own social organization and compassion with the mistaken idea that the liberalism of those who would seek to disrupt our group defense and maintenance is “The Left” - though it is not a left for us, for our exclusive unionization; for us, rather, it is liberalization. However, they’ve succeeded in getting WN and Alternative Right to do just that - to talk in terms of “The Left” being the enemy, along with it, imputing several ideas that would not be true of a White Left, as I define it - for prime example, it is not about equality/inequality - to argue against “equality” is to chase a cunning red cape posed by the Red Left - viz. Jewish inspired international coalitions of anti-White unions have been supplied this notion to dangle before potential adherents and to bait the right, inducing a spooking reaction against social mindedness on their part. Even recently, to my shock, GW thought that I was advocating “equality” (though I’ve been explicit not to do that in several articles discussing incommensurability) and against “elites” though I’ve never been against elites and their abilities (but against their abuse and betrayal, if there is that, of course). Nor is it applying unnatural concepts - there is a significant difference between treating “the White race”, say, as a largely precise working hypothesis, very real but interactive and verifiable, as opposed to treating it as an exact but imagined concept to be imposed upon reality, or denied reality.

Commensurability and incommensurabilty, that is, how the rule structures of entities and their trajectories, behaviors or practices match up or not, is a superior conceptual tool to equality/inequality, as it takes into account qualitative issues and the appropriateness or not of comparison and competition, the appropriateness or not of positions within ecological niches - It is superior in terms of practicality, not trying to put things together that don’t work together; and it is superior in particular in the capacity to acknowledge human dignity, place and part; to avoid conflict as a result of false comparison.

In a White Left, I am primarily concerned with EGI. I recognize economics to be important, of course, but the social organizing function of EGI is my primary concern. The union would correspond with what we know as the White/European race, with subsidiary categories for its subgroups and nations.

It takes account of facts which are more objective, but has as its foremost concern the relative interests of the group and thus, those objective facts are applied with the interest of that criteria and its coordination in mind. Of course it is going to be in the interest of the group for those who are doing well to keep doing well.

The White Left is not antagonistic to elite capability and reward but rather has an eye toward its accountability to and from group interest and has an eye toward accountability of and to the rank and file to keep them in line and happy for their part in homeoestasis - systemic maintenance.

The White Left is separatist, not supremacist; it aspires to restore the sovereignty of European peoples and their vast majority in native European states and territories - to be sovereign for the purpose of securing our EGI there and in other continents - the Americas, Australia, New Zealand. But because The White Left employs the supranational concept of unionization, “The DNA Nation”, it is operative independent of territoriality.

The White Left is Left Ethno-nationalist and thereby not imperialist.

As I have said before, this view is like a cat, landing on its feet in providing good orientation and perspective every time - it is inherently stable in its view on the group, the potential traitor and the outgroup..

Liberalism - the tendency for individuals to want to be free of in-group unionization, ways and accountability, free of their inherent forms, in extreme expression; and to welcome what had been outsider individuals and ways into the group with limited accountability - hence, their preference for objectivist, “naturalistic” ideas - because “that’s just the way it is.” Objectivist international capitalists and Jewish interests would be interested in taking advantage of this and therefore promote it to Whites, who are vulnerable to it for known reasons.

The Right - a tendency to want to be unburdened of group responsibility and consideration, and thus to divine authority, supranatural theory or facticity and objectivism - I mean by that aspired-for objectivity (as if one has no concern for subjective and relative interests) thus, “objectivism” as opposed to “relative” and “subjective”. The objectivism of which I speak is not Ayn Rand’s objectivism (which is more like subjectivism, in subjective interests, actually) though most other aspects of libertarian objectivism are objectivist. Objectivism, subjectivism and relativism are not perfectly separable, but one or another of these can be emphasized to the expense of another. By facticity, I mean an insufficient liberation from arbitrary subjugation to the flux of facts for lack of hermeneutic, narrative/ conceptual resource (hermeneutics is defined a few paragraphs below) or failure to recognize its resource to liberate one (through principles or rules based historical experience, narrative sequence that can provide agentive coherence) from the fact that facts are under-determining for human orientation and imagination; thus require hermeneutic, conceptual or narrative orientation.

The right emphasizes the objective, usually for the purpose of hiding their relative group (left) interests (that tends to be the hidden motive where aliens are imposed upon them against their will and they cannot forthrightly proclaim their relative group interests - they have to say, “well, these are just facts”), or hiding elite interests, a wish to not be accountable, perhaps even to betray group interests. Thus, they are anti-social and rather try to argue against group accountability sheerly on the basis of objective facts (or religions beliefs). What group organization that happens stance then despite their rational blindness (”It has nothing to do with my subjective/relative interests, that’s just the way it is, I/we have no part in what happens and thus no social accountability”) tends to lead to elitism, supremacism, imperialism but ultimately disorganization and dissolution for its inherent instability (add to that instability can also be due to insufficient respect for relativist praxis - social girding - by contrast to strained-for objectivism - for universal foundations, etc - tends to have a reflexive effect of hyper-relativism)...which brings us to “The Alternative Right.”

The Alternative Right
is Paul Gottfried’s Jewish coinage because Jews are desperate that there not be a White Left. The Alternative Right, then, has become a successful Jewish trick to get all of the anti-social reactionary movements into a relatively controlled opposition - the Nazis, the scientistic, the Jesus people, those who want to include Jews within our in-group and allow them to define our terms, despite all evidence that that should not be done.

There is an inherent rule for those who want to be included as part of this tentosphere - an Alt Right tent of tents, which includes tents that reject the term and some of its tents - you have to allow for the other’s anti-social positions and basically argue against “The Left.”

This can assimilate praxis and practicality for a time - its true that it will be allowed attention by Jewish media and gain popularity with reactionaries, coordinating them for a time; and it is true that it is difficult to circumscribe, pin-down and counter for a time; but it will be countered where it does not come apart because it is anti-social, lacking the grounding of optimal praxis and thus inherently unstable.

That pretty much rebuts Colin Liddell’s recent claim that this amorphousness of the Alternative Right is an “advantage, because they can’t be easily categorized and countered by our enemies.” That may be somewhat true for a time, but their ambiguity ultimately provides means for subversion and misdirected conflict nevertheless…ultimately, the lack of unity will lead to dissolution. And, on the other-hand, so what if people understand where The White Left is coming from? Yes, that’s right. This is who we are, and as such we can coordinate well with other peoples. And this is who we are not, people who have not learned from right-wing, supremacist, imperialist history.

Crowder, the “new leader of the Alt Right”, providing “immunity from subversion and disunity” (lol)

To give you a prima facie idea of how ridiculous the Alternative Right is by contrast, their premise is that we have to minimize infighting and with that, one of their first suggestions is that you should not ostracize and sweat the “little things”, e.g. Christianity, scientism, Jews and Hitler, but rather should embrace those who want, e.g., to redeem and resurrect Hitler and his ideology - though there has been no greater instigator of White ingroup fighting than Hitler.

They are just that ridiculous. Whether they are allowed to join up with all of their tents or not, Jews have to love the Alternative Right, because it is theoretically gauche.

It is good for Jews if Whites identify as Christian, so that they remain under Noahide law. It is good for Jews if Whites remain scientistic and objectivist, because they will put a chill on social conscience, and, of course, it is good for Jews if they continue to not see through Jewish crypsis, and try to treat Jews as White (but perhaps special Whites).. 

Failing that, it’s better for Jews that Whites identify as “Nazis” than be a White Left, because there is limited utility and ultimately there is in-group destruction with that identity.

Cartesian - a wish to separate facts, theory or “mind” from interaction. Its pursuit can go in a direction outside of nature, into pure theory, or in an empirical direction of pure facts. This can be a natural wish among those who feel guilty or unfairly burdened by social customs or impositions, and by those disingenuous, looking to avoid accountability (“these are just the facts, there is, was, no recourse”).

In fact, “anti-racism” is Cartesian, it is not innocent, it is prejudiced, it is hurting and it is killing people.

Anti-racism is a machination conceived and promulgated by Jewish interests to take advantage of the Enlightenment’s objectivist prejudice against prejudice (prejudice against even necessary prejudice).

Cartesianism is one of modernity’s leading components. Its destructiveness, including through the prejudice against prejudice, called for philosophers to conceive of the hermeneutic, post modern turn (for fuller definition, i.e., a proper understanding of the concept, Modernity, Traditional Ethnocentric and primitive, Monocultural societies, see White Post Modernity).

Praxis, Theoria and Poesis are Aristotlean epistemological categories:

Praxis - is the social world as Aristotle conceived it, which constrains theoretical application to some extent by our human nature - people being biological creatures, evolved for optimal, not maximal need satisfaction, mammalian creatures evolved to care about relationships, especially close personal relationships; and because we are interactive and thus agentive (we can learn, change course and respond in ways other than predicted, to some extent) - given these facts, Aristotle juxtaposed Praxis to “Theoria”, which is pure theoretical knowledge - which can be applied fruitfully to physics, but would be an epistemological blunder to apply strictly to Praxis - suggesting that Phronesis (practical judgment) is thus necessary in consideration of social matters - Praxis. He also proffered the category of Poesis - the arts and crafts.

Now, since Descartes took Theoria to its extreme in trajectory of social detachment and consensus had it that that was destructive to maintain as anything but a provisional perspective, philosophers since Vico have been arguing more or less that even in theoretical matters we need to acknowledge engagement in subjective and relative social group interactive interests - to center our world view in praxis. The post modern turn pursues a trajectory to take even theoria to be subsumed by praxis. This is central to what Heidegger is trying to do - to rescue folk from the Cartesian estrangement, famously observing with that that thinking is more like (poesis) the organic forms of poetry than the blindered controls of science - “science does not think”, he said.

Hermeneutics - is a project conceived to conduct inquiry properly, not destructively as did the Cartesian aspiration for its imperviousness and rational blindness to interaction. It is meant, rather to coordinate and integrate these epistemological realms.

It is a process of inquiry in which the inquirer considers themself engaged to some extent with the object of inquiry. It cannot be detached from facts and divorced from reality indefinitely since that would be violation of its anti-Cartesian mandate; but it does afford a close or broad look at the facts, depending upon need or predilection - GW, prefers a close look; nevertheless, the facts are under determining for humans. We need narrative, language and concepts to flesh out perspective and accountability on our personal and social lives in their authentic, systemic, temporal and historical breadth. Hermeneutics acknowledges that as necessary orientation and contextualizaton of facts, it acknowledges our social participation in those narratives and even in the reconstruction of some aspects of facts on the basis of those narratives. It is not at all anti-science - on the contrary, but it maintains rather that science is not all that is necessary nor all-determining in how facts count.

These narratives are important, of course, for the coordination of our group systemic maintenance, since we do have antagonists and we do have the option to mix with others where not straightforwardly eliminating ourselves.

Midtdasein - non-Cartesian attention to engaged process of thought in relative social interest: i.e., “there-being” amidst one’s folk (praxis).

Self 1 - Corporeal

Self 2 - Auto(biographical) / hermeneutic

The hermeneutic aspect of self is important for coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.

Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant - I talk about these features of narrative capacity in this article: Kant’s Moral System As Coherence, Accountability, Agency, and Warrant.

That article should not be read in and of itself - it is meant to segue into an article which amends and corrects Kant’s oversights - this article, to be specific: White Left Imperative to Defense, Systemic Health of European peoples (also called Leftism as a Code Word):

These things are so central to my terminological framework and I’ve talked about them so many times that I took them for granted and had forgotten to mention them here.

Social Constructionism (proper): is a way of looking at things from a social perspective - Praxis - a human centric, human interactive perspective - it holds that where we cannot literally construct facts (in some cases, we can), then we have capacity to determine how facts count - it recognizes that there is a degree of agency afforded in recognizing the social aspects of life - in conjoint construction; and it is a remedy to Cartesian and other kindred destruction, such as theological.

This agentive aspect of social constructionism is crucial to tap, as it is both true and useful - the better the morale for our side, the better to organize action against antagonists, despite liberal uncaring and on behalf of ourselves if our people believe that they have agency. Otherwise, our enemies can and will use deterministic arguments and language against us - e.g., “immigration flows are inevitable.”

One can test and tell where it is being abused and misrepresented as a notion, if you have to put the word “mere” before social construct; or if it is said that it is “just” a social construct. If you have to put the word mere or just before what is being proposed as a social construct, that means it is not accountable to the social world’s consensus and understanding with regard to what is real and factual, that “mere” or “just” indicates a Cartesian, supra-natural and supra-social proposition.

By contrast, in its proper form, social constructionism (proper) is another post modern idea, along with hermeneutics, that does not deny facts or say that you can make of yourself just whatever you like (as solipsism might claim) - again, as that would be a violation of its anti-Cartesian mandate. It does allow for the recognition of group perspectives, interests, reality and defense along with the reality of other, differing groups, with different, perhaps incommensurate, antagonistic or cooperative ways; but acknowledges that how facts count and to some extent how they evolve is negotiated (it is possible to make an argument that the White race should be bred-out of existence, as Andrew Anglin argued just a few years ago, and it is factually possible to argue that we are not “race distinct” enough, because we can be bred-out of existence with other races, but we believe those are poor arguments).

In defense of ourselves we acknowledge that we live in communication, that the facts of our lives are fleshed-out in authentic or imaginative form with language and narrative - by social communicative means which lend to accountability, thus lending to the obligation to accountability to social capital, particularly in regard to matters that are closer to hard facts and not highly negotiable in terms of how they count, particularly regarding survival and the reconstruction of our qualitative forms.

The Communication Perspective - takes interaction as the unit of analysis as opposed to the group unit of analysis which sociology takes, or the individual unit of analysis, which psychology takes. It is held to ask more incisive questions and get better answers, but it needs material to operate on - thus, it claims the same turf, i.e., the same unit of observation as other disciplines. Since we are in the position of having to defend our race against “anti-racism”, it is most useful for us to claim much of the same unit of observation as sociology - which takes social group as its unit of observation - because a “race” is a group concept. It will also claim the same turf as philosophy, economics, biology, physics, even psychology and more, where necessary.

White - People of overwhelming European descent. It has (understandably) been the preferred term for European peoples living outside of Europe. It does not include Jews. And Whites have the capacity to make that determination and exclude people from their nation who they recognize as detrimental to their EGI.

White/European peoples are a taxonomy and sub taxonomies, i.e., scientific and social classifications that should be politicized and “unionized” to some extent in order to defend them against liberal uncaring and outgroup antagonism. Through our kind of unionization and accountability (e.g., in DNA Nation), we seek to maintain both the genus and the distinct kinds of Whites/Europeans - the genus of our social classification, viz. its slightly more hypothetical/political form, I call “The White Class.”

This is a White ethnonational Left which would seek alliances with Asian left nationalists against Jewish and Islamic interests, de-racinated objectivist interests; and to contain black bio-power and population explosion.

The Class - It is a union of people with members and non-members: as White Nationalists, we are interested in how it corresponds quite exactly with both the idea of the nation as your “skin” (your genetic group, genus and species) and native nationalism, along with its borders and boundaries. Elites are members of the class up to the point that they betray its interests; i.e., this is different from conventional class theory in that it does not treat wealth and unequal ability as necessary cause for exclusion, whereas rather significant burden-to and betrayal of general class interests would be sufficient cause for ostracism - whether of the elite or the rank and file.

To avoid “wall papering” over significant differences between necessary skills and roles among the class interest, their differing interests, concerns and vulnerabilities to exploitation, we prefer an idea of syndicalism - i.e., a union of various unions - which, within the class of classes (the nation) do not necessarily keep one permanently bound to a particular union - or even a member of a specific union, necessarily, other than the union of the nation.

With social units of analysis, crucial matters such as demography are addressed - human species are assessed and can be recognized as being under threat of extinction.

Our haplogroup varieties, ways of life and their relation to the land are another reason why the interactive unit of analysis that the communication perspective takes is significant - it allows for the management not only of our human ecologies, but a necessary attention to pervasive ecology...

Another term, this one that I have coined - Pervasive Ecology.

“Marginals”

The guys at TRS, the “alt right’s” “The Daily Shoah”, said that term really “triggered” them.. “because it means that these people are ‘losers’ and ‘unwanted”...

I got news for them, they are marginals, as is everybody from time to time within human systems, including our greatest geniuses - that makes them marginal by definition.

Marginal perspectives are crucial to know where the social systemic shoe is pinching and where it is in need of homeostatic correction (as opposed to runaway) for the human ecology.

But as I have said before, a key trick - and it is a typical reversal of terminological logic on the part of Jewish academia - was in regard to the concept of “marginals”: i.e., to put across the idea that “marginals” were those from outside the group that needed to be included within the group as opposed to marginals being those who are already within the group but for the time being at least, further out toward the boundaries - the idea of requesting accounts from them being that these marginals have perspective on the system and worthwhile feedback as to its homeostasis - systemic maintenance.

Trying to deny the reality of social group classifications has been tried - by John Locke, and it has been an illustration of how Cartesianism can unfold to catastrophe.

American propositionalism is founded on its basis and it has spawned a popular culture with no regard for the social realm, only “the self actualization” of the ‘winners” ..no regard for the implications and impact on human ecological systems.

That is why my model of humanity looks after a “prescriptive”, rather, advisory topoi: Retooling of Maslow’s pop psychology hierarchy of needs to “self actualization”, advising that it be taken into a basis in socialization (optimally circulating in praxis as central for European social groups), which would ensconce being (midtdasein), routine, craft and sacred practice, self actualization (farther reaches of special personal quest). 

Moral orders: the rule structures that organize what is legitimate, obligatory or prohibited among a people, giving them an accountable social order. There has never been a human circumstance absence some semblance of these rule structures.

Sex as dominance and submission in tension with human dignity, a mechanism which makes sex sexy.

Sex as celebration - an option taking for granted the pattern and its boundaries, that you are sharing-in worthwhile common resource. A liberal attitude with regard to sex, particularly among one’s group, as people are sharing in common resource, can be reasonable if the boundaries and the pattern are secure - besides literal and rules based boundaries and borders, an additional necessary means of the pattern’s security is an institutionalized provision for an option for sex as sacrament.

Sex as sacrament - an option which does not take the pattern and its boundaries for granted and rather thus, does not treat sex as a mere function and causative fact of nature beyond our human discretion, but seeks means and social enclaves, ideally, for careful observation of the value in patterns beyond moment and episode. It is an option for those who want to take a very careful attitude with regard to birthing and partnering, including ensconcing a commitment to monogamy as a viable option. It is moreover an important option to uphold in order to maintain systemic homeostasis .. staving-off cynicism and disorder, maintaining incentive structure and thus reason for loyalty and to fight for the pattern.

Sacrament as episodic connection and reverence for that which is essential and vital to the pattern.

Augustinian Devils vs Manichean Devils:

Manichean Devils are trickster devils -  they reflect human level agency to change the rules of a game in order to fool you if they think you might win the game. It may be hypothesized that tribal peoples from the South and Middle East are more attuned to this sort of Devil as they are more evolved in competition with each other for resources rather than competition against the elements of nature; even where food was not all that abundant at least they were not up against the winter.

Augustinian Devils are natural obstacles and problems. If you can solve them, they don’t change the rules because they lack human level agency. It is my hypothesis that Europeans are evolved more to focus on this kind of devil - preparation for the harsh winter and scarcity were challenge enough, thus Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, prefer that Augustinian Devils do the selecting and killing as surviving these conditions was valuable ability enough..

The ultimate devils facing humanity are Augustinian devils thus it is incumbent upon European evolution to not lose this virtue; and not be defeated by the Manichean devils of tribalists.

For ready example, if we are to avoid asteroids, super volcanoes, catastrophic climate change, etc., and get to outer space of necessity.

Coming back to the marginal and who should be ostracized or not then, this issue should be taken into account for our selective strategy. If someone is strong enough to survive, that is to say, they have demonstrated that they have the genotypic strength (genetic level ) of our kind to survive without undue help, then barring the fact that they are not an undue burden on society, they should be given the benefit of the doubt - innocent until proven guilty.

Marginals should be allowed the opportunity to be deployed in our interest, to contribute to the maintenance of borders and boundaries - if they will do that or not, should be a key criteria as to whether or not we allow Augustinian devils to be a deciding factor in their survival from our end.

In fact, as the White demographic becomes older, I have argued that the marginal group that is our elderly can move from a liability to become a great asset - a geriatric army in this regard - they have wisdom, experience, perspective to deploy on our behalf and as they have proven their genotypic strength for their longevity, they also have less to lose; having already lived most of their life and being beyond child bearing age, they should be called upon to take greater risks on behalf of our legacy.

Phenotypic strength can be an indicator of genetic strength, as can beauty, but as we know, these matters can also be superficial in terms of indicators of abilities and functions valuable to our people or not. The puerile in particular may be lured into their visual appeal and not see through to assessment of longer term and deeper genetic values. Nevertheless, phenotypic health and beauty can be signs of health and functionality and thus, should not be dismissed as purely superficial and of no importance whatsoever. It is just that there has to be some amount of mature critique against its true long term value to mitigate its over emphasis by the episodic myopia of the puerile and those who would pander to it (give them candy).

Genotypic and phenotypic strength is thus an important distinction to make common among puerile Europeans, in particular, as our evolution and its merits would not be displayed as much through episodic and tribal competition but in endurance and regulation of natural patterns and obstacles.



Comments:


1

Posted by Uh on Thu, 06 Oct 2016 20:14 | #

This agentive aspect of social constructionism is crucial to tap into because it is both true and useful. Otherwise, our enemies can and will use deterministic arguments and language against us - e.g., “immigration flows are inevitable.”

Well, they are when you don’t shoot at them.


2

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:04 | #

Thanks, Uh. Adding:

...and the better the morale for our side, the better to organize action against them and on behalf of ourselves if our people believe that they have agency.


3

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 07:57 | #

What is true?  That, not “what has utility”, is the basis on which I will respond to Daniel’s helpful clarification of terms.  As and when possible, I’ll post a number of sequential comments over the next couple of days, to cover the necessary ground.  Comments, therefore, will be quite brief and to the point.  Thereafter, I won’t respond to any further commentary by Daniel.  He is a friend, not an enemy; and I have no desire to “win the thread”.

Beginning, then, with “the left” …

Because he is a practical person, and practical politics matters a great deal to him, the question for Daniel is how to effect urgent change from the existing, destructively Judaised liberal dispensation.  Hence his focus on utility and his reliance on the familiar to hand.  But a systemic nationalism is not a familiar thing at all, and there are severe limits on how far into it the familiar can truly and usefully extend.

Plainly, nationalism, as an holistic intellectual world, has axes, and arguments can be made for at least two sets.  But neither of these are right and left.  Those are descriptives from the politics of liberalism, and products of liberalism’s vestigially Judaic action of estranging European Man from himself, either as a denatured, radically autonomous individual or as a dot in a deracinated social matrix.

In nationalist thinking, the individual is not the liberal model of individual Man.  The people are not the society or social body of liberalism.  In nationalism, the individual man and his people are not conflicted, but are united organically ... in ethnicity, love and belonging, instinctual self-preference and self-interest, and a conservative self-respect which surpasses mere tolerance.

We can agree with Salter that the interests of the individual are by no means contrary to, or exclusionary to, the interests of the people.  Individualism itself does not run counter to the people’s destining.  The two cohere, the profit from one being profit for the other; just as the individual himself could not physically come into being without the people, and the people could not exist without its individuals.  For, every man whose forebears are a distinct people is of that people, owes his existence to that people, shares genetic interests with that people, and natural right to and on that people’s soil, takes his sociobiology from that people … everything that he inherits, including his ideal of Woman, for example … and, if he manages to behave endogamously, he will continue the life of that people.  If he is healthy of mind he will know security in that people’s midst, and natural love and loyalty from them and toward them.  He will willingly labour and sacrifice for them.  He will give everything for them.  There is no bond in Nature more powerful than this.  In extremis, it surpasses in necessity even parenthood (at least, for the male of the species).

It should also be obvious that there are significant characteristics of peoplehood which are not captured by the designation “social”.  That is a word in the heads of (no doubt) clever and educated, even erudite and respected men and women who cannot see the whole animal, for it exists in Time, is conscious of self essentially and in the moment (or scarcely self-conscious at all, as may be the case in the West right now), and does not merely come together in the day for rational, explicable activities and purposes or by means visible to the calculating intellect, which is how these clever people seek to apprehend it.  It does not come together at all ... it is not a union of parts.  There are no parts and there is nothing to unite or tie together. It has the same life and the same heart, and the same blood in its veins.

If you doubt that, try substituting socially for ethnically in the unexceptional sentence “All human descent groups share ethnically-derived interests.”  It doesn’t work, does it?  It has precious little meaning at all.  But try substituting “ethnic” for “social” in the sentence, “Man is a social animal”, and there is nationalism!  But if the animal itself is ethnic and not merely social - and it is - how are conventional academics to describe, connect, and communicate with it?  How, if “social” loses its significant distinctions, its unique character, is the social also a sufficiently complete avenue of communication?  What, indeed, constitutes communication?

Something is missing, and it is the capacity to speak to and for the instinctual understanding of our truth.  Nationalists have to do that, or there can never be nationalism, and never be truth in our life.


4

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 08:35 | #

I would just add that Daniel refers to my accusing him of preaching equalitarianism, which is an odd one.  I think he might mean this passage:

Ontologically, the social as such has a spacial quality which is universal and a-particular.  It is fundamentally indiscriminate.  It can be filled with one thing or another, and it remains itself: a potential for anything.

... to which he responded:

The social realm can be filled with one thing or another and remain itself? What are you talking about?

I am talking about the difference between the elastic nature of the social and the bounded nature of ethnicity.


5

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 08:44 | #

This ...

Commensurability and incommensurabilty, that is, how the rule structures of entities and their practices match up or not ...

... returns us to CC’s comment about rule-books.  What is a “rule”, if not a prescription?  Why would anything be prescribed in nationalism that is not from the nature of the people?


6

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 08:57 | #

Hi GW, I will start with your last comment first, since the first one is long and it will take a little while to respond-to.

You say in the comment above:

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 13:35 | #

I would just add that Daniel refers to my accusing him of preaching equalitarianism, which is an odd one.  I think he might mean this passage:

  Ontologically, the social as such has a spacial quality which is universal and a-particular.  It is fundamentally indiscriminate.  It can be filled with one thing or another, and it remains itself: a potential for anything.

... to which he responded:

  The social realm can be filled with one thing or another and remain itself? What are you talking about?

I am talking about the difference between the elastic nature of the social and the bounded nature of ethnicity.


No, that is not the comment that I was referring-to. But my initial phrasing was too harsh; I had said that you accused me of “equalitarianism”. To say that you “accused” me was heavy handed and I have since re-phrased like this:

Even recently, to my shock, GW thought that I was advocating “equality” (though I’ve been explicit not to do that in several articles discussing incommensurability)...

With that remark, I was referring to a comment or two in the Nigel Farage in Mississippi thread:

Probably this:

It does not do to steal away tradition and patriotism and middle-class pride in social mores and standards and claim that they are “white left” ... that, actually, everything you want “in” was “white left” all along.  What that says is that there is a failure of understanding of the deep, abiding inequality within the European ethnic kind, and that this inequality is good and necessary, and natural. Find a way to cohere everything and prescribe nothing, and you have found a functioning nationalism.

Or this (what would also be a straw man to my perspective):

Now, it should be clear that this highly attenuated and artificial argument for a prescribed human equality and solidarity based in God-given worth disdains the principle of emergent property.

These are straw men inasmuch as they are directed at me (which the first remark in particular, is), as I have never argued for equality and have spoken a great deal about the matter.

I’ll come back to your first comment a little later (p.s., yes, you are my friend and shall remain so).


7

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 09:04 | #

On liberalism, Daniel’s definition looks unfinished, and perhaps it is.  But in any case, it should be clear, even among American nationalists imbued with the traditional American definition of the term, that liberalism is a total philosophy encompassing all the twists and turns and the derived ideologies of its three and half centuries of intellectual and political development.  Its twin-track of individualism and universalism come into contact only at the vanishing point.  They are never reconciled politically under the wheels of the train, so to speak.  But in the Judaic original the former is a function of the eschatological latter.


8

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 09:09 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 09:04 | #

On liberalism, Daniel’s definition looks unfinished, and perhaps it is.  But in any case, it should be clear, even among American nationalists imbued with the traditional American definition of the term, that liberalism is a total philosophy encompassing all the twists and turns and the derived ideologies of its three and half centuries of intellectual and political development.  Its twin-track of individualism and universalism come into contact only at the vanishing point.  They are never reconciled politically under the wheels of the train, so to speak.  But in the Judaic original the former is a function of the eschatological latter

Perhaps, but this article is about outlaying the terms as I, DanielS, deploy them for whom it may concern - and it may, I would argue, should, concern nationalists, because it is a conceptually workable system.


9

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 09:27 | #

The Right - a tendency to want to be unburdened of group responsibility and consideration, and thus to divine authority, supranatural theory or facticity and objectivism ...

I agree with Martin Hutchinson’s start-date of 1485 for conservative expression in British political life, with the accession of Henry VII to the English throne - so, for example, a century and a half before Descartes fathered the Western canon.  There is such a deep well of instinctual conservatism among all classes in English life - and I don’t doubt for a moment that it is the same throughout continental Europe.  There is a root here in the nature of the people.  It has something to do with tribalism in its most basic sense, and the way in which a highly individualistic and freedom-adoring Northern European ethnic group truly and healthily functions.  Characterising it as “irresponsible individualism” is itself irresponsible.  It deserves respect from thinking nationalists.


10

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 09:38 | #

Objectivism, subjectivism and relativism are not perfectly separable, but one or another of these can be emphasized to the expense of another. By facticity, I mean an insufficient liberation from arbitrary subjugation to the flux of facts for lack of hermeneutic, narrative/ conceptual resource or failure to recognize its resource to liberate one (through principles or rules based historical experience, narrative sequence that can provide agentive coherence) from the fact that facts are under-determining for human orientation and imagination; thus require hermeneutic, conceptual or narrative orientation.

Daniel, how on earth can you write that and not wonder whether it might, in fact, appear to everybody but yourself as jargon worthyof Alan Sokal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

For pity’s sake, have some thought for your poor readers, particularly in a post intended for the purpose of clarification.


11

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 10:15 | #

Conservatism - to conserve content and ways within the group.

Liberalism - to open and be open to content (people) and ways from without the group.


12

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 10:19 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 09:38 | #

  Objectivism, subjectivism and relativism are not perfectly separable, but one or another of these can be emphasized to the expense of another. By facticity, I mean an insufficient liberation from arbitrary subjugation to the flux of facts for lack of hermeneutic, narrative/ conceptual resource or failure to recognize its resource to liberate one (through principles or rules based historical experience, narrative sequence that can provide agentive coherence) from the fact that facts are under-determining for human orientation and imagination; thus require hermeneutic, conceptual or narrative orientation.

Daniel, how on earth can you write that and not wonder whether it might, in fact, appear to everybody but yourself as jargon worthy Alan Sokal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

For pity’s sake, have some thought for your poor readers, particularly in a post intended for the purpose of clarification.

Oh my god. GW. It’s so clear, get real.

Objectivism, relativism, subjectivsim - do you fucking understand?

These are distinctions, but they are not perfectly clear. That’s all.

A liberation from facticity is to take the perspective of principles (or narrative) beyond what the moment may arbitrarily present in the flux of perception. Principles are necessary to sustain coherence in long standing patterns against arbitrary flux and imposition.

Conservatism - to conserve content and ways within the group.

Liberalism - to open and be open to content (people) and ways from without the group.

Is that clear enough for the fucking J.., Uh?


13

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:46 | #

Nothing wrong with a rule book, in my opinion.  We have street signs, speed limits and traffic lights, and not many would argue for doing away with those, would they?  Of course you don’t want a guy driving a car who is so befuddled by vertigo that he doesn’t know his ass from his elbow, or up from down.

The traffic laws are Daniel’s hermeneutics; a centered sense of balance adjusted to one’s surroundings is GW’s presence.

Daniel needs to learn that the trick to breaking through thick skulls is to use simple, commonplace analogies.  For example, see above.


14

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:59 | #

Speaking of a nationalist Weltanschauung, which is what I attempt to do, is not the same as speaking of revolutionary change from within the liberal Weltanschauung, which is what Daniel attempts to do.  One is philosophy.  The other is political in the real sense of the word.

Further, it is by no means clear that intellectuals conducting an obscure intellectual exercise, from which certain instructions for the masses are concluded and handed down, is a viable form of political action.  For one thing, where is the founding philosophy?  In the absence of it, when does the intellectual introspection and bossy rule-setting cease?


15

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 21:17 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:59 | #

Speaking of a nationalist Weltanschauung, which is what I attempt to do, is not the same as speaking of revolutionary change from within the liberal Weltanschauung, which is what Daniel attempts to do.  One is philosophy.  The other is political in the real sense of the word.

GW, there are many ways and purposes of philosophy - one school is called “pragmatism.”

At first blush, that can sound bad, particularly looked at from within the vast mess that we now inhabit.

But when you understand that school of thought, you realize that not even “pragmatist philosophy” is quite so vulgar and bereft of careful philosophical backing. It is quite thoughtful, really. And one of the things that they say that I would agree with, and I have said it before, is that it is mere, or vulgar pragmatism that we are against, but “we are nevertheless pragmatists, because we have to be” - there is no choice.

You might call yourself a true philosopher because you focus on a psychological perspective, but I find it quite limiting - something that should occupy a fourth or fifth turn in consideration - and not a quintessentially philosophical perspective. As for your ontology project, it sounds like a combination of the analytic school of Russel and Whitehead, the early Wittgenstein along with a selective reading of Heidegger, as he might be correlated to that school. Yes, the Analytic school and the early Wittgenstein were trying to be mathematical and rigorous, Heidegger had a kind of rigor. Rigor is fine, but it is not all that philosophy is about.

Anyway, I have discussed in several places, that it was Russel and Whitehead’s focus on the liar’s paradox and the theory of logical types thereupon in Principia mathemetica, among other clues, that got me to thinking about race in terms of classification, that class of classes, etc. .. individuals, classification… “class cannot be a member of itself” (which Russel called the most ad hoc thing he’d ever have to do).

Contemplation of these matters is not political. These are theoretical concerns with a long history of philosophical thought interwoven…

You are too geared to argue against Marxist activist academics and want that kind of foil to play your thoughts against.

I wish that you would see the good in what I am doing and how it is that my project does not necessarily contradict you….just because I do not find psychology most useful and interesting ...and that I am not your foil. But for reasons that I now understand, you find that altercasting hard to resist. Nevertheless, in your last post, you created a fantastic hermeneutic narrative, subtly tracing the Jewish influence on European peoples (you can say, on their psyche) through Christianity. It was great. The narrative ran into a little (solvable) problem when you posed what would be a straw man - “there is no such thing as self creation” - if counterposed to social constructionism, because social constructionism would not say that there is such a thing.

Are these “political questions” that I am raising? Of course not.

Now, for your long comment…deep breath..

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 07:57 | #

What is true?  That, not “what has utility”, is the basis on which I will respond to Daniel’s helpful clarification of terms.  As and when possible, I’ll post a number of sequential comments over the next couple of days, to cover the necessary ground.  Comments, therefore, will be quite brief and to the point. Thereafter, I won’t respond to any further commentary by Daniel.  He is a friend, not an enemy; and I have no desire to “win the thread”.

You shouldn’t have a desire to “win the thread” because it is not a competition and if you see things correctly, you will understand that there is no necessary conflict ...in fact, we are after the same ends.

The result should be more a matter of elaboration, refinement, relatively minor corrections.

Beginning, then, with “the left” …

Because he is a practical person, and practical politics matters a great deal to him, the question for Daniel is how to effect urgent change from the existing, destructively Judaised liberal dispensation.  Hence his focus on utility and his reliance on the familiar to hand.  But a systemic nationalism is not a familiar thing at all, and there are severe limits on how far into it the familiar can truly and usefully extend.

Important, theoretically, is more the matter than urgent - though it is urgent, if it were a mere matter of mere expediency, I would, like the the right and alt right, go along with the Jewish trick and identify with the anti social associations that are associated with the right. But it is too important that we not be diverted from the group unit of analysis that is associated with the left ...a way of thinking that has not been developed for White people. If you were to say that is not natural, I would disagree - because there are necessary social aspects, they are simply not emphasized (we are not sensitized to observe these connections) in our typical language games, and especially not as prescribed by Jews - and those they successfully get to react into right wing identity. 

Plainly, nationalism, as an holistic intellectual world, has axes, and arguments can be made for at least two sets.  But neither of these are right and left.

I plainly disagree. A White Left is holistic in the sense that the nation is the class. Elites, that is, those who are doing better,  who find themselves in powerful and more broadly influential niches, are still within the class, but they are in a shared world view that is careful to hold them to account to the rest of the class.

Those are descriptives from the politics of liberalism, and products of liberalism’s vestigially Judaic action of estranging European Man from himself, either as a denatured, radically autonomous individual or as a dot in a deracinated social matrix.

These terms can be applied that way, but that’s not the way that I apply them. As such, they do not obstruct being in touch with the organic and authentic form of racial behavior and awareness - on the contrary, they facilitate it by recognition that the right, as objectivism, is what leads us astray from that. Thus, it is a worldview which prepares the ground for the kind of consciousness which you spoke of you that excellent article of yours.

In nationalist thinking, the individual is not the liberal model of individual Man.  The people are not the society or social body of liberalism.  In nationalism, the individual man and his people are not conflicted, but are united organically ... in ethnicity, love and belonging, instinctual self-preference and self-interest, and a conservative self-respect which surpasses mere tolerance.

There should be no conflict here with my outlook - though you will try to say that there is. ..probably because I don’t think that there is a problem with people having cultural markers, signs, maps and help sorting out tangles in order to help them maintain that organic form where they might go off track - and I would almost hope that they have enough creativity to have the capacity to go off track, but enough wisdom and intelligence not to do it… I do say almost, because I actually wish that we literally could not breed with some other races.

We can agree with Salter that the interests of the individual are by no means contrary to, or exclusionary to, the interests of the people.

For the most part that will be true. Of course there will be some conflicts ...the more-so, of course, in mixed societies, even mixed European societies, as America has been.

Individualism itself does not run counter to the people’s destining.  The two cohere, the profit from one being profit for the other; just as the individual himself could not physically come into being without the people, and the people could not exist without its individuals.

Yes, well, if a person is a nationalist, I am prepared to accept that account; but taken as a pure philosophy, by itself, that is nothing more than Randian libertarianism.

For, every man whose forebears are a distinct people is of that people, owes his existence to that people, shares genetic interests with that people, and natural right to and on that people’s soil, takes his sociobiology from that people … everything that he inherits, including his ideal of Woman, for example … and, if he manages to behave endogamously, he will continue the life of that people.

That’s fine.

If he is healthy of mind he will know security in that people’s midst, and natural love and loyalty from them and toward them.  He will willingly labour and sacrifice for them.  He will give everything for them.  There is no bond in Nature more powerful than this.  In extremis, it surpasses in necessity even parenthood (at least, for the male of the species).

I guess the truth of this is being expressed in our advocacy here at Majorityrights.

It should also be obvious that there are significant characteristics of peoplehood which are not captured by the designation “social”.

Why does everything have to be captured by the word “social”?

  That is a word in the heads of (no doubt) clever and educated, even erudite and respected men and women….

Here we go again. I can see that my hypotheses about your anti academic, anti sociology department disposition is verified.

who cannot see the whole animal, for it exists in Time, is conscious of self essentially and in the moment (or scarcely self-conscious at all, as may be the case in the West right now),

Ok, that’s a nice touch, but I don’t see why I should object, why a sociologist, or communicologist should object, other than to object that we can be sensitized to that unit of observation ...and some people who incorporate attention to biology would do.

and does not merely come together in the day for rational, explicable activities and purposes or by means visible to the calculating intellect, which is how these clever people seek to apprehend it.

There is wisdom in these zen-like considerations of yours.

But it is not enough. If you watch the second Vietnam documentary I posted a link-to, there is an episode where in a Battalion leader stands gazing at a picture of his three daughters while his Battalion is in desperate need of practical leadership while they are taking heavy casualties amidst an ambush.

I think practical social action on his part would have been the better and deeper philosophical thing to do than be riveted in that moment of organic rapture, rather than getting deeper into his personal organic psychology. He quickly took a head shot from the Viet Cong.

It does not come together at all ... it is not a union of parts.

You just have to have a foil, don’t you. You just can’t be bothered to try to see the good in what I am saying, but must see it some bad way ... I must have these bad motives.

Borders, citizenship, Passports, social rules (such as law) are a union. A good number of people will adhere to one another for biological predilection and that’s great, that is what we want, but borders, citizenship and passports should not interfere with those biological predilections, they should merely keep those who are perhaps a bit too creative or having a bit too much of the liberal gene, from going too far and wrecking the system.

There are no parts and there is nothing to unite or tie together. It has the same life and the same heart, and the same blood in its veins.

May English men and women always be loyal to each other.

When I lived in the States, I did not object to a bit of ethnocentrism and snobbery from the English (though they were not particularly snobbish to me), for example, I never expected that an English woman should date me. What I objected to, was when they were liberal and expected that I should be liberal too. If I saw some pretty English woman walking arm in arm with a black ....then I would be furious.

Unfortunately, it is not always the case that our people are just loyal to each other.  You might say there is a eugenic effect, something wrong with them and good riddance to bad garbage, but I suspect, rather, that they are having impact on other parts of the organic system…and there needs to be a way to exclude them ... for example, suspension from “the union.”

If you doubt that, try substituting socially for ethnically in the unexceptional sentence “All human descent groups share ethnically-derived interests.”  It doesn’t work, does it?

It works for me. I see a problem you are having in relating to what I am saying. Because I can see “socially” there as a heuristic, a way of looking in order to sensitize the reader to internal relations in a broad array of necessary person positions, say, within their ethnicity, which is not at all contradictory as a term - an ethnicity is a social group. In fact, when I speak of the social, of course I am invariably speaking in terms referring to our discreet race and sub ethnicities.

It has precious little meaning at all.

It has a great deal of meaning. It sensitizes readers all too in the habit of liberal individualism to look at things in a different way. And, again, it is not mutually exclusive to race, biology and ethnicity.

  But try substituting “ethnic” for “social” in the sentence, “Man is a social animal”, and there is nationalism!  But if the animal itself is ethnic and not merely social - and it is - how are conventional academics to describe, connect, and communicate with it?

I don’t know about conventional academics, but I think you are once again expressing an understandable phobia to (((academic sociologists))) who would be using social in a way that meant being social to people outside of one’s group, one’s ethnicity and race.

I have no problem with talking in terms of biology, ethnicity and race, and I see social as a neutral term, not a devil term. I do see your attempt to banish it from “philosophy” as something quite diametrically opposed to what we need in our defense.

It seems to me that you are having difficulty seeing past the Jewish abuse of terminology such as that and therefore cannot see the inherent neutrality of such a term and that it is not mutually exclusive to units of observation, yes..you can say it that way..

Social group would be unit of analysis

Ethnicity, race, and biology would be a unit of observation - yes, that’s probably it. Because the unit of observation concerns the content, entity of the unit of analysis. Ontology and the word entity are etymologically related.

Unit of analysis and unit of observation are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they should be harmonized in the hermeneutic circle.

  How, if “social” loses its significant distinctions, its unique character, is the social also a sufficiently complete avenue of communication?  What, indeed, constitutes communication?

I don’t know where I said that it was sufficient, but it is a more sufficient unit of analysis than fucking psychology, that’s for sure.

Something is missing, and it is the capacity to speak to and for the instinctual understanding of our truth.  Nationalists have to do that, or there can never be nationalism, and never be truth in our life.

Well, I am not stopping you from attending to and supplying those missing things. I commend it. That end of the hermeneutic circle is necessary; I only object when you say that the other end isn’t necessary (or is pretentious, fake, unworthy of refinement and elaboration, whatever objections you would try to raise).


16

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 22:11 | #

On the social construct, this is only half an idea; and the half which is missing the vital identitarian component.  Doubtless, that is why the intellectual left’s version of it appeals for its anti-essentialism.

“Abolish essence,” I wrote long ago...

and you abolish the knowable: the certainties you draw from life and Nature.  Your sources of cultural power are neutralised, and rendered simply into places you may seek psychological source-material for a willed construction of the self.

“All this really produces, of course, is willed self-deception.  That first, notably wordless rush of adrenaline when an unknowable “African” shoulders our Pomo person into a dark alleyway, or a “female” cooly returns his gaze, belies all his linguistic contortions, and consigns his “texts”, his hermeneurotica, to a non-essentiality of their own.  Life and love roar away in the world beyond the window, and will not be denied.

The basic proposition itself (that reality is constructed through a communicated web of data) is wrong because (a) it is incomplete, referring primarily to representation in the brain’s thinking facility, and (b) the rest of the brain’s perceptual machinery operates without temporal or cultural mediation.  The problem here, of course, is that our brilliant intellectuals do not possess a functioning, high fidelity model (or, indeed, representation) of Mind, without which it is impossible to address the matter of how “the thing that is” is perceived and acted upon.  But there is a second, more killing problem, namely that our brilliant intellectuals have not noticed that the real social construction … the real product of Time and Place ... is the human personality.  Our brilliant intellectuals are barking up the wrong psychological tree.  Well, bit of tree.

Consideration of the personality and its formation and operation, of course, leads rather rapidly to a crisis of human agency which the age of liberalism simply abhors, and from which it must flee in order to preserve all its other shibboleths.  But a nationalist ontology, with its central interest in and focus upon identity (ie, the essential), and the proposition that the human will, like the essential component itself, truly manifests only at and from the genuine “turn” … the turn to consciousness … thrives upon the holistic view of human perception.

There is a vast landscape of new thought about Mind and reality for clever folk like Daniel to explore, if they are interested.  But that would mean critiquing the shortcomings of the conventional thinking.  How can it be that all those brilliant intellectuals have got everything so wrong for want of a few basic understandings about the Mind?  Africans … adrenaline, did you say?  Pretty girls ... testosterone?  No no no, too subtle, too holistic, too … too … those can’t be the bits of reality we are interested in.  Impossible I say, and I am a university lecturer.  Comrades ... brothers, to the socially constructed barriers.


17

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 22:25 | #

Daniel: “an ethnicity is a social group”

A people has social groups.  But the social is not a useful modus of summation for a people.  You are not thinking as a nationalist.


18

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 22:44 | #

Daniel writes, illuminatingly, “Are these “political questions” that I am raising? Of course not.”

Yes, they are political.  You are responding to the world about you, placing your hands on its contours and following its form ... respecting its facticity and integrity by the very act of seeking change from or to it.  That is what I mean by “political”.  It has to do with a political art ... a creative act in Time and Place.

Philosophy, subjected to the same rigorously selective understanding, is not pragmatic in that way but, on the contrary, shuns consideration of other facts.  That is because philosophy seeks to grow the world out of itself.  It seeks completeness in itself.


19

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 22:46 | #

Please read my comment again, I have explained this:

A social group is a unit of analysis - perfectly valid.

Ethnicity, or race or biology is a unit of observation, has to do with the entity within the unit of analysis. The word entity is etymologically connected to the word ontology, which you are concerned with. That’s fine but there is no conflict in a processual, that is, hermeneutic process of inquiry which would look at both. Nor is there a conflict with nationalism in looking at both sides.


20

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 22:49 | #

Daniel writes, “A White Left is holistic in the sense that the nation is the class.”

The axes of philosophical systems are not defined by social class but by principle.


21

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 22:52 | #

The principle is the concept of the group, which is a classification, as White Left Nationalism, one and the same.


22

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 22:58 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 22:44 | #

Daniel writes, illuminatingly, “Are these “political questions” that I am raising? Of course not.”

You left out the example - I was talking about classification in the context of the liar’s paradox and principia mathemetica.

That is, philosophical questions.

Yes, they are political.

Ok, they can also be that, but the examples came literally from philosophical texts and you are tying to say that they are not philosophical, don’t be ridiculous.

You are responding to the world about you, placing your hands on its contours and following its form ... respecting its facticity and integrity by the very act of seeking change from or to it.  That is what I mean by “political”.  It has to do with a political art ... a creative act in Time and Place.

Ok, its partly political too - I am not worried about being impure.

Philosophy, subjected to the same rigorously selective understanding, is not pragmatic in that way but, on the contrary, shuns consideration of other facts.  That is because philosophy seeks to grow the world out of itself.  It seeks completeness in itself.

Cartesian nonsense.


23

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 23:11 | #

Daniel writes, “Why does everything have to be captured by the word social?”

Try it the other way round.


24

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 23:16 | #

Cartesian nonsense.

The world is made by men’s ideas about the world, both as it is and should be.  Philosophy’s function is to found and condition that process.


25

Posted by Uh on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 23:17 | #

You guys remember that debate between Carvalho and Dugin?

We should do something similar here. I’ll ask a question designed both to allow you to lay out your Grundgedanken and challenge them. You’ll get an opening, three rejoinders, and a closing.

You’re both mods of the site. Why not single deadly combat?


26

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 23:27 | #

Daniel writes: You just have to have a foil, don’t you. You just can’t be bothered to try to see the good in what I am saying, but must see it some bad way ... I must have these bad motives.

I said at the outset I am not talking about good or bad, or any utilitarian consideration.  I am trying to talk about what is true of Man.


27

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 02:49 | #

Daniel writes: Borders, citizenship, Passports, social rules (such as law) are a union.

Politics.  My very point.


28

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 03:05 | #

Daniel rites: If I saw some pretty English woman walking arm in arm with a black ....then I would be furious.

Unfortunately, it is not always the case that our people are just loyal to each other.  You might say there is a eugenic effect, something wrong with them and good riddance to bad garbage, but I suspect, rather, that they are having impact on other parts of the organic system…and there needs to be a way to exclude them ... for example, suspension from “the union.”

But Nature got there a very long time before you, with the powerful, evolutionarily adaptive emotional mechanism of stigma.  It is liberalism’s unfettering of the will, ably assisted by the Jewish pursuit of Olam Ha-ba, which is striving after a “union”, part of which demands that Nature’s abhorrence of that is labelled as racism and prejudice.  Of course, Nature does not care, and would impose her will quite freely and in a matter of days if power was in our hands.


29

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 03:21 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 04:11 | #

Daniel writes, “Why does everything have to be captured by the word social?”

Try it the other way round.

My point is that in this unit of analysis, I do not try to capture all aspects of the entity it covers - that is the task of ontology, which is not my primary concern.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 04:16 | #

Cartesian nonsense.

The world is made by men’s ideas about the world, both as it is and should be.  Philosophy’s function is to found and condition that process.

The first sentence remains Cartesian, solipsistic nonsense. The second sentence, if it were closer to something like this - Philosophy’s function is to propose working hypotheses and topoi of relation and condition the process of interaction and conjoint construction - would be more like it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 04:27 | #

Daniel writes: You just have to have a foil, don’t you. You just can’t be bothered to try to see the good in what I am saying, but must see it some bad way ... I must have these bad motives.

I said at the outset I am not talking about good or bad, or any utilitarian consideration.  I am trying to talk about what is true of Man.

It amounts to your not looking for the truth in what I say. You facilitate your treating me and what I say as a foil, by means of your rational blindness to your motives and detachment in Cartesian nonsense.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 07:49 | #

Daniel writes: Borders, citizenship, Passports, social rules (such as law) are a union.

Politics.  My very point.

These points merge with politics, yes.  But remember the sentence above, that philosophy sets about to condition the process of our working hypotheses and topoi of relation and conjoint construction of the world.

Thus, these are concerns for philosophy as well.

And these were just a few examples. If I wanted to go in your ontological direction, I could have pursued “descriptive” rules of what IS the case in terms of what creates borders, bounds and agreements of passport among us.

I see Ought questions being more related to Is questions than you do; and I take for granted the availability of ought questions to critical shaping and crafting, particularly to Is questions and verification.

In comment #15 of mine, I am adding to this sentence the part in bold:

It (social group) works for me. I see a problem you are having in relating to what I am saying. Because I can see “socially” there as a heuristic, a way of looking in order to sensitize the reader to internal relations in a broad array of necessary person positions, say, within their ethnicity, which is not at all contradictory as a term - an ethnicity is a social group. In fact, when I speak of the social, of course I am invariably speaking in terms referring to our discreet race and sub ethnicities.


and in the same comment, #15, I correct a few typos in the sentence that follows, here:


It has a great deal of meaning. It sensitizes readers all too in the habit of liberal individualism to look at things in a different way. And, again, it is not mutually exclusive to race, biology and ethnicity.

 


30

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 04:33 | #

My point is that in this unit of analysis, I do not try to capture all aspects of the entity it covers - that is the task of ontology, which is not my primary concern.

But what happens when you interrogate the social from an ethnic or racial perspective?  Is that not inherently revolutionary?

The first sentence remains Cartesian, solipsistic nonsense.

If you have no model of Man from which to judge how the thought-world arises and functions through him, you will very likely fall back on claims of nonsensicality (? Is that a word?)  In my model, the human personality, operating as it does in the mists of ordinary waking consciousness, does not possess will.  It is not just the liberal notion of will which is an illusion.  Our brains delude us at every moment.  The active element is elsewhere, although I have not developed a theory of the forms of that and the mechanism of action - perhaps I will work on that now.

It amounts to your not looking for the truth in what I say

Well, you are agreeing with me that we look for truth in different places - something I have noted repeatedly, including in this exchange.  I do think there are some simple untruths - errors - in what you say, particularly in respect to axiality and principle, and the setting of rules for natural instinct (OK in a transitionary passage out of liberalism, but not in a developed existentially Nationalist thought-world).  I also simply do not understand why any nationalist would want to employ a social analysis when the nationalist unit of ethnicity is to hand.  Surely, a little creativity and freedom from convention would revolutionise the critical process, no?

You write:

I can see “socially” there as a heuristic, a way of looking in order to sensitize the reader to internal relations in a broad array of necessary person positions, say, within their ethnicity, which is not at all contradictory as a term - an ethnicity is a social group.

The internal relation is relatedness, as described in my comment at 3.  I just think you have got this all the wrong way around, probably out of academic convention.  I wonder whether you are largely missing the grand imperative of our time, which is that our people must live.  We demand life.  This is the basis of nationalism’s engagement in the political marketplace.

For the reason given above - an absence of a model of Man (and, specifically, a theory of consciousness) - I also criticise your reliance on social constructionism.  Actually, I criticise anyone’s reliance on social constructionism.  It is, in itself, made untrue by its incompleteness.

Of course, you are right to be deeply suspicious of my upstart thinking on Man and Mind.  But I am trying to produce a complete model, without which completeness no lasting good can come.

I see Ought questions being more related to Is questions than you do; and I take for granted the availability of ought questions to critical shaping and crafting, particularly to Is questions and verification.

Nature does not plead.  She issues imperatives.  Nationalist Man, in his criticism of the world about him, moves quite instinctively from “is” to “must”.  That is why the will has such a powerful place in nationalist thought - it is stiffened by necessity and the knowledge that failure is death.


31

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 06:15 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 04:33 | #

  My point is that in this unit of analysis, I do not try to capture all aspects of the entity it covers - that is the task of ontology, which is not my primary concern.

But what happens when you interrogate the social from an ethnic or racial perspective?  Is that not inherently revolutionary?

Not necessarily, because it is not girded sufficiently in deliberately understood criteria, relative to the maintenance of the group. Thus, it is prone to reaction, instability, subversion and failure in contest with those who are able to use the long term perspective and calculations of a hermeneutics.

GW said:

The world is made by men’s ideas about the world, both as it is and should be.

I said

  [That] sentence remains Cartesian, solipsistic nonsense.

Yes, and I stand by that.

GW responds:

If you have no model of Man from which to judge how the thought-world arises and functions through him

Who doesn’t have a model? Of course I have working hypotheses which models man and how to judge him. I have referred repeatedly to Aristotle’s mode of what makes man distinctive and his reuirements; and more. These hypotheses can do with refinement and as you are so inclined to shape and craft that more clear understanding that is fine with me.

, you will very likely fall back on claims of nonsensicality (? Is that a word?).

When you are aspiring to the Cartesian, as you have in that sentence, that is nonsense by definition - it lacks sense and physical reality.

In my model, the human personality, operating as it does in the mists of ordinary waking consciousness, does not possess will.

Well then, you are modeling biological creatures and creatures with second order cybernetic capacities (perhaps more) as if they are matter of the determinism of hard physics - dumb forces and impacts. That is called an epistemological blunder (applying the theoria of pleroma to the biological realm creatura and the social world of praxis)...and epistemological blunder and a bad one.

It is not just the liberal notion of will which is an illusion.

It can be after a point, if it is not dealing with reality.

Our brains delude us at every moment.

No they don’t. They are co-evolved to be in contact with the rest of reality.

The active element is elsewhere, although I have not developed a theory of the forms of that and the mechanism of action - perhaps I will work on that now.

I suppose that you can say mind and will is located in interaction, but I doubt very much that you will go there.

Your contentiousness is a shame.

I said:
  You are not looking for the truth in what I say

Yes. That remains true. You are not looking to be confirming, elaborative and integrative.. you are looking to be dismissive. I hope it is not true, but it seems more than jealousy, it seems more like a kind of intellectual conceit and selfishness.

Well, you are agreeing with me that we look for truth in different places - something I have noted repeatedly, including in this exchange.

I don’t know, I have not found you charitable to the things that I say - to say the least, you have rather been dismissive and contentious (for reasons that I now understand).

I do think there are some simple untruths - errors - in what you say, particularly in respect to axiality and principle

We disagree if you are disagreeing about what I think you are disagreeing about, you can forget about my changing it, because neither you nor anyone else has shown good reason to change it.

, and the setting of rules for natural instinct (OK in a transitionary passage out of liberalism, but not in a developed existentially Nationalist thought-world).

Disagree.

I also simply do not understand why any nationalist would want to employ a social analysis when the nationalist unit of ethnicity is to hand.

Oh fuck. That is so stupid. I have explained this repeatedly and it is so important. The social group unit of analysis. A race is a group category. We are under attack as social group(s). It is more than valid to take that unit of analysis, it is imperative.

A race is a biological category (taxonomy) as well. I have never said that it is not, and it is very important to look at it with that unit of observation as well.

Surely, a little creativity and freedom from convention would revolutionise the critical process, no?

This is what I am trying to tell you, but you refuse to allow for that modicum of freedom and creativity, you insist on rigor(mortis),  to the point where you are paralyzing important theoretical development on our behalf.

I write:

  I can see “socially” there as a heuristic, a way of looking in order to sensitize the reader to internal relations in a broad array of necessary person positions, say, within their ethnicity, which is not at all contradictory as a term - an ethnicity is a social group.

The internal relation is relatedness, as described in my comment at 3.  I just think you have got this all the wrong way around, probably out of academic convention.

No, I don’t have it backwards, I view it from a different, underutilized end of the spectrum an end of the spectrum that you refuse to acknowledge to the destruction of our better project, because inasmuch, you are just repeating the same mistakes as the rest of the right, in reaction to Jewish abuse of the terms (not in response to what I am saying). You will not change, and I am staring to not care about it. I will work around you if necessary.

I wonder whether you are largely missing the grand imperative of our time, which is that our people must live.  We demand life.  This is the basis of nationalism’s engagement in the political marketplace.

I click the White genocide category probably more than any other, most news articles that I post bear upon that issue, but it is true, that I am concerned as much for the qualities of our survival as for its quantitative fact.

That you would say that I am “missing this point” is a flabbergasting straw man.

For the reason given above - an absence of a model of Man (and, specifically, a theory of consciousness) - I also criticise your reliance on social constructionism.  Actually, I criticise anyone’s reliance on social constructionism.  It is, in itself, made untrue by its incompleteness.

I am not absent a model of man. Aristotle has set that project in motion and my model is based on his. I am really getting tired of this bullshit. You criticize my reliance on social construcionism for the reasons I have said, because you don’t know what is going on in academia, you are resentful of it and reacting to Jewish abuses of it (just like the dumb-assed right wing is)...typical right wing reactionary bullshit, nothing more.

Of course, you are right to be deeply suspicious of my upstart thinking on Man and Mind.  But I am trying to produce a complete model, without which completeness no lasting good can come.

Without its being modeled in praxis, an Aristotlean model, no good can come.

  I see Ought questions being more related to Is questions than you do; and I take for granted the availability of ought questions to critical shaping and crafting, particularly to Is questions and verification.

Yes.

Nature does not plead.  She issues imperatives.

These are the things we can take for granted. They’ve got to be acknowledged and dealt with, but I am not ignoring this sort of thing.

Nationalist Man, in his criticism of the world about him, moves quite instinctively from “is” to “must”.  That is why the will has such a powerful place in nationalist thought - it is stiffened by necessity and the knowledge that failure is death.

.

That is why we make use of the will (which moments ago you denied) to fight for our people, our social group.


32

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 08:53 | #

In addition, my discussion of European man’s ontology has included not only his characteristic Aristotlean optimality of sublimation, his praxis, his second order thinking, but has also taken into account his evolution in requirement of planning to endure seasonal deprivation, his individual autonomy and high trust society ... K selection as opposed to R selection ...a more flexible and easy going disposition in regard to gender relations (as compared to Africans and Middle Easterners, for example) ...and more…


33

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 10:59 | #

Who doesn’t have a model

Models are rather rare, and tend to belong to the grand narratives such as Christianity, Judaism, and liberalism (which has two!)  National Socialism had a rather thin model, but it existed, I would say.  Italian fascism did not have a model.  I am not so sure that Marxism has a definable model, because so much energy goes into the economic analysis and into methodology.  The human somehow gets left out.  Karl baby’s ontology never got beyond the very brief and Judaic reference point of “species being”, did it?  Models, of course, tend to be of the teleology, because political philosophies as such are all teleological in that they aim to journey from one human outcome to another.  Purely analytical models exist in non-philosophies such as Freudianism and Jungism, for example.  But it is rather rare to find one in a whole philosophy.  One would be looking for thought which aims to deliver Man unto himself, in his own truth free of any idealism belonging to the originator.

In addition, my discussion of European man’s ontology has included not only his characteristic Aristotlean optimality of sublimation, his praxis, his second order thinking, but has also taken into account his evolution in requirement of planning to endure seasonal deprivation, his individual autonomy and high trust society ... K selection as opposed to R selection ...a more flexible and easy going disposition in regard to gender relations (as compared to Africans and Middle Easterners, for example) ...and more…

Commentary on human nature and being or the human condition does not constitute a functioning model of Man unless it has a systemic form (as you critics of scientism never tire of telling us).  Even Heidegger’s ontology does not reduce to a clear model.  Schopenhauer likewise.  Whitehead, whom you mentioned.  But it is self-evident to me that a nationalism of an existential kind must endeavour to know Man as he is and make politics for him as he is, and must therefore resolve the modelling question.


34

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 11:50 | #

That is why we make use of the will (which moments ago you denied) to fight for our people, our social group.

Now you are not thinking about what I write.  The will is a function of the turn to consciousness of self; the human condition prior to this point (ordinary waking consciousness) being characterised by immersion, absence, and mechanicity.


35

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 12:42 | #

Commentary on human nature and being or the human condition does not constitute a functioning model of Man unless it has a systemic form (as you critics of scientism never tire of telling us).  Even Heidegger’s ontology does not reduce to a clear model.  Schopenhauer likewise.  Whitehead, whom you mentioned.  But it is self-evident to me that a nationalism of an existential kind must endeavour to know Man as he is and make politics for him as he is, and must therefore resolve the modelling question.

I am not a critical of science for the sake of dismissing good science - rather, I appreciate and try to make use of good science. I am a critical of science for the sake of liberation from bad science or bad applications of science, i.e., scientism.

There is another characteristic of authentic European ontology that I have hypothesized in addition to the ones that I’ve listed.

We would prefer to attend to Augustinian devils - natural problems (such as concerns science), naturally more evolved against the elements, weather cycles and having a basic kindredness to our European competitors, a sense of our common stake in the natural world. That predilection for “natural devils” is opposed to Manichean devils - machinations for tricking people, which would be more characteristic of middle eastern tribal competition.


36

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 15:25 | #

I am not absent a model of man. Aristotle has set that project in motion and my model is based on his.

I don’t believe that there was an Aristotelian model of Man.  There certainly was not a Platonic one.

Without its being modeled in praxis, an Aristotlean model, no good can come.

The model must be as true as possible of the subject.  Political theory and its enaction in the polity is entirely superfluous to the modelling process, and when done in the past has given us precisely the wrong models.


37

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 15:28 | #

you are modeling biological creatures and creatures with second order cybernetic capacities (perhaps more) as if they are matter of the determinism of hard physics - dumb forces and impacts

What aspect of personality formation is willed?  And how do you know it is willed?


38

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:56 | #

They are co-evolved to be in contact with the rest of reality.

Decisions are taken by the mechanism before they are considered by the subject.


39

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 19:23 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 20:25 | #

  I am not absent a model of man. Aristotle has set that project in motion and my model is based on his.

I don’t believe that there was an Aristotelian model of Man.  There certainly was not a Platonic one.

  Without its being modeled in praxis, an Aristotlean model, no good can come.

The model must be as true as possible of the subject.  Political theory and its enaction in the polity is entirely superfluous to the modelling process, and when done in the past has given us precisely the wrong models.

There certainly was an Aristotlean model of man.

I spoke of it many times and its frustrating to me to have to repeat myself. I don’t expect people to necessarily read what I say or hang on every word, but they should at least have a sense of how I think, i.e., the kinds of things I might say and what I talk about.


40

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 19:29 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 20:28 | #

  you are modeling biological creatures and creatures with second order cybernetic capacities (perhaps more) as if they are matter of the determinism of hard physics - dumb forces and impacts

What aspect of personality formation is willed?  And how do you know it is willed?

I think the philosophical consensus is that it cannot be absolutely proved that it is willed. But one good piece of evidence that we have agency is through narrative rule structure. You set out a rule for yourself ...then when you come upon an option to do otherwise, you act according to the rule instead of its alternatives. Then after the decision comes to pass, you refer back to the choice you’ve made as proof.


41

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 21:03 | #

As far as I can see, Aristotle’s scattergun commentary on human nature would struggle to reach the threshold for systemicity to qualify as a model of Man.  He had the functional distinctions of Mind almost in place, but then lost focus with theoria, praxis, and poiesis which do not really bear on structure at all.  Looking at the latter, by way of comparison with my own crude proposition, identity as an emergent property of consciousness has a structural relevance but emergence itself does not.  I would say that his thought had a lot in it that was right, but some that was dreadfully wrong; gifting us (by poiesis) Nietzschean morality, for example.

It is important to treat of the idea of models of Man parsimoniously, or the utility gets swept away in the sheer volume of nature-relevant commentary.


42

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 21:30 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Oct 2016 21:03 | #

As far as I can see, Aristotle’s scattergun commentary on human nature would struggle to reach the threshold for systemicity to qualify as a model of Man.

Not true. Additions and refinements can and have been made, but it is systemically applied. It is a system based on optimality and the golden mean, which is proper for humans as biological, mammalian, socially interactive creatures.

He had the functional distinctions of Mind almost in place, but then lost focus with theoria, praxis, and poiesis which do not really bear on structure at all.

This is your typical contentiousness. These concepts are very important and it is unfortunately typical of you to (try to) dismiss important and useful ideas.

These terms structure the anti-Cartesian project, showing where Western philosophy went off course, into the estrangement of pure theoria and where it began to come back on track, as Aristotle began to observe the requirements of phronesis (practical judgment) in the social world (praxis) for its interactive nature… since then, the anti Cartesian project seeks, should seek, to take theoria even more into praxis, that is, more honestly within the locus of people’s interests - more within praxis.

Looking at the latter, by way of comparison with my own crude proposition, identity as an emergent property of consciousness has a structural relevance but emergence itself does not.  I would say that his thought had a lot in it that was right, but some that was dreadfully wrong; gifting us (by poiesis) Nietzschean morality, for example.

I don’t blame Aristotle for Nietzshean ruthlessness. Aristotle wouldn’t prescribe that (he’d consider Nietzsche toxic). Though its interesting that you are observing, understanding now, how influential and important the structure and its correction has been to western philosophy

It is important to treat of the idea of models of Man parsimoniously, or the utility gets swept away in the sheer volume of nature-relevant commentary.

Aristotle is very parsimonious - he follows the golden mean and optimality.

It lacks much of what we have today with the hermeneutic turn, but it correctly models many of the fundamentals of human nature.


43

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 02:01 | #

GW, I’m going to demonstrate that you yourself don’t really believe that prescription has no place in a post-racialist revolution England.  And again, with a simple, non-Sokalesque example.  Let us say that, in that most congenial of times, your lovely daughter has selected a young English man she wishes to be joined with for life in connubial bliss.  Who is this young man?  A well-bred scion of the middle-class?  No, wait, the horror - he is a drunken loser of a Chav!  She likes bad boys, you see, as many women do.  Do you put your foot down, GW?  Do you say, ” I will not abide this!  No daughter of mine…”  But wait, you don’t, stopping to think, “There is no prescription in muh philosophy.”  Lulz, get my point?


44

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 02:53 | #

one good piece of evidence that we have agency is through narrative rule structure. You set out a rule for yourself ...then when you come upon an option to do otherwise, you act according to the rule instead of its alternatives. Then after the decision comes to pass, you refer back to the choice you’ve made as proof.

Did the German people of the 1930s become so spectacularly self-conscious because of rules established by that most prescriptive of governments?  No, you are simply missing the meaning of the transmission of consciousness which I often dwell upon, and you are missing an understanding of how we understand, at any given time and in any given state of consciousness, our self.

Actually, rule-setting and consciousness … the failure of the will in ordinary waking consciousness to be consequential … is a very interesting and all-too-human subject.

Let us suppose that you set yourself a rule.  As a protest against the anti-human minimalism of modern opera writing you are going to hot-wire your neighbour’s Lada, drive to Novosibirsk, and urinate on the steps of the Opera House in Lenin Square at midday in full view of the artistic elites of the city, whom for some reason we need not go into now you particularly despise.  To pull this off and not get your collar felt is going to take superb planning, and you do indeed concoct a superb plan, such that nobody will suffer any loss.  Ladas are invisible in Siberia.  The neighbour never uses his, and will never know what you are up to with it over the next seven days.  The Cossack police won’t bother you, because practically the whole population of Novosibirsk urinates in Lenin Square at some time, though naturally not for artistic reasons.  It’s not that sort of place.

You establish the necessity to steal the Lada in the still, small hours.  You set your alarm and go to bed good and early.  But your mind is full of eager anticipation and won’t let you sleep.  Earlier that day, as it happens, you had purchased for yourself the whole week’s supply of your favourite vodka.  You decide with your usual wisdom that a measure of pleasure will help you relax and get you off to sleep.  Anyway, it is excellent vodka.  Very drinkable.

Five hours later the final bottle stands upright on the kitchen table, but only half full.  Around 11.00 am your neighbour glances out of his kitchen window and notices that his garage door is open.  His beloved Lada is missing.  Distressed, he reports it stolen.  That evening the police call with the news that the car has been found, engine still running, parked in a humble farmyard three kilometres west of your fair Polish city.  They are, they say, seeking a man, apparently naked from the waist down, who was spotted by the farmer’s wife in the weak morning light pissing against the dairy door while offering a rendition of The Wanderer in really quite passable Russian, except for the intrusion of an unmistakable American accent.  The vastness of the Russian homeland has won, and conquered the barbarians again, damn it.

 


45

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 03:00 | #

“when does the…bossy rule-setting cease?”

When the boss says it does, that’s when. 

Post revolution, there will still be billions of non-Whites in the world Europeans will have to have dealings with.  Trade, diplomacy, war, etc.  What, no ground rules, no intellectual frameworks, dare I say hermeneutics, for conducting said?  No, never… and why?  Cuz muh philosophy sayz so!  Lulz

If none of you guys want the trophy for winning the thread I’ll take it!


46

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 03:13 | #

Did the German people of the 1930s become so spectacularly self-conscious because of rules established by that most prescriptive of governments?

Whatever they did, for better or worse, there certainly were rules of obligation, legitimacy and prohibition, yes.


47

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 03:56 | #

CC,

What neither of you seem able to grasp is that conditions of transition from the present thought-world to a nationalist thought-world imply the reverse process to that of a nationalist revolution itself.  Revolutions are filled with claims and denigrations, challenges, changes.  But all this is in the realm of the political.  Please try to think beyond the political.

For example, why does conservatism in Western society exist?  Merely because it seeks to maintain structures of power and privilege, as the radical left claims?  Obviously not, since conservatism is instinctual, not ideological; and lives in the common people as much as in the middle classes.  So it must exist because, vaguely articulated though it might be, it is normative in a dispensation which offends against the natural character, interests and right of the people.  But it follows that conservatism must disappear in a dispensation which achieves proper expression of same.

My attempts to discuss a philosophy of expression of European Man’s natural character, interests and right interdict the whole subject at that base level.  Politics it ain’t.


48

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 04:24 | #

Additions and refinements can and have been made, but it is systemically applied. It is a system based on optimality and the golden mean, which is proper for humans as biological, mammalian, socially interactive creatures.

Models of Man are not whole philosophical commentaries.  You cannot take Marx, for example, and claim that merely because his ideas constitute a body of coherent thought, there is necessarily within them a structurally complete model of Man.  As I said, real models are rare.

These terms structure the anti-Cartesian project, showing where Western philosophy went off course, into the estrangement of pure theoria and where it began to come back on track, as Aristotle began to observe the requirements of phronesis (practical judgment) in the social world (praxis) for its interactive nature… since then, the anti Cartesian project seeks, should seek, to take theoria even more into praxis, that is, more honestly within the locus of people’s interests - more within praxis.

All your reference points pale to nothing in the life experience of peoples.  There is no special anti-Cartesian project.  Descartes drew large areas of his thinking from late Aristotle.  His rationalism was opposed by the empiricism of Hobbes and Locke.  Do we not have an anti-Hobbesian project and an anti-Lockean project?  As nationalists are we not, in fact, standing against practically all the Western religious and philosophical contributions of the past two millenia?

What do we seek if it is not that energetic self-consciousness and self-realisation of the German people during the 1930s?  Do you seriously believe that employment for academics trying to force Life into their precious historiographical corsets will give us that?

I wrote: “It is important to treat of the idea of models of Man parsimoniously, or the utility gets swept away in the sheer volume of nature-relevant commentary.”

Daniel writes:

Aristotle is very parsimonious - he follows the golden mean and optimality.

It lacks much of what we have today with the hermeneutic turn, but it correctly models many of the fundamentals of human nature.

A model of Man is an ontological necessity, and must have precision to exist.  It has to be drawn with bold lines.  It is not to be found in general principles and commentary if it is not actually drawn.  It doesn’t matter how virtuous or arresting or relevant the principles and commentary are.


49

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 05:09 | #

CC,

What neither of you

You address us both there, so I must answer as well.

seem able to grasp is that conditions of transition from the present thought-world to a nationalist thought-world imply the reverse process to that of a nationalist revolution itself.  Revolutions are filled with claims and denigrations, challenges, changes.  But all this is in the realm of the political.  Please try to think beyond the political.

I have already demonstrated that this attempt at pure separation of what you call “politics” and what you apparently think of as “pure philosophy” is not a true, and it is not helpful to try to make that pure distinction.

For example, why does conservatism in Western society exist?  Merely because it seeks to maintain structures of power and privilege, as the radical left claims?  Obviously not, since conservatism is instinctual, not ideological; and lives in the common people as much as in the middle classes.  So it must exist because it is normative in a dispensation which offends against the natural character, interests and right of the people.

What you don’t want to understand is that I agree with that on the whole. A group, elite or otherwise, may attempt to conserve its form and position dishonesty gained, but as a rule, conservatism is normal and instinctual yes.

But it follows that conservatism must disappear in a dispensation which achieves proper expression of same.

Yes, if the conservative bounds are properly understood - as a part of their nature, if you will - then there is capacity for more expression of individual liberty. 

My attempts to discuss a philosophy of expression of European Man’s natural character, interests and right interdict the whole subject at that base level.  Politics it ain’t.

You are making an arbitrary assertion of what is politics and what is philosophy. But your claim to define philosophy is even more absurd than your arbitrary claim that what I am doing is “politics” only.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 04:24 | #

  Additions and refinements can and have been made, but it is systemically applied. It is a system based on optimality and the golden mean, which is proper for humans as biological, mammalian, socially interactive creatures.

Yes, I said that and stand by it.

Models of Man are not whole philosophical commentaries.  You cannot take Marx, for example, and claim that merely because his ideas constitute a body of coherent thought, there is necessarily within them a structurally complete model of Man.  As I said, real models are rare.

I’ll take Aristotle’s model of what makes humans distinctive - biological (requiring attention to optima), mammalian (caring about relationships), social, interactive in praxis (with its affordances and constraints).

Along with updates from cybernetic and post modern, hermeneutic thinking.

  These terms structure the anti-Cartesian project, showing where Western philosophy went off course, into the estrangement of pure theoria and where it began to come back on track, as Aristotle began to observe the requirements of phronesis (practical judgment) in the social world (praxis) for its interactive nature… since then, the anti Cartesian project seeks, should seek, to take theoria even more into praxis, that is, more honestly within the locus of people’s interests - more within praxis.

All your reference points pale to nothing in the life experience of peoples.  There is no anti-Cartesian project.

I’m not looking to replace the real life experience of peoples, but there is an anti-Cartesian project and it is important.

Descartes drew large areas of his thinking from late Aristotle.  His rationalism was opposed by the empiricism of Hobbes and Locke.  Do we not have an anti-Hobbesian project and an anti-Lockean project?  As nationalists are we not, in fact, standing against practically all the Western religious and philosophical contributions of the past two millenia?

Well, that’s enough of that word salad of yours. You have made zero attempt to understand what I say; all you seek is “a lefty social academic” foil to exercise intellectual vanity against.

What do we seek if it is not that energetic self-consciousness and self-realisation of the German people during the 1930s?

Many things a whole lot better than that bullshit.

Do you seriously believe that employment for academics trying to force Life into their precious historiographical corsets will give us that?

I don’t know about them, but if we can steer clear of the scientistic blunders of Hitler, that would be a darn good thing.

I wrote: “It is important to treat of the idea of models of Man parsimoniously, or the utility gets swept away in the sheer volume of nature-relevant commentary.”

Daniel writes:

  Aristotle is very parsimonious - he follows the golden mean and optimality.

  It lacks much of what we have today with the hermeneutic turn, but it correctly models many of the fundamentals of human nature.

A model of Man is an ontological necessity, and must have precision to exist.  It has to be drawn with bold lines.  It is not to be found in general principles and commentary if it is not actually drawn.  It doesn’t matter how virtuous or arresting or relevant the principles and commentary are.

You admit that you have not even read Aristotle, so there is no point in arguing with you. You don’t understand the stuff and worse, apparently don’t want to.


50

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 06:35 | #

I have already demonstrated that this attempt at pure separation of what you call “politics” and what you apparently think of as “pure philosophy” is not a true, and it is not helpful to try to make that pure distinction.

I sense that you are taking your own desire for a revolutionary change back up the line, and trying to characterise the stations above with the colour and hue of your concerns.

Reflection upon the human condition per se is not a shared endeavour with critique of the condition of the people at a particular time, which is not a shared endeavour with the generation of corrective politics.  There is a sequential possibility, that is all.  But the line from raw philosophy to social analysis (to use your metric) to political ideology to revolution, power and policy is not a continuum but, at best, a set of dominoes that may align and, subject to human intervention and the law of hazard, may fall one upon the other.  There is no law of cause and certain effect.  Connections - any connection never mind exactly the right ones - are not inevitable.

Politics isn’t a unique human endeavour in this respect.  Comparable lines of development exist everywhere.  For example, pure academic research - the search for truth - is not the same as commercial research, which is not the same as product development, which is not the same as sales and marketing.

your claim to define philosophy is even more absurd than your arbitrary claim that what I am doing is “politics” only.

Genes cline as well as cluster, but the clines do not disqualify the fact of the cluster.  Genetic specificity exists.

I’ll take Aristotle’s model of what makes humans distinctive - biological (requiring attention to optima), mammalian (caring about relationships), social, interactive in praxis (with its affordances and constraints).

Not a system.  Only commentary.  The fact that comment can be true does not systematise it.  There are many elements to the Christian faith, some of which simply do not cohere.  But the Christian model of the sinner seeking salvation through God’s grace is systemic.

I’m not looking to replace the real life experience of peoples

No, but I am.

You have made zero attempt to understand what I say; all you seek is “a lefty social academic” foil to mercerize intellectual vanity against.

It would be a very good idea for you to look at some of your recent main-blog postings and reflect on whether it is understanding that you seek or a totalitarian control over all our dissenting thought.  The very fact that we are engaging now, far beyond the limits I initially set myself (for protective purposes), demonstrates that you are being heard.  We are not, after all, discussing my ideas, except where that becomes unavoidable.  Nor am I trying to take your thinking apart.  If I was, I would be asking a thousand questions.  If I start asking questions, it’s time to duck.

What I am doing is to try, at least, to steer you away from a prescriptive attitude, including the almost religious attachment you have to a narrow analytical exercise, and towards some of the very obvious and universal characteristics of nationalism which you presently find it necessary to deny and disdain.  It is not me who is the renegade.  I am a revolutionary nationalist.  Intellectually and emotionally, I operate from compassion and tenderness for the human condition and love for my own human family, not from a reactionary critique of the philosophical and political horrors of modernity.  My thinking, such as it is, reflects that.

Many things a whole lot better than that bullshit.

By all means, name one.  Don’t venture beyond the psychological terms of my remark into Hitler-talk.

You admit that you have not even read Aristotle, so there is not point in arguing with you. You don’t understand the stuff and worse, don’t want to.

But that is not a reply to the words I wrote, which were, “A model of Man is an ontological necessity, and must have precision to exist.  It has to be drawn with bold lines.  It is not to be found in general principles and commentary if it is not actually drawn.  It doesn’t matter how virtuous or arresting or relevant the principles and commentary are.”

I don’t remember reading Aristotle directly during my auto-didactic binge, which commenced on leaving school.  Plato, certainly; and I think some neo-platonics amidst the Christian and occidental mysticism - some quite serious stuff - which I was particularly determined to get a grip on.  It all turned by degrees to a study of psychology - which I would have read at university in preference to philosophy, had I had an interest in going - and that resolved again to philosophy which, together with English and Russian literature, I consumed towards the end of the exercise, which lasted eight years in all.  There are prices to be paid for auto-didacticism, particularly the obvious one-sidedness but also a ponderous intellectual character, since one is one’s own tutor.  But if one survives with one’s curiosity and mental energy intact these are still mostly correctable.

I am content that what is of real worth to me in Aristotle is inherent in Heidegger.


51

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 09:26 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 11:35 | #

DanielS
  I have already demonstrated that this attempt at pure separation of what you call “politics” and what you apparently think of as “pure philosophy” is not a true, and it is not helpful to try to make that pure distinction.

I sense that you are taking your own desire for a revolutionary change back up the line, and trying to characterise the stations above with the colour and hue of your concerns.

No. First of all, I don’t recall anywhere using the term “revolutionary change.” This a stereotype of the red lefty foil that you have psychological need for. Rather, I was pointing to examples of how I was thinking over and talking in terms of ideas from Aristotle (not even his “Politics”), Principia Mathemetia, Heidegger, Cybernetics and other non-political work and you call this “politics”.

Reflection upon the human condition per se is not a shared endeavour with critique of the condition of the people at a particular time, which is not a shared endeavour with the generation of corrective politics.  There is a sequential possibility, that is all.  But the line from raw philosophy to social analysis (to use your metric) to political ideology to revolution, power and policy is not a continuum but, at best, a set of dominoes that may align and, subject to human intervention and the law of hazard, may fall one upon the other.  There is no law of cause and certain effect.  Connections - any connection never mind exactly the right ones - are not inevitable.

There are ways of thought and action that are directed through circumstances (such as the cold north and its seasonal changes) and language games (such as Christianity) which have traceable sources and consequences for our people.

Politics isn’t a unique human endeavour in this respect.  Comparable lines of development exist everywhere.  For example, pure academic research - the search for truth - is not the same as commercial research, which is not the same as product development, which is not the same as sales and marketing.

  your claim to define philosophy is even more absurd than your arbitrary claim that what I am doing is “politics” only.

Genes cline as well as cluster, but the clines do not disqualify the fact of the cluster.  Genetic specificity exists.

Yes, genetic specificity exists, and my concern for its existence (and my respect for science) is why I advocate its curation and defense in the Euro DNA Nation. If you want to call that doing politics and therefore null and void as a part and parcel of serious philosophical concern then so be it, but it won’t deter me from seeing it as a part of a serious philosophical concern.

  I’ll take Aristotle’s model of what makes humans distinctive - biological (requiring attention to optima), mammalian (caring about relationships), social, interactive in praxis (with its affordances and constraints).

Not a system.  Only commentary.  The fact that comment can be true does not systematise it.  There are many elements to the Christian faith, some of which simply do not cohere.  But the Christian model of the sinner seeking salvation through God’s grace is systemic.

Just because I did not enlist it, does not mean that Aristotle did not have a system.

  I’m not looking to replace the real life experience of peoples

No, but I am.

Ok, I meant rather to say that I am not trying to deny them nor necessarily to change them, though obviously want to help create logics and meaning which help guide their behavior for the better.

  You have made zero attempt to understand what I say; all you seek is “a lefty social academic” foil to mercerize intellectual vanity against.

It would be a very good idea for you to look at some of your recent main-blog postings and reflect on whether it is understanding that you seek or a totalitarian control over all our dissenting thought.

No. I seek to create a platform that dissents from counter productive ways that are all too abundant. There is enough of Christianity, scientism, Hitler and Jew inclusion in other places. There is no need to endlessly debate these obviously mistaken ideas here, when people have other places to go and nowhere else to go for an necessary exception.

In a positive sense, it is a shame that you have been impervious to the value that I’ve brought here, but I will carry on, unfold it and perhaps you will come to acknowledge it..

The very fact that we are engaging now, far beyond the limits I initially set myself (for protective purposes), demonstrates that you are being heard.  We are not, after all, discussing my ideas, except where that becomes unavoidable.  Nor am I trying to take your thinking apart.  If I was, I would be asking a thousand questions.  If I start asking questions, it’s time to duck.

You are not trying to understand. You are doing lawyerly dissimulation.

What I am doing is to try, at least, to steer you away from a prescriptive attitude, including the almost religious attachment you have to a narrow analytical exercise, and towards some of the very obvious and universal characteristics of nationalism which you presently find it necessary to deny and disdain.

Bullshit. 

It is not me who is the renegade.  I am a revolutionary nationalist.  Intellectually and emotionally, I operate from compassion and tenderness for the human condition and love for my own human family, not from a reactionary critique of the philosophical and political horrors of modernity.  My thinking, such as it is, reflects that.

I am motivated by a care for our people and their ways that can be called love as well, but am also motivated by disdain for people and ways that would destroy them. Perfectly valid. I am concerned with what is practical and necessary to their defense.

  Many things a whole lot better than that bullshit.

By all means, name one.  Don’t venture beyond the psychological terms of my remark into Hitler-talk.

Aristotlean thought is better than Hitler’s and very different.

  You admit that you have not even read Aristotle, so there is not point in arguing with you. You don’t understand the stuff and worse, don’t want to.

But that is not a reply to the words I wrote, which were, “A model of Man is an ontological necessity,

Ok, I will answer to your claim that “a model of man is an ontological necessity”. ...

And say that a sufficient working hypothesis and topoi of that ontology is necessary.

and must have precision to exist.

Genetics, for one thing, lends a great deal of precision.

It has to be drawn with bold lines.  It is not to be found in general principles and commentary if it is not actually drawn.  It doesn’t matter how virtuous or arresting or relevant the principles and commentary are.

Great lines can be drawn in the horizons that hermeneutics provides.

I don’t remember reading Aristotle directly during my auto-didactic binge, which commenced on leaving school.  Plato, certainly; and I think some neo-platonics amidst the Christian and occidental mysticism - some quite serious stuff - which I was particularly determined to get a grip on.  It all turned by degrees to a study of psychology - which I would have read at university in preference to philosophy, had I had an interest in going - and that resolved again to philosophy which, together with English and Russian literature, I consumed towards the end of the exercise, which lasted eight years in all.  There are prices to be paid for auto-didacticism, particularly the obvious one-sidedness but also a ponderous intellectual character, since one is one’s own tutor.  But if one survives with one’s curiosity and mental energy intact these are still mostly correctable.

The oversights in your choice of erudition should be correctable yes. And that is the advantage of good scholarly advisors as opposed to the auto didacticism (erudition) that you mention. I tried the same thing and also wasted some time with choices in reading that could have been better and better understood with some helpful direction and proper contexting. Your choice for psychology was unfortunate. I went through an early stage there too. Largely a dead end, waste of time for the requirements given the problems that we are up against.

I am content that what is of real worth to me in Aristotle is inherent in Heidegger.

As I have said, Heidegger’s most fundamental language game is dependent upon an Aristotlean framework and its further correction.


52

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 11:07 | #

I’m willing to bet GW thinks his philosophy would compel him to prefer a pat on the back from a fellow Englishman as opposed to the latter sinking a claw hammer into his skull.  Likewise, he believes his philosophy compels him to prefer one kind of political expression over another.  So then, at least in that sense, his philosophy is political - unavoidably.


53

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:03 | #

First of all, I don’t recall anywhere using the term “revolutionary change.”

We are living in a politically liberal world as advocates of a politically nationalist world.  These are not political worlds which can be melded together.  They cannot co-exist.  They cannot contain a spectrum running from hyper individualism to racialism, because liberalism is a radical ideology which must seek to transform the naturally arising Mind and life of the people (one means of doing which is to change the people into a non-racial or post-racial entity).  So, either the politics is fashioned for that - essentially, fashioned to unfetter the will - or it is fashioned for the authentic genetic interests of peoples.  Either … or.  We nationalists are striving to replace one political world - the liberal world - with the other.

Yes, genetic specificity exists, and my concern for its existence (and my respect for science) is why I advocate its curation and defense in the Euro DNA Nation.

Obviously, my allusion to genes was not understood.  You had written, “your claim to define philosophy is even more absurd than your arbitrary claim that what I am doing is “politics” only. ”  I was explaining that the separate existences of philosophy and politics are not disqualified by any “clining” … any water-carrying from philosophy to policy making and politicking – which, naturally, we know must happen for ideas to enter and make the political world (yes, world-making is the function of ideas).

Just because I did not enlist it, does not mean that Aristotle did not have a system.

Let’s try another way of talking about this, from a uniquely nationalist perspective – in fact, I may write a full article in explication.  Here is the gist:

Increasing consciousness of self decreases (eventually to nil) the requirement for an externally-imposed morality

Figure out the verity in that, and you will figure out why prescription, in the longer-term, is an error of the political imagination and an abuse of power.  By way of a clue, it is not just a product of the consciousness itself but of the way in which the mind’s great systems of perception (which, perhaps, you are unwittingly presenting through your Aristotelian sociological terms) reconcile.

A separate element here is this (which you have not picked up from my response up the thread): “Decisions are taken by the mechanism before they are considered by the subject.”  There is very good scientific evidence for this ordering of the human response.  But in standard phenomenology this would imply that a certain responsiveness precedes the mental focus (and, therefore, the clumsy mechanism of the will), and indeed a phenomenologist named Waldenfels did some work in this area a couple of decades ago.  However, as far as I can see phenomenology has not much considered either the differing speeds of the perceptual systems or the mechanicity of intentionality.  Therefore, it has not considered attentionality as the turn to consciousness of self, and so has no concept of the implications for perception as a whole.

Where does that leave Aristotle?

Aristotlean thought is better than Hitler’s and very different.

But I specifically asked you not to confuse Hitler with the phenomenon of German self-consciousness which the NSDAP succeeded in generating.  It is the self-consciousness which is interesting to us.  I said that this is what we strive for.  Do you disagree?

A sufficient working hypothesis and topoi of that ontology is necessary.

But that is the concern of the water-carrier.  Heidegger, for example, famously shunned ethical concerns for pure ontology.  But he spoke of “building a way”, and stated that questioning opens to that.  This is a truth, and I have said many times that it is only possible for a nationalist water-carrier to have a serious conversation with someone who, at the very least, has a question in his head.  It does not matter too much what that question is.  It’s the start that matters.

Now you can tell me how useful communication theory is!

Great lines can be drawn in the horizons that hermeneutics provides.

So where is this hermeneutically derived model of Man?

 


54

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:49 | #

CC: “So then, at least in that sense, his philosophy is political - unavoidably.”

There is a logical error of association here.  Your choice of restaurant has implications for the local economy, but your food consumption is not economic.


55

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 10 Oct 2016 06:48 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:03 | #

  First of all, I don’t recall anywhere using the term “revolutionary change.”

We are living in a politically liberal world as advocates of a politically nationalist world.  These are not political worlds which can be melded together.  They cannot co-exist.  They cannot contain a spectrum running from hyper individualism to racialism, because liberalism is a radical ideology which must seek to transform the naturally arising Mind and life of the people (one means of doing which is to change the people into a non-racial or post-racial entity).  So, either the politics is fashioned for that - essentially, fashioned to unfetter the will - or it is fashioned for the authentic genetic interests of peoples.  Either … or.  We nationalists are striving to replace one political world - the liberal world - with the other.

Well, I am not fashioning a politics of unfettered will. That would be Cartesian. I am promoting that which conforms to our biological interests as a distinct human ecology in genus (race) and species (nations and subgroups of the race).

  Yes, genetic specificity exists, and my concern for its existence (and my respect for science) is why I advocate its curation and defense in the Euro DNA Nation.

Obviously, my allusion to genes was not understood.  You had written, “your claim to define philosophy is even more absurd than your arbitrary claim that what I am doing is “politics” only. ”  I was explaining that the separate existences of philosophy and politics are not disqualified by any “clining” … any water-carrying from philosophy to policy making and politicking – which, naturally, we know must happen for ideas to enter and make the political world (yes, world-making is the function of ideas).

I did understand…(sounds like you are being coached by Bowery to say that I do not) and it remains true that your wish to call what you are doing clean “philosophy” and what I am doing simply “politics” is absurd. It remains futile and counterproductive to try to draw absolute lines between the disciplines.

  Just because I did not enlist it, does not mean that Aristotle did not have a system.

Let’s try another way of talking about this, from a uniquely nationalist perspective – in fact, I may write a full article in explication.

ugh.

Here is the gist:

Increasing consciousness of self decreases (eventually to nil) the requirement for an externally-imposed morality

People might be more inclined to act in a fair and appropriate manner if they are aware of their biological interests ...they might not fail..but then, there is interaction and competing interests which can provoke, complicate and extend, sometimes out of proportion, those interests.

Figure out the verity in that, and you will figure out why prescription, in the longer-term, is an error of the political imagination and an abuse of power.

The only affectation is your attribution that I am prescribing in some undue manner. Or, as if there is anything wrong with a modicum of informed prescription - these are to whom it may concern messages. If it is natural and good for people to act into them, that it is good, if they elect not to, that is unfortunate, but I am not coercive, I am about not having people coerce me and other European peoples.

So, what you are saying is a bullshit straw man (something that Bowery was fond of doing as well ...where he didn’t “propose” things that I had said, as if he was proposing it).

By way of a clue, it is not just a product of the consciousness itself but of the way in which the mind’s great systems of perception (which, perhaps, you are unwittingly presenting through your Aristotelian sociological terms) reconcile.

What is unwitting about my doing that?

A separate element here is this (which you have not picked up from my response up the thread): “Decisions are taken by the mechanism before they are considered by the subject.”

There is a three part brain. There are responses ranging from the involuntary to the deliberate. There is also the fact that “mind” circulates systemically among others and the rest of the world.  ..

There is very good scientific evidence for this ordering of the human response.  But in standard phenomenology this would imply that a certain responsiveness precedes the mental focus (and, therefore, the clumsy mechanism of the will),

Yes, consciousness and the newer brain has its weaknesses and pit falls.

and indeed a phenomenologist named Waldenfels did some work in this area a couple of decades ago.  However, as far as I can see phenomenology has not much considered either the differing speeds of the perceptual systems or the mechanicity of intentionality.  Therefore, it has not considered attentionality as the turn to consciousness of self, and so has no concept of the implications for perception as a whole.

Ok, well, you might come up with some true and useful observations in that pursuit, as you have in your past few articles.

Where does that leave Aristotle?

  Aristotlean thought is better than Hitler’s and very different.

Aristotle has a place on the broad strokes of the frame of what characterizes us as human, as opposed to other creatura and pleroma.

Refinements, particularly to distinguish Europeans from other humans, are more than welcome - e.g., R and K selection theory is a big help.

But I specifically asked you not to confuse Hitler with the phenomenon of German self-consciousness which the NSDAP succeeded in generating.

Well, ok. Now I’ll do it. That came about because it was National Socialist - that is, it was a Left Nationalist movement, which promoted national social consciousness up to a point of conflict with Hitler’s right wing aspirations -  coming to odds markedly in the night of the long knives, then unraveling and falling apart, as it was misdirected by Hitler’s right wing aspirations.

It is the self-consciousness which is interesting to us.  I said that this is what we strive for.  Do you disagree?

Self consciousness is good if it is connected with systemic consciousness of our discreet human ecology.

I believe your idea of relaxed consciousness as it takes for granted the internal relation of one’s own and one’s people’s interests works very well with a White Left Nationalist perspective.

  A sufficient working hypothesis and topoi of that ontology is necessary.

But that is the concern of the water-carrier.

No, that is the imaginative phase of the philosopher, scientist, anyone who thinks..

Heidegger, for example, famously shunned ethical concerns for pure ontology.

He may have wanted to shun ethical concerns, but they are there nevertheless. You cannot be apart from some kind or another moral system, issues, rules…

But he spoke of “building a way”, and stated that questioning opens to that.  This is a truth, and I have said many times that it is only possible for a nationalist water-carrier to have a serious conversation with someone who, at the very least, has a question in his head.  It does not matter too much what that question is.  It’s the start that matters.

Ok, well now you seem to be acknowledging some validity to the rendering of working hypotheses and topoi…

So, that might be a start..we’ll see where you are going..

Now you can tell me how useful communication theory is!

It is eminently useful. You don’t understand it.

  Great lines can be drawn in the horizons that hermeneutics provides.

So where is this hermeneutically derived model of Man?

Where would you like it to be?

I like a starting place with Aristotle’s model of man:

1. Biological creatures, evolved for optimal levels of need satisfaction. Lacks and excesses being toxic.

2. Which characteristics make us distinctly human? Aristotle says our capacity for friendship is one distinction from other animals. He questions the wisdom of maximzing characteristics which could divert us from our distinct humanness. Are we distinctly human because we can run fast? Horses can run faster.

3. Mammals, caring about relationships, particularly close personal relationships. With that, social creatures..

4. In Praxis, therefore having to guide themselves by practical judgement to some extent - we are pragmatists because we have to be - we operate in our relative interests (praxis), not for purely objective reasons, though we must take objective facts into account for obvious reasons; our biological nature and the interactive circumstance of praxis requires that practical judgment (of phronesis) because we have some agency and reflexivity as biological creatures and second order cybernetic creautres with mind to learn and can thus react in different ways, unlike the non biological world that physics would model, which seeks to model pure cause and effect in theoria; which would be an epistemological blunder to apply to an extreme to people..as can happen in theoretical “physics envy.”

By the way, I am getting pissed off because you are making me repeat things that I have said five million times already…and all it shows is that you are either not reading anything I’ve written or you are viciously impervious.

5. Hermeneutics provides historical (narrative) interweaving and temporal perspective and working hypothetical conceptualization of the social group that we seek to defend and must defend with its resource ... the race, and because it is non-Cartesian, its perspective is available for argumentative defense, is verifiable, scientifically and otherwise.

6. With that, we can trace historical patterns that show how precious certain features of our human ecology are and then perhaps frame them as sacrosanct, if not sacred (the endangerd species list if you are of a more antiseptic mind)... seek to provide places of reverence for the sacred, i.e., the worth preserving beyond episode and into pattern…..and an option for those who are more careful about maintaining their personal variant of European genetics and ways as well as our broader systemic genetics - with that, to keep the system functioning with a control variable for its loyalty and fidelity to what is deemed sacred…it is important that monogamy be protected as an important and valid possibility and option for people against scientistic arguments that would argue otherwise - as is the case with those who argue that “game” is natural and try to model us after R selection patterns, when respect for monogamy is more suited to our nature as K selectors.. so that our people do not become cynical and demoralized, but rather can feel reverence and respect for the pattern - thus defend it.

7. As I have said, I believe that Europeans are more inclined to deal with Augustinian devils than Manichean devils. Middle Eastern tribal people are more inclined to Manichean devils. That model is particularly significant to defend as it is Augustinian devils that we must solve in the end - e.g., how to live in outer space. ..and Manichean devils can be largely obstructive to that end, in addition to being wasteful of good natured people.

8. Hermeneutics facilitates our human capacity for language, conceptualization beyond the moment and inborn instinctively evolved responses to patterns. It allows for agency, including in defense of our peoples and ourselves. This is particularly well suited to Europeans, a characteristically imaginative people (and rigorous, in turn).

9. Because it is a non Cartesian turn, we can correct the tendency toward naive of disingenuous objectivism (which is exploited by YKW and opportunistic liberalism both from outgroups and from the disloyal in our group) and turn toward the centralizing of our relative interests as a people…which is crucial for us, given that we are being antagonized as race and attacked for “ethnocentrism”...

There, I have won the thread already.

I will probably add more, but that is enough for now.


56

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Oct 2016 17:58 | #

You cannot be apart from some kind or another moral system, issues, rules…

The theory goes that the self-conscious natural identity requires only free expression, in which estate all that could survive of the moralities of ordinary waking consciousness would be the gamut of higher emotions which “issues” trigger.  This is the realm in which it becomes possible to put the impossibility of conscious evil to the test.  Of course, we would still be talking about relatives here, not absolutes.  But the word “kind” does not derive from kin for no reason.

Generally, we are far too morality-heavy in the way we live.  I suspect it is a result of Christianisation.  It should be an aim of our revolutionary phase to refine the population of a given white living space to a sufficiently high degree of relatedness for this perfectly natural benefit of de-moralisation to manifest itself.

Points 1 to 9 are your private philosophy, not - NOT - a model of Man, which is a concise, integrated structure animated by the generality of a given philosophy.  You do need to give ground here and on your left-right dictate, the clunky-ness of which is surely something only you cannot see.  The verity of the social unit of analysis and the place of communication we shall return to another time, perhaps.


57

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:04 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:58 | #

  You cannot be apart from some kind or another moral system, issues, rules…

The theory goes that the self-conscious natural identity requires only free expression, in which estate all that could survive of the moralities of ordinary waking consciousness would be the gamut of higher emotions which “issues” trigger.  This is the realm in which it becomes possible to put the impossibility of conscious evil to the test.  Of course, we would still be talking about relatives here, not absolutes.  But the word “kind” does not derive from kin for no reason.

In the face of your language game, let me repeat :
  You cannot be apart from some kind or another moral system, issues, rules…

There will always be some things that you can do, some things that you cannot do and some things that are obligatory.

In the case of Heidegger, there are many oughts and ought nots quite near the surface of his discussions.

Generally, we are far too morality-heavy in the way we live.

I don’t think so. It’s more like we have a bad kind of morality and a confusion of moral rules.

I suspect it is a result of Christianisation.

Well, yes. But scientism tends to be a bad alternative. Needless to say Islam is a bad alternative as well.

That’s why your blocking of discussion of alternative rule structures is unfortunate… negotiation of moral rules is both important and unavoidable.

It should be an aim of our revolutionary phase to refine the population of a given white living space to a sufficiently high degree of relatedness for this perfectly natural benefit of de-moralisation to manifest itself.

Well, that kind of liberalisation will be favored by our more crass females; it will give a systemic advantage to our adversaries who assimilate a more conservative and reliable way of life. At best what you are prescribing will default into some kind of Brazilification or Mexican style society in which a White/Jewish blended minority will live in gated communities, in Jewish style parasitism amidst brown masses.

Points 1 to 9 are your private philosophy, not - NOT - a model of Man,

Absolute horseshit.

Aristotle and the rest are not my private ideas and they are a model of man.

which is a concise, integrated structure animated by the generality of a given philosophy.

These ideas lend themselves to more precision and you are welcome to have at it, but I am not inclined to defend against your endless vain skepticism of all scholarship that considers social matters.

  You do need to give ground here and on your left-right dictate, the clunky-ness of which is surely something only you cannot see.  The verity of the social unit of analysis and the place of communication we shall return to another time, perhaps.

..“clunky-ness” .. is your attempt to mock the fact that it can be readily understood. Unlike you, I recognize that there is no merit in and of itself in being beyond common understanding.

Within the etymology of communication is the idea of “making common.”

I’d just as soon you not return to the matter of the social unit of analysis and communication but leave it to me and the people I will one day seek out to discuss the matter.

Why?

One day you asked me in response to my experience with academics, if I had “won”. ???

As if the single purpose for seeking out education and scholarly company is competition and to defeat them.

This apparently represents who you are and it is very strange that you would not take the disposition (which I do) to try to take from scholarship what might be useful and then shape and craft it to your needs.

Rather, you seek to “defeat” and dismiss it all.

It’s very weird, so weird that I could not believe it for a long time.

But now I do realize this and I will work around it.


58

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:05 | #

Adding to “the model of man”

10. Self 1 (corporeal) and Self 2 (autobiographical)  - both important


59

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 07:07 | #

You cannot be apart from some kind or another moral system, issues, rules…

If one were to develop an index for freedom in, say, Britain, extrapolating the base data from the history of the British from the pre-Roman period to the present, when our people do not have the power to choose to continue to exist, we would see a fluxing picture but, overall, a vast reduction, with whole new systems of morality imposed to control our life.  The Victorian era was massively free compared to our time, but not compared to the pre-Norman era or the pre-Christian era.  A nationalist is not an authoritarian, but seeks the freedom of his people; freedom being most authentic as that condition which resides in presence to being.

Come on Daniel, think more freely yourself!

At best what you are prescribing will default into some kind of Brazilification or Mexican style society in which a White/Jewish blended minority will live in gated communities, in Jewish style parasitism amidst brown masses.

Well, obviously I am talking about the diametric opposite of that.

That’s why your blocking of discussion of alternative rule structures is unfortunate… negotiation of moral rules is both important and unavoidable.

I am not blocking anything.  I am simply pointing out that, yes, a revolutionary phase would plainly require the assertion of new transitory rule structures.  But the philosophical and theoretical area in which I conduct my own investigations describe a dispensation in which we, as Europe’s peoples, have a secure existence and are free to self-express and to destine.  That life does not require to be hedged about with prescriptions, moral or legal, except what is necessitous in Nature.

One day you asked me in response to my experience with academics, if I had “won”. ???

As if the single purpose for seeking out education and scholarly company is competition and to defeat them.

This apparently represents who you are and it is very strange that you would not take the disposition (which I do) to try to take from scholarship what might be useful and then shape and craft it to your needs.

Rather, you seek to “defeat” and dismiss it all.

We draw the line of culpability for the condition of Western philosophical and political thought in different places: you at Jewry and its intellectual appropriations, me at the turning away from existence and blood.


60

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:48 | #

10. Self 1 (corporeal) and Self 2 (autobiographical)  - both important

But is this not really just the Cartesian dualism you disavow?  And, if so, is it not an admission that you have no coherent model of Man at all, and haven’t really thought through what such a model entails, both in terms of its own facticity but also in terms of detail particular to, or consequent upon, your Aristotelianism?


61

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:34 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:48 | #

  10. Self 1 (corporeal) and Self 2 (autobiographical)  - both important

But is this not really just the Cartesian dualism you disavow?  And, if so, is it not an admission that you have no coherent model of Man at all, and haven’t really thought through what such a model entails, both in terms of its own facticity but also in terms of detail particular to, or consequent upon, your Aristotelianism?

I thought you were going to raise that objection and was hoping that you would.

No it is not. Because the two kinds of selves are interrelated. And the (auto)biographical self facilitates the possibility of coherence through the possibility of narrative sequence and accountability.

One must think in terms of their back and forth relation - accountability to the corporeal and facilitation of its broader historical and temporal perspective orientation through the (auto)biographical.

I have discussed this in several places - e.g., Kant’s Moral system as Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant..


62

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:37 | #

How is a division predicated on corporeality and self-biography not dualistic in the classic sense?


63

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:40 | #

Because it does not pretend that these are absolutely divided and not internally related; nor perfectly separate from interaction and reflexive relation with other people and things.


64

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:45 | #

But you are not claiming that mental phenomena such as the witness to self are emergent from materiality, are you?  You are claiming a persistent dualism, yes?

To put a finer point on it, commonality within the two realms - a genetic interest, say - does not infer connection without emergence.


65

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:50 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:45 | #

But you are not claiming that mental phenomena such as the witness to self are emergent from materiality, are you?  You are claiming a persistent dualism, yes?

They are emergent from materiality, yes. But in this perspective, not entirely emergent from the materiality of the corporeal self - emergent from that yes, but also emergent from broader interactive material - markedly, narrative, shared historical and temporal perspective of the people.


P.S., I am only belatedly seeing your comment number 59, but subsequent comments of mine subsume rebut to that as well - viz., its not only about Jewish deception, but also Cartesian estrangement.


66

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:10 | #

You see, from my perspective Mind exists because it is fit for the organism to perceive beyond itself and make adaptive choices accordingly.  One might take as an example bacterial sensitisation to the stimuli and responses requisite for quorem sensing.  Prior to that condition, though, there had to exist something.  Property emergence is really only a view of evolution.  It has to do with sociobiology (if one accepts that science does not always have to be reductive), but not too much with sociology.

That said, the evolution of Mind is not in itself a philosophical truth.  The truth of Man is more than the science of his arising because it takes his perception into account, and not merely his perceptual capacities.


67

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:17 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:10 | #

You see, from my perspective Mind exists because it is fit for the organism to perceive beyond itself and make adaptive choices accordingly.  One might take as an example bacterial sensitisation to the stimuli and responses requisite for quorem sensing.  Prior to that condition, though, there had to exist something.  Property emergence is really only a view of evolution.  It has to do with sociobiology (if one accepts that science does not always have to be reductive), but not too much with sociology.

There is no contradiction with what I am saying here, except that I do not tend to like the word “mind” as it has static monadic connotations.

That said, the evolution of Mind is not in itself a philosophical truth.

Depends upon the kind of philosophy. In my kind it would be, inamsmuch as it had any truth.

The truth of Man is more than the science of his arising because it takes his perception into account, and not merely his perceptual capacities.

And hermenutics would agree.


68

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:28 | #

its not only about Jewish deception, but also Cartesian estrangement.

It is “about” the human truth which I have modelled as the Ontological Transit:

absence ◄ habituality (mechanicity) ◄ immersion ◄ negation ◄ reverie ◄ sloth ◄ passivity ◄► intent ► attention ► stillness ► detachment ► affirmation ► appropriation ► presence ► non-ascription of identity ► self-annihilation ► Being

… where intent ► attention ► stillness stand for Heidegger’s step-back from representational thinking about “being as beings”, and where personality – the sum of the acquired – quantifies to the left of self-appropriation.

Everything is here, if you know how to look.


69

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:33 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:28 | #

  its not only about Jewish deception, but also Cartesian estrangement.

It is “about” the human truth which I have modelled as the Ontological Transit:

absence ◄ habituality (mechanicity) ◄ immersion ◄ negation ◄ reverie ◄ sloth ◄ passivity ◄► intent ► attention ► stillness ► detachment ► affirmation ► appropriation ► presence ► non-ascription of identity ► self-annihilation ► Being

… where intent ► attention ► stillness stand for Heidegger’s step-back from representational thinking about “being as beings”, and where personality – the sum of the acquired – quantifies to the left of self-appropriation.

Everything is here, if you know how to look.

No, everything is not there. It’s ok, maybe (as far as expressions of Cartesian anxiety go), but it does not even approximate making redundant what I have said in recent comments.


70

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:36 | #

Then you do not at all know how to look.  That’s OK.  This is a more difficult (because it is a total) awakening than the racial awakening you describe in your Kant piece (though racial awakening plots on it).


71

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:45 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:36 | #

Then you do not at all know how to look.  That’s OK.  This is more difficult (because it is a total) awakening than the racial awakening you describe in your Kant piece (though racial awakening plot on it).

No, I know how to look, you can take that into a hermenetuic process and it can be probably be useful (where its staticness is not misleading), but YOU are not looking at what I say, and not realizing that there is more there than you are apparently willing to admit. While my view can accommodate yours (and correct it where it goes off the mark), for some reason you will not allow for the contributions that I bring - though really, for our purposes my contributions are more important. Yours is just one story at how one might leave and return to a closer reading of the corporeal self and its adaptive selection.

It is not nearly dynamic nor interactive enough to suffice. But that is a refection of your intellectual niggardliness - you cannot admit that I’ve won the thread.


72

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:58 | #

The Transit is not static, which is why I named it as such.  Of course, it is only a model.  But it models, by stages, human nullity to the very bounds of the All.  Everything that is common in and possible to the human perception of self is there, and everything in the human experience refers to its conditionalities.  It opens to possibilities of a total understanding.  Claims that there is somehow more are in error.

I have an idea that Alain Badiou has produced diagramatics of his marxian analysis.  It is not an original method.


73

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:18 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:58 | #

The Transit is not static, which is why I named it as such.

I observed that it lends itself to process, but you’ve made it static in absolutizing the stations absent the reflexive effects of interaction.

Of course, it is only a model.

Yes, it is only that.

But it models, by stages, human nullity to the very bounds of the All.

It doesn’t capture all.

Everything that is common in and possible to the human perception of self is there, and everything in the human experience refers to its conditionalities.  It opens to possibilities of a total understanding.  Claims that there is somehow more are in error.

At very least it is going to have to be fleshed-out with experience which will cause some of these stations of your cross to recede and others needing to be fleshed out greatly.

I have an idea that Alain Badiou has produced diagramatics of his marxian analysis.  It is not an original method.

I don’t condemn it for being non original. I object to your trying to dismiss what I say as being unimportant, irreconcilably conflictual with or made redundant and unnecessary by what you say. That isn’t true. In fact its a terrible disservice.


74

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:35 | #

Daniel, I said on various earlier threads that I am not really focussing on the political.  Instead of accepting that at face value and leaving matters there, you proceeded to claim, by way of Aristotle, that you hold everything in your hands, and I just don’t or won’t understand that self-evident truth.  Meanwhile, your advocacy of “the white left” becomes ever more aggressively prescriptive, such that you are now spitting out the f-word in the headline to a post.  Let’s operate with a little more style and eclecticism, please.


75

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:54 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:35 | #

Daniel, I said on various earlier threads that I am not really focussing on the political.  Instead of accepting that at face value

I do accept that you are focused on the things that you are focussed on and I have said repeatedly that that is valid.

The problem is, you claim that what I attend to is “political” and not important. It is neither characterizable as especially political and more than valid, it is important orientation.

and leaving matters there,

You are the one who cannot leave things alone when I tell you repeatedly that my view does not have interfere with and negate yours.

you proceeded to claim, by way of Aristotle, that you hold everything in your hands,

I never claimed to hold everything in my hands.

and I just don’t or won’t understand that self-evident truth.

You don’t want to see.

Meanwhile, your advocacy of “the white left” becomes ever more aggressively prescriptive, such that you are now spitting out the f-word in the headline to a post.  Let’s operate with a little more style and eclecticism, please.

Well, prescription is a devil word for you and I frankly don’t trust what you are doing with it. More than prescription really, I am observing patterns underlying ordinary language, patterns which are true.

Next, I will make use of rhetorical difference from convention (E.g. strategically places epithets and profanity) in exercise of assertion in necessary counteraction to our own self destructive tendency for self transcendence against assertive enemies who do not play fair.

This also serves to “other” people who’ve been “samed” and narcissistically accorded universal dignity and affinity that they do not merit. ..and if we are censored on these words, it becomes harder to think and assert them, necessary though distancing ourselves from other groups is.


76

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:13 | #

I observed that it lends itself to process, but you’ve made it static in absolutizing the stations absent the reflexive effects of interaction.

There is no inter-action.  There is the passage to the right, requiring effort and intent, or to the left, requiring supinity and lack of intent.

Do you play a musical instrument?  Have you not learned scales?

At very least it is going to have to be fleshed-out with experience which will cause some of these stations of your cross to recede and others needing to be fleshed out greatly.

I have considered that several times.  I’m not satisfied with a simple list of definitions, although that would be a likely starting point.  I would want, on the one hand, to be able to impart a Whiteheadian motion which is implied by, but not yet inherent in, what is otherwise a pessimistic model of human being, but a pessimistic model if not ordinarily leavened by the extraordinarily brilliant, affirming flashes of elusive and real consciousness then at least by the possibility of these.  To do that requires an ontology of the regressive gravitational forces acting on the transit - a large intellectual task in itself.

On the other hand, I would like to find a way to re-present each step as the bounds of certain experiences, where possible or appropriate, because state has such implications for experience.

Taken together, these two advances would complete my personal effort, and lift what is a skeletal proposal today to the station of a genuinely original philosophy, which might become the basis, in my view, for a new and much more completely human and vitalistic body of thought than anything that has emerged in Western thought since Heidegger.  From a nationalist perspective, of course, it is enough to have such a foundation of truth, were it possible to develop it.

I don’t condemn it for being non original.

It is original.  Using diagrams in ontology is not original.

 


77

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:42 | #

The problem is, you claim that what I attend to is “political” and not important. It is neither characterizable as especially political and more than valid, it is important orientation.

Probably because my own creative focus is so narrow and ontological I am inclined to see a certain worldliness elsewhere which does appear as politically inclined.  For me, the moment philosophy ventures from ontology to teleology, politics becomes inevitable.

You are the one who cannot leave things alone when I tell you repeatedly that my view does not have interfere with and negate yours.

It’s only that you are making claims for the utility of Aristotle’s divisions of the mind’s attention to life.  I suspect these are more questionable than you think, and to a degree everybody is drawn in by the fundamentality of the old boy to half the Western canon ... Aristotle as shibboleth ... rather than the fundamentality of his thought as such.  I don’t intend at this juncture to examine your claims critically.  I would be happier if I felt you had thought past the Aristotelian bits, which I believe to be eminently possible, rather than received them whole.

You don’t want to see.

I see all sorts of stuff.

prescription is a devil word for you and I frankly don’t trust what you are doing with it.

I am one of those alien creatures, a right-winger in liberal terms.  I have a somewhat nascent theory of freedom in Nature which renders pretty well everything else suspect!  You caught some glimpses of it here.  You should endeavour to critique it rather than simply ignore it.

Next, I will make use of rhetorical difference from convention (E.g. strategically places epithets and profanity) in exercise of assertion in necessary counteraction to our own self destructive tendency for self transcendence against assertive enemies who do not play fair.

This also serves to “other” people who’ve been “samed” and narcissistically accorded universal dignity and affinity that they do not merit. ..and if we are censored on these words, it becomes harder to think and assert them, necessary though distancing ourselves from other groups is.

Well, “they” did it to us first.  One of us should employ the same weapons they used against us.  But its still activism to me, albeit intellectual activism.


78

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:59 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:42 | #

  The problem is, you claim that what I attend to is “political” and not important. It is neither characterizable as especially political and more than valid, it is important orientation.

Probably because my own creative focus is so narrow and ontological I am inclined to see a certain worldliness elsewhere which does appear as politically inclined.  For me, the moment philosophy ventures from ontology to teleology, politics becomes inevitable.

I don’t do teleology, maybe you do.

  Me:  You are the one who cannot leave things alone when I tell you repeatedly that my view does not have interfere with and negate yours.

It’s only that you are making claims for the utility of Aristotle’s divisions of the mind’s attention to life.

I am dividing pleroma from creatura, particularly social creatures, you bet.

I suspect these are more questionable than you think, and to a degree everybody is drawn in by the fundamentality of the old boy to half the Western canon ... Aristotle as shibboleth ...

It’s unbecoming to use Jewish words like ‘shibboleth’..

Your wanting to dismiss what I am saying about Aristotle etc, shows you more of an egomaniac than anything else.

It is of course possible to refine Aristotle and to think in other ways.

There are obsolete parts of Aristotle, of course…  and the distinction between Theoria and Praxis is one we seek to correct still further. Your contentious penchant for summary dismissal of everything from the get go in favor of your “ontology” is just a drag.

rather than the fundamentality of his thought as such.

It is a fundament of Western thought.

I don’t intend at this juncture to examine your claims critically.  I would be happier if I felt you had thought past the Aristotelian bits, which I believe to be eminently possible, rather than received them whole

I would be happier if you had read some and knew what you were talking about before dismissing it.

  You don’t want to see.

I see all sorts of stuff

Not

  prescription is a devil word for you and I frankly don’t trust what you are doing with it.

I am one of those alien creatures, a right-winger in liberal terms.

It is ok to be a right winger for a moment and episodes, for example, in scientific endeavor, but not as an all encompassing way of life.

I have a somewhat nascent theory of freedom in Nature which renders pretty well everything else suspect!

Yes, radical skepticism is anti-human, anti social and this impervious habit (which Aristotle set about to cure with his observation of Praxis) is much of what has created our vulnerability to the catastrophe that is before us.

You caught some glimpses of it here.  You should endeavour to critique it rather than simply ignore it.

I have rendered some criticism, but I am more interested in my projects (which you not only ignore, but dismiss without a bother - that’s your prerogative but don’t expect me to drop my project for yours).

I said

Next, I will make use of rhetorical difference from convention (E.g. strategically places epithets and profanity) in exercise of assertion in necessary counteraction to our own self destructive tendency for self transcendence against assertive enemies who do not play fair.

  This also serves to “other” people who’ve been “samed” and narcissistically accorded universal dignity and affinity that they do not merit. ..and if we are censored on these words, it becomes harder to think and assert them, necessary though distancing ourselves from other groups is.

You said

Well, “they” did it to us first.  One of us should employ the same weapons they used against us.  But its still activism to me, albeit intellectual activism.

My “philosophical” endeavor has active properties and applications and that’s good..

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 03:13 | #

  I observed that it lends itself to process, but you’ve made it static in absolutizing the stations absent the reflexive effects of interaction.

There is no inter-action.  There is the passage to the right, requiring effort and intent, or to the left, requiring supinity and lack of intent.

No interaction is an impossibility.

Do you play a musical instrument?  Do you understand scales?

Other than the occasional inspired moment of singing, I do not play a musical instrument.

  At very least it is going to have to be fleshed-out with experience which will cause some of these stations of your cross to recede and others needing to be fleshed out greatly.

I have considered that several times.  I’m not satisfied with a simple list of definitions, although that would be a likely starting point.  I would want, on the one hand, to be able to impart a Whiteheadian motion which is implied by, but not yet inherent in, what is otherwise a pessimistic model of human being, but a pessimistic model if not leavened by the extraordinarily brilliant, affirming flashes of elusive and real consciousness then at least by the possibility of these.  To do that requires an ontology of the regressive gravitational forces acting on the transit - a large intellectual task in itself.

I’m not standing in your way.

On the other hand, I would like to find a way to re-present each step as the bounds of certain experiences, where possible or appropriate, because state has such implications for experience.

It might be interesting and valuable. But for a number of reasons, I am more interested in my model of optimizing the hierarchy of needs, basing it in socialization.

Taken together, these two advances would complete my personal effort, and lift what is a skeletal proposal today to the station of a genuinely original philosophy, which might become the basis, in my view, for a new and much more completely human and vitalistic body of thought than anything that has emerged in Western thought since Heidegger.  From a nationalist perspective, of course, it is enough to have such a foundation of truth, were it possible to develop it.

I think your fleshing it out with examples might be just the thing to have people take interest and perhaps take it up.

  I don’t condemn it for being non original.

It is original.  Using diagrams in ontology is not original.

“Love and the ‘personality” fuck sake, it’s like talking to a highschool girl.

I find everything that I have said in this thread more significant. What you are doing is diagramming a map of “the mind”.. .. a map of a map of how one might lose track and regain the homeostasis (at least I would hope you’d use that word) of their corporeal “mind” system. But like most scientistic effort, it is mostly a matter of labor where not plodding. You call what I am doing politics, but that is coming from one who wants to approach praxis with physics-like linearity. “This is the mind system.” ... It is no wonder that you try to sweep other ideas aside.

Still, your Cartesian strain will probably yield some insights along the way that can be useful at times. I will neither interfere with your project nor give up my project for its sake.


79

Posted by midtdasein on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 01:07 | #

Adding

11. Midtdasein - non-Cartesian attention to engaged process of thought in relative social interst: i.e., “there-being” amidst one’s folk (praxis).


80

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 02:36 | #

radical skepticism is anti-human, anti social and this impervious habit (which Aristotle set about to cure with his observation of Praxis) is much of what has created our vulnerability to the catastrophe that is before us.

You have had the opportunity to refute my brief comment here on freedom-in-being, and its dissolving effects on moral prescription.  I hold this to be not mindless scepticism but an original and perfectly true observation that is consonant with everything else I say.  You have not engaged.  Instead you are actively misrepresenting me, as though you are a philosophical judge in whig and robe.

If you cannot refute what I’m inferring about freedom (essentially, that freedom-in-being is freedom’s authentic form, and resolves for the will over external rule-setting), then why not run with the idea and see where it takes you?


81

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:16 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 02:36 | #

  radical skepticism is anti-human, anti social and this impervious habit (which Aristotle set about to cure with his observation of Praxis) is much of what has created our vulnerability to the catastrophe that is before us.

You have had the opportunity to refute my brief comment here on freedom-in-being, and its dissolving effects on moral prescription.

I hold this to be not mindless scepticism but an original and perfectly true observation that is consonant with everything else I say.  You have not engaged.  Instead you are actively misrepresenting me, as though you are a philosophical judge in whig and robe.

If you cannot refute what I’m inferring about freedom (essentially, that freedom-in-being is freedom’s authentic form, and resolves for the will over external rule-setting), then why not run with the idea and see where it takes you?

This thread is about how I am applying terminology, not about your language game. Thus, I’ve elected not “to take the opportunity” to be diverted into your language game on this occasion. Apparently you don’t want to understand what I say. You’ve tried rather to divert the thread into your stuff as if only you have something worthwhile to say - and it isn’t even all that good (psychologistic) - thus, I’m not especially interested. Maybe some other time.

I can and might address your psychologistic stuff another time but that is not what this post is about.

This thread you’ve lost; sorry if you can’t accept that, but that is the case.


82

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:23 | #

Why not apply your penchant for critique of texts to the comment you just made?  “Elected”, “language game”, “psychological stuff”, “sorry”, “lost the thread” all richly deserve the treatment, no?  You could work your way up the thread, focusing on all the plaints in your comments, fishing out the meanings and motivations inhering in each, and finding therein not, I think, me but your own self.

11. Midtdasein - non-Cartesian attention to engaged process of thought in relative social interest: i.e., “there-being” amidst one’s folk (praxis).

Such critique is probably a good for anyone who adopts Heidegger’s central epistemological and ontological assumption that Dasein is available to the understanding simply in its relation to the world about it; because it might conceivable lead to dissonance and useful questioning.

I find everything that I have said in this thread more significant. What you are doing is diagramming a map of “the mind”.. .. a map of a map of how one might lose track and regain the homeostasis (at least I would hope you’d use that word) of their corporeal “mind” system. But like most scientistic effort, it is mostly a matter of labor where not plodding. You call what I am doing politics, but that is coming from one who wants to approach praxis with physics-like linearity. “This is the mind system.” ... It is no wonder that you try to sweep other ideas aside.

Certainly, I question why Heidegger specifically omitted to differentiate between the estate of what is created in Man by that world and what is native to him, and the kind and degree of consciousness which attends each.  The implications for this slippery state of witness to the subject are considerable - arguable akin, in terms of reality, to the difference between awakening and falling asleep.  So, for example, the meaning of “being with” is mediated accordingly, becoming susceptible to all manner of dictate in the latter case (as we see everywhere today).

Authenticity in identity can hardly be understood otherwise, and nor can our enslavement to the Jewish prescription.


83

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:04 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:23 | #

Why not apply your penchant for critique of texts to the comment you just made?  “Elected”, “language game”, “psychological stuff”, “sorry”, “lost the thread” all richly deserve the treatment, no?

Because the post is about how I define crucial terms of our racial understanding, organization and defense. ...If you bother to go back up the thread, you will see that whenever I answer your questions and defeat your contentions, you ignore it and carry on imperviously… trying to ignore the merit of what I say and to bring the discussion to your language game; but this post is not about your language game - which has been treated briefly but enough in its broad strokes to indicate why I am not interested in being diverted as such. I can see that your language game is psycologistic - taking emergence of the “individual” out of context, interactive, historical and otherwise - my answering that emergence is broader than that should have resonated with you, but your reaction has you willfully blind and impervious to the fact of interaction. That is one critique, but I also offered the conciliatory suggestion that your language game may provide a map of some plodding utility as to how one’s corporeal self, along with a modicum of self reflective mind, emerges, can possibly lose its way and possibly return to an approximation of its natural form. Its very much the strictly egocentric stuff of people who came of age during the boomer generation, influenced by the pop psychology quest of the times for self actualization.

You could work your way up the thread, focusing on all the plaints in your comments, fishing out the meanings and motivations inhering in each, and finding therein not, I think, me but your own self.

I could but I won’t because I know what I said and what I mean - I am not suffering from the acute identity crisis that might have a teenager take your bait. On the other hand, you can also learn to appreciate what you have here, in a post like this by me. ..and not just try to say that oh, its not true, its “prescription” etc…but I’m afraid your conceit could be disposed to sweep crucial issues aside, and will not suspend disbelief in the value of others contributions, not even so much as leave it alone for the sake of others who aren’t so lucky as to be able to get by with the self deception that some a-contextual, a-historical psycho-world of yours is all that is necessary….in order for you to impose your psychologism as an all encompassing substitute ...which it is anything but.

  11. Midtdasein - non-Cartesian attention to engaged process of thought in relative social interest: i.e., “there-being” amidst one’s folk (praxis).

Such critique is probably a good for anyone who adopts Heidegger’s central epistemological and ontological assumption that Dasein is available to the understanding simply in its relation to the world about it, because it might conceivable lead to dissonance and useful questioning.

Maybe.

Me: I find everything that I have said in this thread more significant. What you are doing is diagramming a map of “the mind”.. .. a map of a map of how one might lose track and regain the homeostasis (at least I would hope you’d use that word) of their corporeal “mind” system. But like most scientistic effort, it is mostly a matter of labor where not plodding. You call what I am doing politics, but that is coming from one who wants to approach praxis with physics-like linearity. “This is the mind system.” ... It is no wonder that you try to sweep other ideas aside.

GW: Certainly, I question why Heidegger specifically omitted to differentiate between the estate of what is created in Man by that world and what is native to him, and the kind and degree of consciousness which attends each.  The implications for this slippery state of witness to the subject are considerable - arguable akin, in terms of reality, to the difference between awakening and falling asleep.  So, for example, the meaning of “being with” is mediated accordingly, becoming susceptible to all manner of dictate in the latter case (as we see everywhere today).

Authenticity in identity can hardly be understood otherwise, and nor can our enslavement to the Jewish prescription.

Well, perhaps you think that everything beyond the psychologistic is “Jewish prescription” and it is apparent that that derives from your antipathy and contentiousness to anything that might have passed through academe while bearing upon a social unit of analysis.

That means Aristotle, Plato and even Heidegger would be “Jewish.” ..perhaps Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume ...and the early Wittgenstein (lol) not Jewish.

There you are, you can do no other, you think therefore you are - the world is everything that is your case.

But I never said that Heidegger was self contained and sufficient.  He was not sufficiently connected with the biology of people. Authenticity would require more of that - hence, my attention to the Euro DNA nation among other biological features taken into account.

Demography, and the like social units of analysis, would catalog haplogroups and so on.

Rather than acknowledge where your objections have been defeated you might continually try to sweep significant and useful ideas under the rug (as they might show someone and something other than your psychological system as having value) and bury it further with another bunch of words.

But if you try being a little more gracious in defeat and a little less contentious, you’ll feel better.


84

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:53 | #

Adding to the post: With social units of analysis, crucial matters such as demography are addressed, species, including human species are assessed and can be recognized as being under threat of extinction.

Our haplogroup varieties, ways of life and their relation to the land are another reason why the interactive unit of analysis that the communication perspective takes is significant - it allows for the management not only of our human ecologies, but a necessary attention to pervasive ecology...

Another term, this one that I have coined 12 - Pervasive Ecology.


85

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:11 | #

Because the post is about how I define crucial terms of our racial understanding, organization and defense.

So you except yourself from the conditions you apply to others?

whenever I answer your questions and defeat your contentions, you ignore it and carry on imperviously… trying to ignore the merit of what I say and to bring the discussion to your language game

I am trying to avoid bringing you down - such that I just asked you to police your own comment because I will not do so.  I will not respond in kind.

I can see that your language game is psycologistic - taking emergence of the “individual” out of context, interactive, historical and otherwise

The individual is not emergent.  For heavens sake!  What is authentic to us is unconcealed as what is false falls away, thus:

I would contend that awakening has a momentary, turning quality.  Most of all, I would say, it is the moment of detachment when something that might not be any more concrete than a humanising sense of the positive and affirming, which was forgotten and scarcely conceivable for a long time, holds itself out in front of the subject and invites appropriation.  For that is the passage out of identification with the personality – that part of us which is socially acquired and does not belong to us but to the world and to time.

... I suppose, if we were to use the Heideggerian terminology, we could note that dasein … “being there” … has something of the holy ghost about it, mediating between and perhaps even reconciling the subject as identity and the subject’s act of living as Being.  To mediate these is to pass beyond the turn and into presence.  That has a profound transforming effect, and that transformation is symbolised for the group in the person of the monarch.  This is all rather close to the god-king, a surviving example of which is the Emporer of Japan, who is held to be descended from the sun goddess and is the highest authority in the Shinto religion.  His role in heavenly affairs is not less important than that in affairs of the state.  His title Tennō means “heavenly sovereign”.

Perhaps the most interesting European example, though, was the Führer.  The messianic devotional cult which surrounded him helps to explain the extraordinary connection and awakening effect that the person of Adolf Hitler had for ordinary Germans after 1933.  The German Messiah, of course, turned out to be false, and so did his model of Homo heroica.  He died railing at the unworthiness of the German people, having never comprehended that life is Nature’s means to her own subsistence, and cannot be more.  In so much as weaponising the German people to smash their way to a more glorious German life exceeded Nature’s bounds, the project would always collapse under the weight of its own inauthenticities – something which the Führer-redeemers in WN seem equally incapable of grasping.

However, as far as it concerns awakening, Hitler’s example proves the efficacy of “a symbol of the group’s ascension to Being”.  Heidegger stressed that we think existentially when confronted by our mortality.  But the German people woke up - and, by any reasonable yardstick, spectacularly so - quite without such extremis.

This is what you characterise as “very much the strictly egocentric stuff of people who came of age during the boomer generation, influenced by the pop psychology quest of the times for self actualization.”

its not true, its “prescription”

Actually, what I wrote, just a few comments up the thread, is “I am simply pointing out that, yes, a revolutionary phase would plainly require the assertion of new transitory rule structures.  But the philosophical and theoretical area in which I conduct my own investigations describe a dispensation in which we, as Europe’s peoples, have a secure existence and are free to self-express and to destine.  That life does not require to be hedged about with prescriptions, moral or legal, except what is necessitous in Nature.”

I’m afraid your conceit could be disposed to sweep crucial issues aside, and will not suspend disbelief in the value of others contributions

My conviction is that a philosophical re-founding for our kind is wholly necessary, and that means the development of a “completely human and vitalistic body of thought” in succession to liberalism.  My conceit, as you put it, is that this is what I think and write for and about.

perhaps you think that everything beyond the psychologistic is “Jewish prescription”

From your OP:

Anti-racism is a machination conceived and promulgated by Jewish interests to take advantage of the Enlightenment’s objectivist prejudice against prejudice (prejudice against even necessary prejudice).

... an example of the Jewish prescription.  Not that this should need pointing out.

That means Aristotle, Plato and even Heidegger would be “Jewish.” ..perhaps Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume ...and the early Wittgenstein (lol) not Jewish

But in my last piece I wrote:

So we arrive at the social and political upheavals and uncertainties of modernity, and the great age of the unfettering of the will.  The principal early Enlightenment thinkers were all Christian.  None denied the existence of the Christian God.  They merely denied to the clergy any rational basis for the exercise of power over the secular life.

... At the very outset, Thomas Hobbes duly obliged in his Leviathan, published 1651, by introducing into the Western philosophical canon the principles of individual right and the equality of all men.  The future bi-axial form of liberal politics was clarified accordingly, guaranteeing that the long, long line of vestigially Judaic thinking about the gentile suffered no interruption.

So please don’t make stuff up.

I never said that Heidegger was self contained and sufficient.  He was not sufficiently connected with the biology of people. Authenticity would require more of that - hence, my attention to the Euro DNA nation.

And I noted at 56 above, “It should be an aim of our revolutionary phase to refine the population of a given white living space to a sufficiently high degree of relatedness for this perfectly natural benefit of de-moralisation to manifest itself.”

Of course, taking Heidegger forward is precisely what I am interested in.  We cannot rely on isostasy ... on the presumption that nothing foundational ideationally is needed ... that everything will work out right based on instinct and nothing else.  We cannot expect to muddle through.

Rather than acknowledge where your objections have been defeated

You have not at all understood the nature of this engagement.  I will not “defeat” you.  I will not do that.  I did not attack the (we must presume) late, great wintermute all those years ago when he came here to attack me, and I will not attack you today.


86

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:25 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:11 | #

  Because the post is about how I define crucial terms of our racial understanding, organization and defense.

So you except yourself from the conditions you apply to others?

No, this thread is about my terminological system, not about yours.

  whenever I answer your questions and defeat your contentions, you ignore it and carry on imperviously… trying to ignore the merit of what I say and to bring the discussion to your language game

I am trying to avoid bringing you down - such that I just asked you to police your own comment because I will not do so.  I will not respond in kind.

As I said. I know what I said. When I answer you soundly, you just ignore it.

  I can see that your language game is psycologistic - taking emergence of the “individual” out of context, interactive, historical and otherwise

The individual is not emergent.  For heavens sake!  What is authentic to us is unconcealed as what is false falls away, thus:

For heaven’s sake! You take a psychologistic unit of analysis. Proclaiming it not so does not make it not so!

  I would contend that awakening has a momentary, turning quality.  Most of all, I would say, it is the moment of detachment when something that might not be any more concrete than a humanising sense of the positive and affirming, which was forgotten and scarcely conceivable for a long time, holds itself out in front of the subject and invites appropriation.  For that is the passage out of identification with the personality – that part of us which is socially acquired and does not belong to us but to the world and to time.

Cartesian nonsense. We are not perfectly detached from the social nor should we aspire to be.

It is a shame that you would weigh down important matters with this psycho babble.

It is the kind of stuff that I might have thought important, cool and novel when I was 18.

  ... I suppose, if we were to use the Heideggerian terminology, we could note that dasein … “being there” … has something of the holy ghost about it, mediating between and perhaps even reconciling the subject as identity and the subject’s act of living as Being.  To mediate these is to pass beyond the turn and into presence.  That has a profound transforming effect, and that transformation is symbolised for the group in the person of the monarch.  This is all rather close to the god-king, a surviving example of which is the Emporer of Japan, who is held to be descended from the sun goddess and is the highest authority in the Shinto religion.  His role in heavenly affairs is not less important than that in affairs of the state.  His title Tennō means “heavenly sovereign”.

Ok. If you want to say the King or Emporer is a model of Midtdasein I don’t have a problem with that.

  Perhaps the most interesting European example, though, was the Führer.

I disagree. Hitler was not functioning in Praxis. His right wingishness, founded in scientism as it was, took him into inauthenticity and took his people out of midtdasein and into catastrophe.

The messianic devotional cult which surrounded him helps to explain the extraordinary connection and awakening effect that the person of Adolf Hitler had for ordinary Germans after 1933.

He had left cover, and an ideology that pandered to puerile females. Furthermore, anyone who objected in true authenticity would be crushed.

The German Messiah, of course, turned out to be false, and so did his model of Homo heroica.

Yes, as I said. He was false.

He died railing at the unwothiness of the German people,

Exactly, because he had inhuman, unbiologically sound, right wing expectations of them - beyond a basis in praxis and midtdasein.

having never comprehended that life is Nature’s means to her own subsistence, and cannot be more.

Well no, he was a bit too deep into non-human “nature” and thus scientistic in his application to the social being of Europeans.

In so much as weaponising the German people to smash their way to a more glorious German life exceeded Nature’s bounds

You can say that he exceeded nature’s bounds.

, the project would always collapse under the weight of its own inauthenticities – something which the Führer-redeemers in WN seem equally incapable of grasping.

I can agree with that.

  However, as far as it concerns awakening, Hitler’s example proves the efficacy of “a symbol of the group’s ascension to Being”.  Heidegger stressed that we think existentially when confronted by our mortality.  But the German people woke up - and, by any reasonable yardstick, spectacularly so - quite without such extremis.

It was a spectacular catastrophe, nothing to be sought out quite exactly again.

I still maintain that the refrain, “humans, like the rest of biological nature, are evolved for optimal levels of need satisfaction, not maximization, and is not gauged against lethal variables” is where he became not only insufficiently attuned to our social nature, but to biological nature - hence the toxic inauthenticity of Nazism.

This is what you characterise as “very much the strictly egocentric stuff of people who came of age during the boomer generation, influenced by the pop psychology quest of the times for self actualization.”

  its not true, its “prescription”

No, I wasn’t talking about Hitler. I was talking about your fixation on a psychological unit of analysis. It’s a drag that you think it is all important.

Actually, what I wrote, just a few comments up the thread, is “I am simply pointing out that, yes, a revolutionary phase would plainly require the assertion of new transitory rule structures.  But the philosophical and theoretical area in which I conduct my own investigations describe a dispensation in which we, as Europe’s peoples, have a secure existence and are free to self-express and to destine.

Well, I can probably agree with something like that and I didn’t disagree above.

That life does not require to be hedged about with prescriptions, moral or legal, except what is necessitous in Nature.”

This is just some kind of libertarian stuff, that is probably an expression of having been troubled by too much bureaucracy along the way, too much Fabian and Jewish stuff, nothing that I would prescribe.

  I’m afraid your conceit could be disposed to sweep crucial issues aside, and will not suspend disbelief in the value of others contributions

My conviction is that a philosophical re-founding for our kind is wholly necessary, and that means the development of a “completely human and vitalistic body of thought” in succession to liberalism.  My conceit, as you put it, is that this is what I think and write for and about.

Well, I am doing something quite the same, and do not interfere with you inasmuch as that is what you are up to, you just refuse to recognize it.

  perhaps you think that everything beyond the psychologistic is “Jewish prescription”

From your OP:

  Anti-racism is a machination conceived and promulgated by Jewish interests to take advantage of the Enlightenment’s objectivist prejudice against prejudice (prejudice against even necessary prejudice).

... an example of the Jewish prescription.  Not that this should need pointing out.

Ridiculous. “Anti-racism” and its Jewish prescription is not all that there is beyond the psychologistic.

  That means Aristotle, Plato and even Heidegger would be “Jewish.” ..perhaps Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume ...and the early Wittgenstein (lol) not Jewish

But in my last piece I wrote:

  So we arrive at the social and political upheavals and uncertainties of modernity, and the great age of the unfettering of the will.  The principal early Enlightenment thinkers were all Christian.  None denied the existence of the Christian God.  They merely denied to the clergy any rational basis for the exercise of power over the secular life.

Ok. I don’t disagree that Christianity played a part as forerunner to Cartesian detachment. It certainly did. But so did teleology, Stoicism and Epicureanism.

  ... At the very outset, Thomas Hobbes duly obliged in his Leviathan, published 1651, by introducing into the Western philosophical canon the principles of individual right and the equality of all men.  The future bi-axial form of liberal politics was clarified accordingly, guaranteeing that the long, long line of vestigially Judaic thinking about the gentile suffered no interruption.

So please don’t make stuff up.

I am not making stuff up. When you say that everything beyond the psychologistic is Jewish prescription, it barely requires examples in rebut: Plato’s dialogues, forms and teleology are not Jewish.

  I never said that Heidegger was self contained and sufficient.  He was not sufficiently connected with the biology of people. Authenticity would require more of that - hence, my attention to the Euro DNA nation.

And I noted at 56 above, “It should be an aim of our revolutionary phase to refine the population of a given white living space to a sufficiently high degree of relatedness for this perfectly natural benefit of de-moralisation to manifest itself.”

I can agree except for the idea that “morals” are necessarily bad and have but one definition which is somehow against fitness. Rather, to deny all place to morals is to go the route of scientism and the epistemological blunders of Nietzsche and Hitler.

Of course, taking Heidegger forward is precisely what I am interested in.  We cannot rely on isostasy ... on the presumption that nothing foundational ideationally is needed ... that everything will work out right based on instinct and nothing else.  We cannot expect to muddle through.

Alright. In a roundabout way you are agreeing with me to some extent, at least.

  Rather than acknowledge where your objections have been defeated

You have not at all understood the nature of this engagement.  I will not “defeat” you.  I will not do that.  I did not attack the (we must presume) late, great wintermute all those years ago when he came here to attack me, and I will not attack you today.

You are quite dismissive and I have answered your questions quite handily in places - in addition, the post contains very important points. I don’t say that you don’t have a brilliant mind and some important things to contribute, you do…nor would I try to undermine the gains that you’ve made in investigating emergence, with a close attention to the psychological perspective.

It is a valid step in a process but here’s a clue: it is not the authentic grounding of a sufficient worldview for European peoples.

 


87

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:38 | #

this thread is about my terminological system, not about yours.

Indeed, and one element in that is the critical analysis of texts to disclose meanings and motives.  So how about applying this element to your own commentary?  Is there some special reason why that is suddenly prohibited?

I answer you soundly, you just ignore it.

I have answered all that, in my judgement, is contentious and key.  If there are bits which you consider critically telling or important which I have passed over that would be because I do not consider them so.  As I said, it is not my purpose to disrespect you as you are disrespecting me.

You take a psychologistic unit of analysis.

So you keep saying.  The unit, however, is Man and all men; and the unit is Mind and all minds; and the unit is the identity of the present subject which is the true identity of the individual and of the people.  It is self-serving and disingenuous of you to so selectively associate the truth of Man and Mind and Identity with singular instances, and then declare them disqualified by reason of psychologism.  What is the personality but the creation of the social and the expressor of its creator?  Where is the social but in the personality, for personality is never atomised or individual.  Neither is there anything outside it. 

What you dislike, I guess, is the demotion of the social field of analysis, but that is not really what is happening.  In an identitarian system the social (or personality ... however you want to formulate it) just suffers from a substantially negative correlation to authenticity.  But as such, its ontology holds promise.  It has relation to Identity (a fundamental for a coherent nationalist philosophy), and does not stand uncritical and illiterate as ground to itself.

If there is anything useful in the unit of the social that is lost in the focal shift to personality, I can’t think what it might be.

Cartesian nonsense.

Obviously not Cartesian.  How about giving the labelling a rest.

We are not perfectly detached from the social ...

So substitute the personality ... the sum of the acquired ... the operative element in ordinary waking consciousness and in the sleep state ... for “we” and the sentence reads something like “Socially derived data are the formative component and enduring output of the human personality.  In analysing the first we interrogate the second.  In re-shaping the second, we remake the first.”

I was talking about your fixation on a psychological unit of analysis. It’s a drag that you think it is all important.

The identity is psychological.  Philosophy is psychological.  Actually, the world is psychological.  There is nothing which is not psychological, except the unit of psychological analysis - which does not exist except (psychologically) in your own mind.

You rely far too much on derogating and far too little on creative thought.

This is just some kind of libertarian stuff, that is probably an expression of having been troubled by too much bureaucracy along the way, too much Fabian and Jewish stuff, nothing that I would prescribe.

As I explained earlier, in theory at least, the more authentically identitarian a people becomes, the more freedom in being it knows; and the more freedom in being it knows, the more naturally moral is its lived life; and the more naturally moral is its lived life, the less moralisation it requires.

This has nothing to do with liberalism or Judaism.  Do you see now?

so did teleology, Stoicism and Epicureanism.

I thought you had some sympathy with the Stoicism and Epicureanism?  Teleology is really just what comes after ontology.  False gods and false goals notwithstanding - get the basic analytics wrong and the rest will go the same way.  It’s the story of the last fifteen hundred years of the European life.  When, in all that time, did those who had the basics sufficiently right ever predominate over the rest?

When you say that everything beyond the psychologistic is Jewish prescription, it barely requires examples in rebut: Plato’s dialogues, forms and teleology are not Jewish.

You are mistaken if you think I have said that.

It is a valid step in a process but here’s a clue: it is not the authentic grounding of a sufficient worldview for European peoples.

I think Heidegger already did enough ... already struck a sufficiently telling blow for authenticity.  It does, however, now require us to shift the focus from being to identity, and for three reasons: first, the prior-ness of identity and the appropriateness of being as relation justify it; second, identity has very much more traction in political terms than being; third, identity is the political ne plus ultra of this fateful European age.


88

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 20:58 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:38 | #

  this thread is about my terminological system, not about yours.

Indeed, and one element in that is the critical analysis of texts to disclose meanings and motives.  So how about applying this element to your own commentary?  Is there some special reason why that is suddenly prohibited?

First of all, it is not only a matter of textual analysis, but also lifetime experience - experience also with people in both ordinary language and in some significant scholarly attention. I don’t try to prohibit critical understanding of what I propose. But contentiousness is another matter - I don’t want to waste time with an absolute unwillingness to suspend disbelief in the value of anything that I say. Part of my experience is of your contentiousness. You are simply out to destroy and debunk and “defeat” anything that seems to you as if it may have once passed through an academic department paying attention to a social concern and analysis. For you, apparently, the idea is to “win and defeat” this kind of “academic” analysis and replace it with your psychological stuff, not to understand what is true and useful in it. You will not stop applying that kind of radical skepticism in order to replace it with a discussion of your horseshit - and I am calling it that because I am irritated by what you are doing - it isn’t personal, it is a matter of obstruction to important consideration. You may think what you are doing is cool, good, new, but it isn’t - and the reasons to not apply a singular unwillingness to suspend disbelief are well understood - it is the stuff of Cartesian destruction, of what modernity and all its foibles were founded upon.

Contentiousness is to disagree with something, to not suspend disbelief before you understand what is being said and why. I recognize that you are never going to acknowledge the worth and significance of much of anything said here. You are inconsolable by the fact that I don’t do this to you, I do suspend disbelief in the validity of what you say, inasmuch as it is a part of a process, but that is apparently not enough for you… a thread that was meant to set out terms as I define them becomes, for you, “an opportunity” to discuss your terms -  so when you do this to me and try to divert the thread into your psychological stuff, I don’t lose patience, I have lost patience.

  I answer you soundly, you just ignore it.

I have answered all that, in my judgement, is contentious and key.  If there are bits which you consider critically telling or important which I have passed over that would be because I do not consider them so.  As I said, it is not my purpose to disrespect you as you are disrespecting me.

There are several places that I have answered you! And if you didn’t consider it so, then I am afraid that I can forgive myself for losing patience. I am being disrespectful where you are being disrespectful.

  You take a psychologistic unit of analysis.

So you keep saying.  The unit, however, is Man and all men; and the unit is Mind and all minds; and the unit is the identity of the present subject which is the true identity of the individual and of the people.

Sure. And “you will teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony” ... a Coca-Cola commercial.

It is self-serving and disingenuous of you to so selectively associate the truth of Man and Mind and Identity with singular instances, and then declare them disqualified by reason of psychologism.

Call it what you want then ..if you think I am being disingenuous. How about I am not especially interested in this project of the universal “truth of Man and Mind and Identity.”

Are you not taking a thread that was put up as occasion to discuss my terinology and trying to direct it rather to this? Yes, you are and you call me disingenuous. And Yes, you have taken a psychological unit of analysis -  now shifting from attention to it, to its third person perspective in full panorama, toward the “universal mind” ...

What is the personality but the creation of the social and the expressor of its creator?  Where is the social but in the personality, for personality is never atomised or individual.  Neither is there anything outside it.

Well you are stealthily trying to say now that you are taking social issues into account, because you realize that you are losing otherwise, but you are still trying to find a way in for this thing you call “personality.”

What you dislike, I guess, is the demotion of the social field of analysis,

What I dislike is your constant attempt to demote it, and what you are doing is projection of your dislike of the rightful demotion of a psychological unit of analysis - you don’t know what your are talking about and you treat a social unit of analysis as if it is mutually exclusive to anything else and entirely invalid - when a social unit is not only more than valid, it is more important as a unit of analysis for what we are up against.

but that is not really what is happening.

Yes, your trying to “win” and “destroy” things simply because you have not been their purveyor, is what is happening.

In an identitarian system the social (or personality ... however you want to formulate it)

Well, I DO NOT WANT TO FORMULATE IT AS THE FUCKING “PERSONALITY” and it is not a matter of just however I’d like to formulate it.

just suffers from a substantially negative correlation to authenticity.

It is on a feedback loop with the corporeal - a corporeal self, without social systemic and historical dimension is inauthentic as well. And the social group has its authentic form as well.

But as such, its ontology holds promise.  It has relation to Identity (a fundamental for a coherent nationalist philosophy), and does not stand uncritical and illiterate as ground to itself.

It sounds like you are tying to retool things that I’ve said in your own clunky way, but slightly different so as not to have to acknowledge the merit of what I’ve said.

If there is anything useful in the unit of the social that is lost in the focal shift to personality, I can’t think what it might be.

Oh my fucking god. If you want to talk in terms of “personality” you go right ahead. I am not interested.

Yes, it is Cartesian nonsense.

If you wanted to talk in terms of autobiography, that would be worthwhile, but you don’t…so just write your posts about “personality” and I will not criticize them, I will work around it.

Obviously not Cartesian.  How about giving the labelling a rest.

It obviously is Cartesian, but I will give you a rest when the Post is about your terminology. This post is about mine.

  We are not perfectly detached from the social ...

So substitute the personality ... the sum of the acquired ...

How about NO, I will not do that.

the operative element in ordinary waking consciousness and in the sleep state ...

I simply do not have patience for this thought world of yours that derives of psychological texts that may have seemed like ground breaking thought in the 1950s and 60s.

You want me, and anyone else concerned to take a quantum leap backwards. Forget it. It’s old and was never any good when it was new.

for “we” and the sentence reads something like “Socially derived data are the formative component and enduring output of the human personality.

There is an emergent, corporeal, autobigraphical, individual aspect…but it is unhelpful, even to it, as such, to try to absolutize its detachment from the social in such a clunky reification as “the personalty”

In analysing the first we interrogate the second.  In re-shaping the second, we remake the first.”

Again, you are playing catch up with interactive thought, trying to rebrand your terminology with new clothes. But they don’t fit well.

  I was talking about your fixation on a psychological unit of analysis. It’s a drag that you think it is all important.

The identity is psychological.  Philosophy is psychological.

Absolute bullshit. I guess you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Go on talking as you will. I have to work around you.

Actually, the world is psychological.

And you try to make it true that this is not Cartesian nonsense by telling me to “give it a rest” ?

Sorry, but its true.

There is nothing which is not psychological, except the unit of psychological analysis - which does not exist except (psychologically) in your own mind.

In your mind, maybe.

You rely far too much on derogating and far too little on creative thought.

Bullshit. I have lost patience, especially now that I know where you are coming from and what you are trying to do. Your project is not only of limited utility, but it is positively obstructive of more important matters.

I will work around you.

  This is just some kind of libertarian stuff, that is probably an expression of having been troubled by too much bureaucracy along the way, too much Fabian and Jewish stuff, nothing that I would prescribe.

As I explained earlier, in theory at least, the more authentically identitarian a people becomes, the more freedom in being it knows; and the more freedom in being it knows, the more naturally moral is its lived life; and the more naturally moral is its lived life, the less moralisation it requires.

Paradigmatic conservatism can abide that: If the borders and boundaries are secure, however they are secure - I don’t think it will happen by the invisible hand but however it happens - then that kind of individual liberty within the bonds and borders is fine with me…I’ve said that many times.

This has nothing to do with liberalism or Judaism.  Do you see now?

Liberalism is a natural component of evolution - for males to reach beyond the group bounds and for females as well, to incite competition as such; and to not want to be burdened by what is perceived to be poorer performing members of what is proposed in partnership by the ingroup.

But just because it is natural does not mean that it is altogether good. It is good and necessary to have its capacity, of course (we’d be insects otherwise) but it is not only good. As we know, can be quite to the contrary. Your injunction against any suggestion of group interests as “prescription” is clunky - no solution, just more Cartesian shit.

  so did teleology, Stoicism and Epicureanism.

I thought you had some sympathy with the Stoicism and Epicureanism?

I do.

Teleology is really just what comes after ontology.

That might be what I’d call topoi and working hypotheses, conceptual frameworks ...that can be too. Hermeneutics allows for that perspective end. If it does not take into account the fact of interactive and the social dimension, however, it would be an epistemological blunder.

False gods and false goals notwithstanding - get the basic analytics wrong and the rest will go the same way.  It’s the story of the last fifteen hundred years of the European life.  When, in all that time, did those who had the basics sufficiently right ever predominate over the rest?

I suspect a bit of English patriotism there, but imperialism’s parasitic expenditure of worldly resource, human capital and ways in modernity has run its course. Yes, modernity has done marvelous things, it has also visited vast destruction and waste upon mankind. It is time for the White Post Modern turn - I’m sorry that you will not take it, but I suppose that you are just too proud, too competitive and too egocentric - even if some of your English compatriots were central to its formulation.

When you say that everything beyond the psychologistic is Jewish prescription, it barely requires examples in rebut: Plato’s dialogues, forms and teleology are not Jewish.

You are mistaken if you think I have said that.

You have suggested as much.

  Attention to the individual unit of analysis, with it, the corporeal self, is a valid step in a process but here’s a clue: it is not sufficient of itself to the authentic grounding of a worldview for European peoples.

I think Heidegger already did enough ... already struck a sufficiently telling blow for authenticity.  It does, however, now require us to shift the focus from being to identity, and for three reasons: first, the prior-ness of identity and the appropriateness of being as relation justify it; second, identity has very much more traction in political terms than being; third, identity is the political ne plus ultra of this fateful European age.

There is no contradiction and conflict between midtdasein and identity.


89

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:55 | #

In fact, your project of trying to deny the reality of social group classifications has been tried - by John Locke and it has been a catastrophic illustration of how Cartesianism unfolds.

American propositionalism is founded on its basis and it has spawned a popular culture with no regard for the social realm, only “the self actualization” of the ‘winners” ..no regard for the implications and impact on human ecological systems.

That is why my model of humanity looks after a “prescriptive” 13: Retooling of Maslow’s pop psychology hierarchy of needs to “self actualization” and advises that it be taken into a basis in socialization (optimally circulating in praxis as central for European social groups), which would ensconce being (midtdasein), routine, craft and sacred practice, self actualization (farther reaches of special personal quest).


90

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:50 | #

GW, you need to cut ties with arrogant, prissy sperg. 

Bring Bowery back into the fold, and if that means deleting comments to protect his fragile ego, then so be it.


91

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:58 | #

Captainchaos, you need to re-read the thread..

Just because I don’t genuflect before your daddy Adolf does not make me a “sperg” and it certainly does not make what I have to say less valuable than psychologism and scienitsm.

I.e., get bent..

Furthermore, Bowery is not banished, as you can see by his comment (which itself argues against scientism and the radical skepticism that GW has been deploying in this thread).

There might be people behind the scenes who are trying to work on GW, who have Jesus, Hitler, scientific and Jewish motives in mind….but they can’t hold up to the truth.


92

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:04 | #

Part of my experience is of your contentiousness.

When I ask you to examine your own commentary it is precisely to uncover the contentiousness of your own personality.  Why is it I have had to make regular appeals for eclecticism here?  Why is it one-time regular visitors such as Just Sayin’ pop up on the threads to deliver their warnings to us?  What is it CC - not your average peacenik, I admit, but a good and true friend of this blog - is telling you that you are not listening to?

Maybe it’s something in the Aristotelian water, but the only two overtly Aristotelian intellectuals I have ever known - you and Graham Lister - both thrive on contentiousness.  He, however, is self-aware and had the moral sensibility and courage to come to my recent Bowery/Rota thread and make a low and gracious bow (I hope James saw that).

I accept that the extreme selective pressure, so to speak, placed on racial loyalty in our time will result in a high renegade factor amongst us.  We are righteously angry, too - angry as hell, actually.  Of course we are.  Some of that will leak into our relations with one another.  This I accept.  But I do not accept that thinking nationalists should lack all self-awareness and self-criticism.  These things are absolutely fundamental to a certain level of intelligence, just on the basis that a wider range of vision is native to us.  If we have a blind spot where self-interrogation should be, we will certainly conform to every bad personal pattern of behaviour and become a damned nuisance to all and sundry.

I have tried to tell you many times that my personal focus is not where yours is.  So, for example, the academic papers I choose to download are existentialist in kind - not exclusively Heideggerian, but mostly so.  They are not marxist or freudian or libertarian, or social constructionist or communicationist for that matter.  That does not imply contentiousness on my part towards marxists or freudians, or libertarians, or social constructionists and communicationists.  It implies a certain husbanding of my time and intellectual resources.  Perhaps later I will become more interested in marxists and freudians, libertarians, social constructionists and communicationists.  But I am not so today.

Do I think that these other categories of the Western canon are fundamentally unworthy?  Do I agree with MH that something went wrong with Plato, generating a flight from pure ontology into what he viewed as metaphysics and thence epistemology?  Do you?  Are you that much of a revolutionary?  It does not appear so.

Put away the hectoring tone.  Accept that you must persuade.  You cannot prescribe for anyone - in this place, least of all me.


93

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:31 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:04 | #

  Part of my experience is of your contentiousness.

When I ask you to examine your own commentary it is precisely to uncover the contentiousness of your own personality.

I am not contentious. You are.

Why is it I have had to make regular appeals for eclecticism here?

This thread is about a particular set of ideas. It is not “the alt right big tent”, with its Jews, Its Hitler, its Jesus, its scientism…I was asked to present my terminology and I have done that. I have answered your questions when they bore upon my terminology.

Why is it one-time regular visitors such as Just Sayin’ pop up on the threads to deliver their warnings to us?

You know why. Because they advocate Hitler, Jesus, scientism or Jews.

Just sayin’ made a ridiculous and unrue accusation in his last comment, obviously motivated for one of those 4 causes.

  What is it CC - not your average peacenik, I admit, but a good and true friend of this blog - is telling you that you are not listening to?

Because CC is into Hitler. You are the one not listening GW.

Maybe it’s something in the Aristotelian water, but the only two overtly Aristotelian intellectuals I have ever known - you and Graham Lister - both thrive on contentiousness.

No, GW, you are the contentious one. I suspended disbelief and acknowledged the value of your last thread, a hermeneutic which traced the Jewish infuence and cause of estrangement through Christianity. I always try to show appreciation for your work, there is almost always something good, if not great in what you do. Sadly, you do not do the same for me. You do not try to see the good and utility in what I do..though it would not be hard.

There was a part of your last piece which was flawed and I called attention to that and explained why - that’s not being contentious.

If Uh, Daniel Antinora, CC and Bowery are trying to angle you against Aristotle, Graham and I, that would be very foolish, dubiously motivated encouragement to take from their part ...as I said, a pit fall of having right wing cheerleaders.

Although I must say, Bowery’s last posting, though a bit dated and awkward in some ways, I can see it as an argument on behalf of my positions and against the radical skepticism that you are doing.

He, however, is self-aware and had the moral sensibility and courage to come to my recent Bowery/Rota thread and make a low and gracious bow (I hope James saw that).

Good.

I think I have deleted only two CC comments ever - one because he called Kumiko a Jap and asked her how she got any real cock living in England. Another because he called me a sperg and began defining my terms in a stupid and distracting way before I got under way.

I accept that the extreme selective pressure, so to speak, placed on racial loyalty in our time will result in a high renegade factor amongst us.  We are righteously angry, too - angry as hell, actually.  Of course we are.  Some of that will leak into our relations with one another.  This I accept.  But I do not accept that thinking nationalists should lack all self-awareness and self-criticism.

I am self aware and self critical. When you say that I have not answered your questions, I believe it is incumbent upon you to go back and see that I have. ..for you to be self aware and self critical enough to understand my frustration of having to repeat myself…

These things are absolutely fundamental to a certain level of intelligence, just on the basis that a wider range of vision is native to us.  If we have a blind spot where self-interrogation should be, we will certainly conform to every bad personal pattern of behaviour and become a damned nuisance to all and sundry.

I have explained myself. Kumiko has said that she will read the thread and weigh-in. Perhaps her perspective will help.

I have tried to tell you many times that my personal focus is not where yours is.

I say the same thing, but I don’t try to deny and dismiss the validity of yours. I try to see the value in your ideas and support them where I can. On the other hand, you try to deny the validity and significance of mine, calling it “prescriptive” or whatever you will.

So, for example, the academic papers I choose to download are existentialist in kind - not exclusively Heideggerian, but mostly so.  They are not marxist or freudian or libertarian, or social constructionist or communicationist for that matter.  That does not imply contentiousness on my part towards marxists or freudians, or libertarians, or social constructionists and communicationists.  It implies a certain husbanding of my time and intellectual resources.  Perhaps later I will become more interested in marxists and freudians, libertarians, social constructionists and communicationists.  But I am not so today.

Its a clever thing to try to do to put me together with Freud, Libertarians and Marxist, but that’s not what I do.

Do I think that these other categories of the Western canon are fundamentally unworthy?  Do I agree with MH that something went wrong with Plato, generating a flight from pure ontology into what he viewed as metaphysics and thence epistemology?  Do you?  Are you that much of a revolutionary?  It does not appear so.

And you call me insulting? and wonder why I am getting angry? I don’t fucking believe this. I have perhaps said in a million places that Plato’s teleology was one of the key onsets to Cartesianism.

Put away the hectoring tone.  Accept that you must persuade.  You cannot prescribe for anyone - in this place, least of all me.

I am not hectoring, I am being hectored, that is why I’ve been angry, because I am being asked to repeat myself ad nauseum and what I say, even when I answer direct questions and requests - such as define my terms - it is ignored, straw men are presented and then I am supposed to discuss your terminology. Obviously the request was a set up, it was thought you were going to be able to take pot shots at my ideas and knock them down. When you didn’t succeed, you just kept trying to ignore and deny what I say and replace it with exclusive attention to your language game. As you try to say that everything beyond “pure emergence” and mood signals to inhabit some sort of libertarian la la land is “prescription” and off limits, I have to conclude that you are a wailing modernist and I have to work around you in hopes that you will one day understand where you are going wrong and come to see value what you try to debunk

It is a bit tangential, but let me go with model term #14: “marginals”

The guys at TRS, the “alt right’s” “The Daily Shoah”, said that term really “triggered” them.. “because it means that these people are ‘losers’ and ‘unwanted”...

I got news for them, they are marginals, as is everybody from time to time within human systems, including our greatest geniuses - that makes them marginal by definition.

Marginal perspectives are crucial to know where the social systemic shoe is pinching and where it is in need of homeostatic correction (as opposed to runaway) for the human ecology.


94

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 06:58 | #

Daniel, what do you think Dasien, in Heidegger’s usage, signifies?

Further, how would you reconcile false Dasein to “midtdasein”, ie, what transformational process would accomplish this?


95

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:22 | #

You do not try to see the good and utility in what I do.

I hope I have always made it crystal clear that you are an asset of high value.  But I am sometimes privately disturbed by your certainty and your monocratic style.  In my response to your first ever, very detailed and multi-faceted post here, re-evaluating Maslow, I said the following:

On the question of being and the social, I would like to re-state a real and very obvious fact, which is that the content of the social, as an a priori field into which we are thrown, is made of the inter-action of human personalities.  The personality takes its form from the negotiation of the constant rain of temporalising life influences, which impact upon us from birth to death, with what is of nature in us.  This negotiated “something” is then thrown into the world as a passive actor characterised by absence, mechanicity and suggestibility.

This is the human condition ...

So the divide was there at the beginning, between an ontologically (not simply psychogically) derived identitarian form of critical enquiry, revolutionary in its engagement with the present dispensation, and open to development by others, and an academically-derived critical social analysis, evolutionary in engagement, and presented as a finished product and the only way forward.  Thenceforward it becomes a matter of how one manages the divide.

I am more than content for this blog to host multiple projects.  It is not up to me to declare which vision must prevail.  But where there is conflict between the projects there must, in the absence of a resolution, be toleration.


96

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:38 | #

GW, this response was rendered having only seen the comment (#94), the one before last and not yet having seen #95, but it serves to answer your misunderstanding in that comment as well.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:58 | #

Daniel, what do you think Dasien, in Heidegger’s usage, signifies?

Further, how would you reconcile false Dasein to “midtdasein”, ie, what transformational process would accomplish this?

Firstly, there is a difference between Dasein and Midtdasein in Heidegger’s usage and in mine.

I take from Heidegger for now only a simple form to serve a practical purpose to get a across its against Cartesianism and with that against anti-racism (anti the group mediating gauge between objective and subjective) meaning and advice.

By Dasein, I mean a non-Cartesian “there being” to direct attention away from a stymied detachment from connection, rattling within one’s head, looking for two points to connect or absolute points beyond nature. Dasein as “there being” naturally engages one in a sensible process of thought directed outside of strict enclosure in one’s head an into the world then..there..

More, Heidegger connects the word a great deal to Caring.

What does one care about? One Cares about their relative concerns.

In the end, in Heidegger’s terms, that would be one’s folk and their historical and temporal place. Heidegger was not biological enough; though he is directing attention in many ways toward interaction, it is still a bit stiff. It isn’t that emergence is wrong, and that Heidegger is wrong in his effort to uncover, to “evince” what is emergent, but in slowly meandering through dasein, unfolding and taking to heart what is essential, most interesting .... one begins to further engage into the world we are thrown…interactively and to have reflexive effects on people who provide feedback both more kindred and more alien… and through this interacting, the being of the folk (the relative group), the people with whom we identify, emerges…. then forms a sort of boundary line classification which is non-Cartesian and relative (in a good, balancing sense) in ensconcing and gauging our interests in praxis…applying objective and subjecive for their turns to this process of fleshing out authentic, relative interests ..as opposed to Cartesian estrangement or estrangement of affectations imposed by the other.

“Mind”, if you want to call it that (and I don’t, I prefer thinking or “thankian” if you will) emerges then as not only something in the head, or something in the head in aspiration to a point beyond nature, but as engaged in relative, social interactive interests and relative interactive interests period, it comes into engaged process with the social of praxis and natural world of both pleroma and creatura; but authentically gauged in relative interess as such, not estranged in Cartesian detachment or affectations imposed by the other, the they.


So let me now address this too:

So the divide was there at the beginning, between an ontologically (not simply psychogically) derived identitarian form of critical enquiry, revolutionary in its engagement with the present dispensation, and open to development by others, and an academically-derived critical social analysis, evolutionary in engagement, and presented as a finished product and the only way forward.  Thenceforward it becomes a matter of how one manages the divide.

This is a bunch of shit and not true in what you say of me, in particular. The only thing derived is the need you perceive to have a “phoney academic foil” to act against. You’ve ignored once again and try to bury what I’ve said priorly - that experience plays a large part in what I say..and I will add now that I am very critical of what comes out of academia.

Then you try to appropriate from me what is good and fine - the idea that emergence goes beyond and into interaction and say that it is your idea and not mine…and that my ideas are not open to development…although I will say, because the premises are more carefully thought than yours, it is more a matter of elaboration than transformation - the terminology from that first Maslow critique has been since refined - in The Dark Side of Self Actualization - but the basic ideas behind it were sound then and remain so.

If you read again this comment from the beginning you will see that what you are accusing me of is not true. You’ve got to get over your big ego and its requirement to show up an academic foil, to dismiss what they say and replace it entirely; and thus the convenient misapprehension of me as someone proposing ideas opposed to your interests. Your disposition long ago should have been in alliance and not in such disingenuous criticism of my efforts. I am not “grounded” in the social, I am oriented in the social and through interaction…whereupon co-evolution is internally related to deal with certain facts that cannot be ignored, others that are hard to perceive, but helpful if known.


97

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 20:54 | #

But as I have said before, a key trick - and it is a typical reversal of terminological logic on the part of Jewish academia - was in regard to the concept of “marginals”: i.e., to put across the idea that “marginals” were those from outside the group that needed to be included within the group as opposed to marginals being those who are already within the group but for the time being at least, further out toward the boundaries - the idea of requesting accounts from them being that these marginals have perspective on the system and worthwhile feedback as to its maintenance.

Now, of course the idea, even in the straight forward, benign, non-Jewish form, can be taken too far to one extreme or another - on the one hand, there can be short sighted and unnecessarily cruel ostracism and on the other hand, there can be too much sympathy for people who are not functioning well which burdens the system - either through the passive introduction of their lack of function and its genetic incorporation or their resentment and antagonism to those who are functioning better rather innocently even if accountably.


98

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 03:13 | #

I often feel like a Kshatriya who is observing two Brahmins fighting each other, so I’m reluctant to step in since I don’t know if my outlook will rise to the level that you two are discussing at.

When I think of the situation at hand, I’m often thinking of the indigenous people of Kamchatka and Siberia, so I’ll apply the logic I use there, here, and see if it is translatable.

All peoples have the desire to exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic development and to maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions, this is part of the drive to governmentalise. But where is the site of this governmentalisation? In the material realm, of course. And so philosophy must be about the material, which means that philosophy has to be linked to the sciences.

But how did philosophy come to exist? It had to be after humanity discovered mathematics. It was then modified after physics and geography came into play. The final modification came when history was also folded into philosophy.

So, building upwards from the bottom:

A. Class and ethnic positions (yes, alleles are an economic factor - evolution after all did select on the basis of the aptitude to fulfil particular tasks necessary to survival in the geographical domain of the inhabitant, which the market then grades people on) are practised through the vehicles and tools (ecclesiastical, ethical, juridical, political, aesthetics) of mutually antagonistic world views: For example, bourgeois (idealism), versus proletarian and peasant (materialist), or in the ethnic domain say, white Russian (rentier) versus Eastern Siberian (worker, peasant, nomad), and so on. These may sometimes overlap cleanly, creating a neat alignment that is called ‘racialised-class’, or ‘classised-race’.

B. World views are erected and defined in the realm of theory (which constitutes the innermost wall of hegemony, the pyramid of the mind), by philosophy. Philosophy represents class and ethnic struggle in theory. Philosophy is therefore inherently political because it is about pre-negotiating how power ‘ought’ to be directed downward into the material world. The esoteric is the shadow of the exoteric which has constructive-or-destructive potential in physical reality.

C. Philosophy comes into existence as soon as we acquire or are given the capacity for science, in other words, as soon as a physical realm for the practice and testing of theory exists. If this is lacking, then there are only world views. The difference between (1) the mission and (2) the contour of the battlefield with regards to philosophy has to be made clear here. The mission of the presently-subaltern groups is to bring materialism to be dominant over idealism. In the most simple terms, to have concrete issues of economics, alleles, and class, dominate the idealist speculative hagiographies of the opposition and expose their falseness. The main battlefield in philosophy takes place on the bridges and waterways between scientific knowledge and ideology. The battle to determine in what way something should be understood and what it ‘ought’ to mean. Idealist philosophies enter at a disadvantage and find themselves having to exploit the sciences to try to validate positions they already had, whereas materialist philosophies are the reverse. Philosophical struggle is therefore a part of class war and ethnic struggle, or both simultaneously in cases where they align.

D. Historical Materialism (emphasis on the first word in that term is crucial) is the most innovate element that enables all of this to be possible, because the social sciences incorporating the ability to transpose between different historical epochs while tracking the maintenance of discrete classes and ethnic groups and the adaptations they made in order to preserve (or attempt to preserve) their positions in physical reality, enables us to know whose interest a philosophy represents in theory. It enables us to match a philosophy to a world view.

This then enables us to uphold and carry forward counter-system philosophies, and if the situation is right and correct ground preparations are made (war of position), then it can be joined with class and ethnic organisation and turned into a political movement which catches like a wildfire. At that stage, philosophy is no longer interpreting the world, but is in fact actively changing the world through the unification of theory and practice, which is ethno-racial and/or class warfare (war of manoeuvre).

Tell me if you both agree with this.


99

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:59 | #

Kumiko, thank you.  I will respond a little later.  But I need to press Daniel on something right now.

Daniel,

By Dasein, I mean a non-Cartesian “there being” to direct attention away from a stymied detachment from connection, rattling within one’s head, looking for two points to connect or absolute points beyond nature. Dasein as “there being” naturally engages one in a sensible process of thought directed outside of strict enclosure in one’s head an into the world then..there..

OK, not exactly right, but the gist of something is there.  Let’s clean it up and say that, in the Cartesian version, the accuracy of representation between Mind and the truth of a thing is determined by the degree of commonality or correspondence between the representation and the thing.  There is immediately a problem of the judgement for this model, since the only basis for judging accuracy is the representation one is judging for accuracy!  Nothing more of the thing itself is known.  Cartesian epistemology, then, is dangerously self-referential, and that applies to the Cartesian sum as well as its cogito ... to what the model can say about the subject.  Subjectivity truly is a chalk circle.

To break this, Heidegger proposed that every thing from a single particle to the universe has a being of its own and, therefore, a truth thereof which discloses itself to an action or state or site (depending on one’s interpretation) called Dasein.  Now, to overcome the difficulty of representation in the Mind, because thought, emotion and sensation are each, in their own way, representational, Hiedegger proposed essential thinking as the mind-activity which is active in Dasein’s way of seeing what is disclosed.

This isn’t just a detail of philosophical thinking which can be fitted into some other scheme to bulk it up or make it more sexy.  This is a completely revolutionary model which overturns literally everything, and a foundation for a new way of living in its light.

My second question:

How would you reconcile false Dasein to “midtdasein”, ie, what transformational process would accomplish this?

... went unanswered.  How about having a try?


100

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:24 | #

My second question:

  How would you reconcile false Dasein to “midtdasein”, ie, what transformational process would accomplish this?

... went unanswered.  How about having a try?

It didn’t go unanswered, it was in the part now headed by a bold caption below.

There is something good in your across the board emergentism…and that would be a feel for the thorough Caring of Dasein

But, the aspects of Dasein that have been important as I’ve seen it (and since that is what this post is about, its valid to say) are firstly “there-being” ..thereby taking one out of detached, Cartesian estrangement, and into engagement, then secondly into the emergent gauge of relative Caring.

..and of course the subjective must be an entering point in this process: if one does not see how engagement serves one’s personal interests, they will not be interested and will not Care. ..nevertheless, we are subjects in relatively caring relation.

The second question of yours is good, but I did answer it - upon the process of this there being Caring engagement we are transformed from a Cartesian world view - through engagement and relative caring we come to a world view based in Praxis - a relative existential gauge in which we are ensconced between the objective and subjective estrangement.

We can add to that your vivifying of internal relation - its very good.

Concomitant with “there being” is Caring. What does one care about? They care about their relative interests. In this engaged interest our world view is transformed from Cartesian objective - subjective relation and taken into the world of Praxis - our relative interests - i.e., being amidst and identifying with [midtdasein] our folk and their perspective..historical and temporal.

Hopefully that will help you to follow the part below the bold caption which I thought (still do think) answers the question. Though it helps that I added the subjective aspect - I forgot about it, shying away perhaps for having been flouted for having taken that little bit from Habermas.

Firstly, there is a difference between Dasein and Midtdasein in Heidegger’s usage and in mine.

I take from Heidegger for now only a simple form to serve a practical purpose to get across its being against Cartesianism and with that against anti-racism (anti the group mediating gauge between objective and subjective) meaning and advice to center world view in relative praxis instead.

By Dasein, I mean a non-Cartesian “there being” to direct attention away from a stymied detachment from connection, rattling within one’s head, looking for two points to connect or absolute points beyond nature. Dasein as “there being” naturally engages one in a sensible process of thought directed outside of strict enclosure in one’s head an into the world then..there..

More, Heidegger connects the word a great deal to Caring.

The process where the Cartesian world view is transformed to Midtdasein - a non Cartesian perspective there being amidst one’s folk (praxis):

There being engages us with what we have relative concern for.

What does one care about? In most broad, thus authentic existential terms, one Cares about their relative concerns….beginning with subjective interest. One must be able to see how their subjective interests are served in order to care about engagement.

In the end, in Heidegger’s terms, that would lead one to one’s folk and their historical and temporal place. Heidegger was not biological enough, but he is directing attention in many ways toward interaction, while still a bit stiff. It isn’t that emergence is wrong, and that Heidegger is wrong in his effort to uncover, to “evince” what is emergent, but in slowly meandering through dasein, unfolding and taking to heart what is essential, most interesting .... one begins to further engage into the world we are thrown…interactively and to have reflexive effects on people who provide feedback both more kindred and more alien… and through this interacting, the being of the folk (the relative group), the people with whom we identify, emerges….midtdasein ...our subjective concerns are ensconced, identifying with a folk and its view which then forms a sort of boundary line classification which is non-Cartesian and relative (in a good, balancing sense), ensconcing and gauging our interests in praxis…applying objective and subjective for their turns to this process of fleshing out authentic, relative interests ..as opposed to Cartesian estrangement or estrangement of affectations imposed by the other.

“Mind”, if you want to call it that (and I don’t, I prefer thinking or “thankian” if you will) emerges then as not only something in the head, or something in the head in aspiration to a point beyond nature, but as engaged in relative, social interactive interests and relative interactive interests period, it comes into engaged process with the social of praxis and natural world of both pleroma and creatura; but authentically gauged in relative interests as such, not estranged in Cartesian detachment or affectations imposed by the other, the they.


101

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 07:44 | #

adding..and of course the subjective must be an entering point in this process: if one does not see how engagement serves one’s personal interests, they will not be interested and will not Care. Nevertheless, we are subjects in relatively caring relation.

...and then of course there is the calming reliability and coherence of the objective, its measurements and such.

Hence my still absurd penchant for paying attention to ball scores and statistics - rooting for the Whites and against the blacks and Puerto Ricans, of course.


102

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 08:40 | #

Before I turn to Kumiko’s questions, I’ve have these few points in mind.

Not only do I see it as central to any worthwhile philosophical endeavor to center us in the praxis of our particular people, but that hermeneutics and social constructionism are corollary means.

How does hermeneutics come into play with emergentism? Well as interaction and historically and temporally protracted systems are emergent as well, it would not only be a part, but would actually facilitate a more authentic world view in connection with those relative interests.

Hermeneutics is based on the idea of calibration and feedback. It doesn’t only expect it, it is an engaged process which seeks it out. Thus, if I am proposing “prescriptions” as GW says, I welcome corrections where they should be made on behalf of emergentism, for one key thing (I think GW has a good point to focus on emergentism, I don’t object to it -  his description of Dasein as such in comment 99 is excellent. I will take it to heart for sure.... it is only lacking to the extent that it is removed entirely from interaction and a movement toward a basis in praxis). At times I have sought to reign things in and refine terminology on the basis of GW’s skepticism ...  I had thought that he was a little more disposed to suspend disbelief than he apparently is - the problem that I came upon is that, well, while I expect corrective feedback, I don’t expect everything that I say, especially where I know that its good, to be summarily dismissed in an attempt to annihilate it.

He might stop doing that if he finally trusts that we are after the same ends. He should, because we are.

I defend the value of social constructionism precisely because it

1. Takes a human centric perspective, and particularly as it facilitates a relative perspective, centered from a particular group (exactly what the YKW in their “anti racism” don’t want us to do), viz. an orientation in its praxis - in further preference that the classification be based on biological, genetic groups both in genus and species; and politicized on their basis as well, nationally and regionally.

2. For the matter of agency that it sees in this human perspective.

On the one hand, you can literally construct and reconsruct things, including your people, with others.

On the other hand, where you cannot just construct things, you can at least have a modicum of determination in how facts come to count.

Again, these things are true and important.

Still you cannot just make up anything you like, that would not be social, and if what you are proposing is sufficiently crazy it will most likely be blocked in favor of others recognition of their interests and reality..failing social injunction, nature will take care of it. ..hopefully not too much of the rest of the group will drink Jim Jones’ miscegenating Kool-Aid or the human ecological system will be destroyed.

My application of hermeneutics is entirely geared toward that not happening.

Hermeneutics always expects feedback from the other end of the spectrum… where something is overdrawn, overly speculative and imaginative, it seeks correction…where it is paralyzingly rigorous it seeks the freedom of perspective orientation and imagination.

I can and do attend to GW’s preferred end of the spectrum in emergentism; he’s been too dismissive of my end; that’s the problem as I see it.

It is true that I do not welcome endless impositions from people advocating Jews, Jesus, Hitler and scientism.. (needless to say liberalism, Islam, race mixing, etc.).

Criticism from various views has been done here in the past… it bespeaks the modernist project.. just let criticism and skepticsm run rough shod from every angle… and “the truth will emerge the winner.”

Of course it does not quite work out that way. ...enter people of bad faith… who are not trying to understand and leave what is well enough alone, who do not treat what you say in good faith but who want to impose Jews, Jesus, Hitler, liberalism, etc.

That is to say, you do want a pretty big tent, but not so big as to allow in people who are trying to run rampant and destroy you; or to allow them to insist upon handing out to our people misleading road maps, obfuscating of our better ways and on the contrary to our destruction - as in the case of Christianity.

There is free speech for these things, and eclecticism has places elsewhere. Majorityrights has a unique platform in that it provides an opportunity to elaborate and make fine corrections on better ideas than those (it can even borrow some from them, but it recognizes that they have bad fundamental flaws and thus we cannot allow their advocates and advocacy to be a guiding member voice within our group).

Now to address Kumiko…


103

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:07 | #

Daniel,

First of all, the aspects of Dasein that are important as I see it (and since that is what this post is about, its valid to say) are firstly “there-being” ..thereby taking one out of detached, Cartesian estrangement, and into engagement, then secondly into the emergent gauge of relative Caring.

I believe the demotic term for that is “pimp my ride.”  You can’t just incorporate a few bits of Heidegger to what is, in every epistemological sense, otherwise an ideology derived from a perfectly Cartesian (or, in H-speak, calculative) form of thinking.  Let’s try to think past all this and bring you to a point of self-questioning.

Heidegger’s non-Cartesian epistemology is not anti-Cartesian.  On the contrary, by its account of calculative thinking it accounts for the subject-centred perceptual method, accepting it as a fact of the human “ordinary”.  But it seeks relief from the negative consequences of that method, assigning to its “site” a status of falsehood.  To properly represent Dasein to the calculatively thinking mind means to except it, and find a possibility for a realm of essential thinking outside and alongside or above it, the expressive nature of which ... the consequence of which for the lived life ... is both normative and revolutionary.

And this is how to answer question no.2:

Only by fitting the two realms together may one reconcile false Dasein to “midtdasein” ... may one reconcile the formed personality, with all its error, to the “site” of disclosure of the thing which is the people.  That is what my Ontological Transit, in all its gauche simplicity, is designed to do.  Understand it before you criticise it.


104

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:20 | #

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 03:13 | #

I often feel like a Kshatriya who is observing two Brahmins fighting each other, so I’m reluctant to step in since I don’t know if my outlook will rise to the level that you two are discussing at.

I’m flattered to be likened to a Brahmin.

In my opinion the fight, as usual, is not against GW, but against misundersanding and theoretical error.

Hermeneutics is always available to correction in one way or another. And because it is anti-Cartesian, and in our hands, it is not going to go against GW’s interests to any significant extent for long. Verification and rigor are one built in end of the process - it is not an enemy of emergentism, it is a part of it.

When I think of the situation at hand, I’m often thinking of the indigenous people of Kamchatka and Siberia, so I’ll apply the logic I use there, here, and see if it is translatable.

Cool.  I can see how these areas represent territories where authentic ethno national interests have been encroached upon; and we, as Europeans, certainly can relate to that.

All peoples have the desire to exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic development and to maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions, this is part of the drive to governmentalise.

I can agree to “most” and “normal” but maybe not “all”..we have our crazy liberals..who go against our interests either through their own flights of fancy or because they are hoodwinked. But then, you did say “peoples”, which implies a group…not the stray liberal. Still our European peoples make me wonder ..and then there are the imperialists, who are not satisfied with their own….and the parasites. But yes, generally speaking, most and normal peoples do want governance over their lands.

But where is the site of this governmentalisation? In the material realm, of course. And so philosophy must be about the material, which means that philosophy has to be linked to the sciences.

It certainly owes first allegiance to the material - and science is a crucial means of operational verifiability in that regard.  More, I have never seen these concerns as being outside the realm of philosophy. While it may be a good idea to have ideological anchoring and orientation, we are pragmatists, ultimately - if those ideals do not pay off in the material end, they are not much good.

But how did philosophy come to exist? It had to be after humanity discovered mathematics. It was then modified after physics and geography came into play. The final modification came when history was also folded into philosophy.

Its an interesting and provocative view but I wonder about this. I’m not quite sure. To me, it would depend upon what you mean by philosophy. What I mean by philosophy is the consideration of how life is or ought to be lived.  I suppose I.Q. enough for at least the most primitive mathematics, physics,  geography and sciences would be required…I.Q. enough to rise to a human level..  but it could be quite primitive and still count as “philosophy” by my definition.  I am perhaps too philosophically promiscuous.

I don’t quite get the sequencing..math then physics, then ...

But its more that I don’t quite understand what you mean, than that I necessarily disagree.

So, building upwards from the bottom:

A. Class and ethnic positions (yes, alleles are an economic factor - evolution after all did select on the basis of the aptitude to fulfil particular tasks necessary to survival in the geographical domain of the inhabitant, which the market then grades people on) are practised through the vehicles and tools (ecclesiastical, ethical, juridical, political, aesthetics) of mutually antagonistic world views: For example, bourgeois (idealism), versus proletarian and peasant (materialist), or in the ethnic domain say, white Russian (rentier) versus Eastern Siberian (worker, peasant, nomad), and so on. These may sometimes overlap cleanly, creating a neat alignment that is called ‘racialised-class’, or ‘classised-race’.

I’m enjoying this part, especially as you are working out the problem of mine (and GW’s, really) wanting the nation and the class to serve the same function…. while I can see the problem of wallpapering over the reality…. that some people can get screwed if these distinctions are not honestly acknowledged where they exist…

My hope is that in a syndicalist view, that something like the “Aristocracy” would be a little more like a union among unions - not impervious and completely determined by birth, but sure, a niche for people more capable of governance - more honest, smarter, able to competently essentialize and manage more factors in the group’s interests.

But that the system would be dynamic, such that people can emerge from worker classes and people from upper classes can take a step down in order to re acquaint with the practical and marketable skills and people skills (in dealing with the gnarly) that they may have lost or never developed along away - thus diminished their judgement and leadership ability.

B. World views are erected and defined in the realm of theory (which constitutes the innermost wall of hegemony, the pyramid of the mind), by philosophy. Philosophy represents class and ethnic struggle in theory. Philosophy is therefore inherently political because it is about pre-negotiating how power ‘ought’ to be directed downward into the material world. The esoteric is the shadow of the exoteric which has constructive-or-destructive potential in physical reality.

I’m not sure that philosophy only “represents class and ethnic struggle in theory”, I believe it can be used to serve other purposes, but that is a good purpose - and yes, I do believe it is more about ought than is. The is is necessary to form a good ought, but “philosophy” by my understanding, asks how one should live life.  It can propose different varieties and suggest that there is not only one good way. Again, my promiscuity.

C. Philosophy comes into existence as soon as we acquire or are given the capacity for science, in other words, as soon as a physical realm for the practice and testing of theory exists.


Well, I would say good philosophy, philosophy that is not voodoo, would have that capacity to understand, if not penetrate with science, what IS, would have that capacity, sure.

If this is lacking, then there are only world views. The difference between (1) the mission and (2) the contour of the battlefield with regards to philosophy has to be made clear here. The mission of the presently-subaltern groups is to bring materialism to be dominant over idealism.

I can agree with that.  I think we have been misled by ideology, theology, Cartesianism etc. And that it is supremely important to direct our philosophical efforts into such material grounding - for Europeans, alleles, in particular as you list among items here:

In the most simple terms, to have concrete issues of economics, alleles, and class, dominate the idealist speculative hagiographies of the opposition and expose their falseness.

That’s good, alright with me, given your renewed hyphenated and nuanced meaning of “class.” ... I think that it works even with what I am attempting to do with the revamping Maslow from its self centeredness to center it in socialization, material being and ordinary routine/ where not “sacralizing” the cherished evidence of long standing and thus precious pattern.

The main battlefield in philosophy takes place on the bridges and waterways between scientific knowledge and ideology. The battle to determine in what way something should be understood and what it ‘ought’ to mean. Idealist philosophies enter at a disadvantage and find themselves having to exploit the sciences to try to validate positions they already had, whereas materialist philosophies are the reverse. Philosophical struggle is therefore a part of class war and ethnic struggle, or both simultaneously in cases where they align.

Well, we certainly are in a battle against those class elites who betray our racial bounds. And I don’t see where the science would indicate that we should die for those that their ideology would replace us with.  On the contrary.

D. Historical Materialism (emphasis on the first word in that term is crucial) is the most innovate element that enables all of this to be possible, because the social sciences incorporating the ability to transpose between different historical epochs while tracking the maintenance of discrete classes and ethnic groups and the adaptations they made in order to preserve (or attempt to preserve) their positions in physical reality, enables us to know whose interest a philosophy represents in theory. It enables us to match a philosophy to a world view.

The need for historical perspective would be one of the key reasons for philosophical hermeneutics.

This then enables us to uphold and carry forward counter-system philosophies, and if the situation is right and correct ground preparations are made (war of position), then it can be joined with class and ethnic organisation and turned into a political movement which catches like a wildfire. At that stage, philosophy is no longer interpreting the world, but is in fact actively changing the world through the unification of theory and practice, which is ethno-racial and/or class warfare (war of manoeuvre).

Good.

Tell me if you both agree with this.

If you were to say that you believe that this is the best way to look at philosophy, I would agree that is a valid opinion. Where you say that this is what philosophy means, period, I would disagree.

But to leave it at that would be missing a more important point. Which is that I can agree to negotiate with this framework of yours - parts of it are exceptionally good - and I would try to match it up with the needs of European ethnonational advocacy. It should be quite possible. So, yes, I believe that it is a framework that can be worked with.


105

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:29 | #

I can and do attend to GW’s preferred end of the spectrum in emergentism; he’s been too dismissive of my end; that’s the problem as I see it.

I accept that.  My only mitigation is that I am a revolutionary in a sense which you have not hitherto been, Daniel; and like all revolutionaries I have a burning sensation in the middle of my head which oft-times blinds, and oft-times becomes mono-causal and very monotonous to those who want to introduce other things.  You want to introduce other things.  I am trying to push through the fiery Weltanschauung which ails me.  That is a problem for both of us.  But your thinking that you already know and have long dismissed my meanings is also a problem to me.


106

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:43 | #

Well, I think your focus on emergentism is excellent and you brilliantly vivified what the continental philosophers might call internal relation with your ontology of Dasein. In this most recent example alone, I learned a very deep thing from you; and its not for the first time.

Furthermore, to be a revolutionary is a good thing when its called for - as it certainly is now. However, lets share enemies - I think we have them in common as well as interests which, as ethnonationalists, are entirely coordinatable if not entirely compatible.

I am not your enemy, academic or otherwise.


107

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:09 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:07 | #

Daniel,

  First of all, the aspects of Dasein that are important as I see it (and since that is what this post is about, its valid to say) are firstly “there-being” ..thereby taking one out of detached, Cartesian estrangement, and into engagement, then secondly into the emergent gauge of relative Caring.

I believe the demotic term for that is “pimp my ride.”  You can’t just incorporate a few bits of Heidegger to what is, in every epistemological sense, otherwise an ideology derived from a perfectly Cartesian (or, in H-speak, calculative) form of thinking.  Let’s try to think past all this and bring you to a point of self-questioning.

Heidegger certainly was doing an anti-Cartesian thing with there being and in his project altogether. Lets try to think past Bowery’s hang ups, his demand that I not criticize Cartesianism.  Ridiculous.

Calculation is not a state free of interaction.

And he was following lines of Aristotle, i.e., taking into account the different characteristics of theoria, praxis and poesis. Thrownness is an expression of praxis; his problem with science and technology, are indications that he saw the need to take what had been concerns of theoria traditionally, taken too far, into estrangement (from the emergent, it you will, I can say the interactive too) out of the Cartesian realm - whether the third person they or in some compete detachment from authentic care for internal relation among beings - and back into the world, including praxis.

Heidegger’s non-Cartesian epistemology is not anti-Cartesian.  On the contrary, by its account of calculative thinking it accounts for the subject-centred perceptual method, accepting it as a fact of the human “ordinary”.  But it seeks relief from the negative consequences of that method, assigning to its “site” a status of falsehood.

As I indicated, it excepts a subjectively interested starting point for there being.

Heidegger described Kant as “still Cartesian.” ..as in, that’s bad. I’m calling his project anti-Cartesian. ...and as such for what its worth to me, to ethnonationalism.

It is my purpose to take what is useful from Heidegger, not to understand every jot and tittle of his ontology; rather, I take to heart what is useful, I do not idolize his philosophy. That’s me. Again, this thread is about answering the question of how I deploy the terms: that’s not pimping a ride - especially not because my terminology does form a complete and, for our purposes, significant system -  faithful to Heidegger or not, whether you want to acknowledge its merits or not.

I see the merit in what you are doing and I can see that my project can coincide..it can be tooled with Heidegger as well (nobody is going to take life out of interaction, but we can work with his formalisms).

To properly represent Dasein to the calculatively thinking mind means to except it, and find a possibility for a realm of essential thinking outside and alongside or above it, the expressive nature of which ... the consequence of which for the lived life ... is both normative and revolutionary.

I see, you want to take it completely out of interaction: sorry, can’t be done. Nevertheless, beautifully said in making it as still as possible for the sake of its importance, its reverence..a form.. though it can never be free of interaction, it can hold a very important, even sacred position in the field of survey, especially if it expresses the race.

And this is how to answer question no.2:

Only by fitting the two realms together may one reconcile false Dasein to “midtdasein” ... may one reconcile the formed personality, with all its error, to the “site” of disclosure of the thing which is the people.  That is what my Ontological Transit, in all its gauche simplicity, is designed to do.  Understand it before you criticise it.

Well, you can put it that way, its implied in what I’ve said but rather its being incumbent upon me to “understand” a reification like “personality”, you should understand before criticizing the reason why autobiography will provide a better means of fitting predilections of the corporeal self to the “site” of disclosure - which includes one’s folk.

I can appreciate that you want “personality” to fit a closer reading on the corporeal and its genetic expression, but the concept of autobiography is not mutually exclusive and will, rather, facilitate “the fitting together” of authentic expression of the personality and the “site of disclosure.”


108

Posted by Augustinian Manichean Genotype Phenotype on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:00 | #

I am adding these important heuristic terms to the post. As in the case of other terms, I’ve discussed them so many times before that I forgot to mention them yet again. There is this insane thing at MR where they like me to define things (after I have defined it five million times already).

Anyway, these things are important:

Augustinian Devils vs Manichean Devils:

Manichean Devils are trickster devils -  they reflect human level agency to change the rules of a game in order to fool you if they think you might win the game. It may be hypothesized that tribal peoples from the South and Middle East are more attuned to this sort of Devil as they are more evolved in competition with each other for resources rather than competition against the elements of nature; even where food was not all that abundant at least they were not up against the winter.

Augustinian Devils are natural obstacles and problems. If you can solve them, they don’t change the rules because they lack human level agency. It is my hypothesis that Europeans are evolved more to focus on this kind of devil - preparation for the harsh winter and scarcity were challenge enough, thus Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, prefer that Augustinian Devils do the selecting and killing as surviving these conditions was valuable ability enough..

The ultimate devils facing humanity are Augustinian devils thus it is incumbent upon European evolution to not lose this virtue; and not be defeated by the Manichean devils of tribalists.

For example, if we are to avoid asteroids, super volcanoes, catastrophic climate change, etc and get to outer space of necessity,

Trying to deny the reality of social group classifications has been tried - by John Locke, and it has been an illustration of how Cartesianism can unfold to catastrophe.

Coming back to the marginal and who should be ostracized or not then, this issue should be taken into account for our selective strategy. If someone is strong enough to survive, that is to say, they have demonstrated that they have the genotypic strength (genetic level ) of our kind to survive without undue help, then barring the fact that they are not an undue burden on society, they should be given the benefit of the doubt - innocent until proven guilty.

Marginals should be allowed the opportunity to be deployed in our interest, to contribute to the maintenance of borders and boundaries - if they will do that or not, should be a key criteria as to whether or not we allow Augustinian devils to be a deciding factor in their survival from our end.


In fact, as the White demographic becomes older, I have argued that the marginal group that is our elderly can move from a liability to become a great asset - a geriatric army in this regard - they have wisdom, experience, perspective to deploy on our behalf and as they have proven their genotypic strength for their longevity, they also have less to lose; having already lived most of their life and being beyond child bearing age, they should be called upon to take greater risks on behalf of our legacy.

Phenotypic strength can be an indicator of genetic strength, as can beauty, but as we know, these matters can also be superficial in terms of indicators of abilities and functions valuable to our people or not. The puerile in particular may be lured into their visual appeal and not see through to assessment of longer term and deeper genetic values.

Genotypic and phenotypic strength is thus an important distinction to make common among puerile Europeans, in particular. Because our evolution and its merits would not be displayed as much through episodic and tribal competition but in endurance of natural patterns and obstacles.


109

Posted by Uh on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 00:20 | #

If Europeans were selected for whatever you’re talking about - basically a mishmash of idealism and science no one should have the time to sort out - it isn’t a virtue to be lost: it’s either useful or it isn’t, thus harmful. Then again, you rationalize the aging European population as an “army”, so obviously logical rigor is off the table ...


110

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:44 | #

That’s your wishful thinking, oh philosemitic - “give (((The Truth Will Live))) a break” (to define our terms for us in a kosher way) - Uh. As I recall, you objected to my use of the word topoi - correcting my use of its plural form where its singular form would have been correct.

But you don’t really know, nor would you make any effort to allow for the consideration that these topoi are useful or not; with that, you do not care for the preponderance of logic that they probably are useful - your comment is rather a cursory expression of your wish that they are not.

There’s no absolute claim here that Europeans were selected on a mishmash of idealism and science or that they were sorted out that way

A geriatric “army” is so to speak - our older people are in a position where they can take greater risks. A war is fought in man ways.

Now shut up.

Go back to Daniel Antinora’s blog, he’s eager for the same old right wing Jesus, Hitler and scientism crap;  or go to your friend (((The Truth Will Live))) - she is eager to dismiss ideas in the defense of European peoples - certainly inasmuch as they would exclude Jews (you’ve already been banned from Counter-Currents for arguing for including Jews as White) - (((they))) are eager to dismiss ideas for White solidarity, ideas which have barely reached the public - which (((they))) wish to bury in favor of Kosher frameworks ...or sheer Abrahamic disorganization of Whites.


111

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 15:18 | #

Kumiko writes:

A. Class and ethnic positions (yes, alleles are an economic factor - evolution after all did select on the basis of the aptitude to fulfil particular tasks necessary to survival in the geographical domain of the inhabitant, which the market then grades people on) are practised through the vehicles and tools (ecclesiastical, ethical, juridical, political, aesthetics) of mutually antagonistic world views: For example, bourgeois (idealism), versus proletarian and peasant (materialist), or in the ethnic domain say, white Russian (rentier) versus Eastern Siberian (worker, peasant, nomad), and so on. These may sometimes overlap cleanly, creating a neat alignment that is called ‘racialised-class’, or ‘classised-race’.

If prior identity and an interest in the being thereof are the parents of Mind, discrimination for same is Mind’s first action, and so the basis of all knowledge.  Thereafter, the knowledge which discrimination bestows is the knowledge requisite to the subsistent state … life itself.  Non-discrimination is a profoundly unreasonable demand - in evolutionary terms, the demand to die.

So, as the art of discrimination, taxonomy must never operate from a universalising perspective whereby distinctions between things are effected without regard to the ordering of distinctions themselves.  Most importantly, what gives life is quite distinct from what takes life away.  But also, what is of us is quite distinct from what is foreign.  What is of the foundation is quite distinct from what is topical.  What is tangible is quite distinct from what is intangible.  And so on.

What is in Nature is quite distinct from what is artifice.  For example, the taxonomy of race, sub-race, ethnic group and tribe is not the taxonomy of the social or socio-economic group.  A philosophy which gives life (or takes it away) from a social or socio-economic group may by association give life to (or take it away from) a race, sub-race, ethnic group or tribe.  Or it may do very little of either.  If we require a philosophy to give life to a race, sub-race, ethnic group or tribe with the maximal possibility of success, we must avoid making a category error in the first place.

The broad category of philosophies which would give life to peoples is named nationalism.

B. World views are erected and defined in the realm of theory (which constitutes the innermost wall of hegemony, the pyramid of the mind), by philosophy. Philosophy represents class and ethnic struggle in theory. Philosophy is therefore inherently political because it is about pre-negotiating how power ‘ought’ to be directed downward into the material world. The esoteric is the shadow of the exoteric which has constructive-or-destructive potential in physical reality.

Philosophy issues from Man’s questioning of the world ... from his discriminative capacity.  It is not inherently political to ask philosophy’s central question: What is good for Man?  If the answer is constructed from first principles, without concern for a particular outcome, then it can never be said to be contaminated with political thinking.  If, however, the answer is constructed in order to substantiate a particular outcome, then it can never be said to be original.  It merely serves another’s original thinking, and the political virtues or sins associated with that thinking also associate themselves with it.

In both cases, the answer to philosophy’s question then passes into theory.  Theory is not philosophy.  It is not an act of origination but of modelling.  It is the process in which pure philosophical principle is abstracted and re-formed as an operative model.  Its question is: “How would that work?  But theory – a middle-man if ever there was one - looks both ways: to original thinking and to practical application.  Accordingly, it regulates its modelling for consequence.  That word “work” segues into “work out”.

It is the role of politics to decide if the outcome is desirable.  Politics is highly discriminatory in that respect, and not in any objectively moral way.  What it discriminates for is a particular set of interests or values, or needs, or personal prejudices, which may be as unjust as they are just, and as ugly as they are beautiful.  Politics doesn’t care.  Politics is an addict lost to all recall.

But politics is also the art of the possible, and therefore it, like theory, looks both ways.  It first asks: How does theory’s answer become the reality of our life?  Then it descends with its own answer into the inevitable contest, relentlessly battling, negotiating, sometimes overcoming, sometimes being overcome.  This process is not singular, but manifold; and involves struggle in the connected realms of discourse, position, traction, and mobilisation.  It involves the pursuit of the power to act as well as the action itself.  It is a long, long way from the contemplative stillness of the philosopher’s book-strewn, dusty study.

I am not convinced that the model of the esoteric and exoteric, drawn as it is from the spiritual sphere, has an application in ours, except in very narrow terms.  It is, of course, a theoretical model of how a cognitive elite preserves and transmits its knowledge, the capacity to receive which constitutes the boundary to the masses beyond and sets the bar for initiation at the centre.  It is a rather limited model.  It does not represent to us why a cognitive elite would do this, or what the benefit to the masses, if any, might be.

By way of a spiritual example, it is sometimes claimed to actualise in Islam as Naqshbandi Sufism surrounded by the Ummah.  In this example, however, the esoteric circle operates as a production line for perfected humans, and the masses beyond get along as perfectly decent and godly people but, in every sense that matters, lost causes with just a very few potential initiates here and there who might find their way to the sacred entrance and be accepted.  Talmudism reverses and racialises this idea, the ethnically-defined esoteric circle operating as an engine of ethnic and racial dissolution of the exoteric circle, and sending out devotees for that ungodly purpose.

There have been eloquent but deeply unworldly attempts on the fringes of Western intellectualism (in the form of perennialism and traditionalism) to theorise a sacred centre to the Western life.  All in all, I’m glad the fringe is where they have stayed.

The perfectability of human beings, of course, is not solely a religious quest.  Its elitism and idealism was reconstituted for the civic life by Plato, after which it became an endless source of philosophical and political fascination in the West.  It has a history of anti-human ideas of what constitutes perfection, and thus of very undesirable consequences.

C. Philosophy comes into existence as soon as we acquire or are given the capacity for science, in other words, as soon as a physical realm for the practice and testing of theory exists. If this is lacking, then there are only world views. The difference between (1) the mission and (2) the contour of the battlefield with regards to philosophy has to be made clear here. The mission of the presently-subaltern groups is to bring materialism to be dominant over idealism. In the most simple terms, to have concrete issues of economics, alleles, and class, dominate the idealist speculative hagiographies of the opposition and expose their falseness. The main battlefield in philosophy takes place on the bridges and waterways between scientific knowledge and ideology. The battle to determine in what way something should be understood and what it ‘ought’ to mean. Idealist philosophies enter at a disadvantage and find themselves having to exploit the sciences to try to validate positions they already had, whereas materialist philosophies are the reverse. Philosophical struggle is therefore a part of class war and ethnic struggle, or both simultaneously in cases where they align.

Well, I’m not sure what to make of this.  I think you need to define “science”.  Are you talking about the modern scientific method, or some more ancient use of the term?  The Pre-Socratics, for example, sought explanations in Nature for the questions which pre-occupied them.

In any case, I would have thought that the appearance of writing probably signals the development of views of the lived life.  The oldest written texts date back almost 3,500 years.  The Epic of Gilgamesh may have aural roots which date back over 4,000 years.

D. Historical Materialism (emphasis on the first word in that term is crucial) is the most innovate element that enables all of this to be possible, because the social sciences incorporating the ability to transpose between different historical epochs while tracking the maintenance of discrete classes and ethnic groups and the adaptations they made in order to preserve (or attempt to preserve) their positions in physical reality, enables us to know whose interest a philosophy represents in theory. It enables us to match a philosophy to a world view.

This then enables us to uphold and carry forward counter-system philosophies, and if the situation is right and correct ground preparations are made (war of position), then it can be joined with class and ethnic organisation and turned into a political movement which catches like a wildfire. At that stage, philosophy is no longer interpreting the world, but is in fact actively changing the world through the unification of theory and practice, which is ethno-racial and/or class warfare (war of manoeuvre).

You have now ventured well outside my pay grade and into Marxist theory.  However …

We are endeavouring to institute one or another, broadly conservative and defensive variant of a philosophy called nationalism.  I take such a philosophy, in its simplest nativist form, to be the quiet, even unnoticed engine of every polity in history which has not directly sought the enslavement or dissolution of the native people of the land but has, on the contrary, recognised at least some constraint upon Power in the natives’ interest.  For, at the historical norm ethnic nationalism is not an unquiet and dangerous, revolutionary force.  Only in such hazardous times that the public good ceases to be a consideration for Power … only then does ethnic nationalism alter its physiognomy and reveal its radical, active face.  It is the face of the protector.

It seems to me that the historical litmus test, therefore, is straightforward.  Is the life of the people of the land free from existential threat?  All over Europe that question is being asked, and the answer which is starting to come back is the one we always expected.

I agree that it is the destiny of philosophy to make and re-make the world.  It is time for nationalism to do so.


112

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:07 | #

Daniel, instead of sperging out like Rain Man when he can’t get his underwear from a specific Kmart in Cincinnati, you should try practicing your much touted hermeneutics in response to uh’s trolling. 

Big deal if Europe’s population is old, so long as there are enough White youth left to put an army in the field capable of beating the muds.  And once victory is won, if there are not enough White youth left to keep the machine of society running, a sufficient number of muds could be kept on as slaves - with the death penalty set for attempted miscegenation - until more White children are birthed and raised to adulthood.  Of course, only Nazi’s would have the balls to do stuff like that.


113

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:43 | #

GW, your pet sperg keeps getting loose and mauling the other commenters.  Either muzzle it or have it euthanized.


114

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 01:55 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:07 | #

Daniel, instead of sperging out like Rain Man when he can’t get his underwear from a specific Kmart in Cincinnati, you should try practicing your much touted hermeneutics in response to uh’s trolling.

Listen CC hole. First of all, I responded to Uh.

Big deal if Europe’s population is old,

That turns a liability into an asset, that’s what the big deal is.

so long as there are enough White youth left to put an army in the field capable of beating the muds.

We need to do that too, but it’s likely that in large part that we will have to fight as guerillas on the ground and in the air.

And once victory is won, if there are not enough White youth left to keep the machine of society running,

It’s not either or.

a sufficient number of muds could be kept on as slaves - with the death penalty set for attempted miscegenation -

No slavery. That never works out. It’s ALWAYS a bad idea.

until more White children are birthed and raised to adulthood.  Of course, only Nazi’s would have the balls to do stuff like that.

Baloney

 


115

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 06:51 | #

Heidegger’s non-Cartesian epistemology is not anti-Cartesian.  On the contrary, by its account of calculative thinking it accounts for the subject-centred perceptual method, accepting it as a fact of the human “ordinary”.  But it seeks relief from the negative consequences of that method, assigning to its “site” a status of falsehood.

“Not anti-Cartesian” is your choice of words in this context.

I use it for a reason - and it is true enough for Heidegger that Cartesian rigidity was a central concern: However, it does not mean that Cartesian coordinates, objectivism, verification and operational verifiability (as I have said repeatedly) are not important for moments, episodes and to provide stable scientific criteria to refer back-to; the “anti-Cartesianism” comes into play in facilitation (providing relief, as you might say), re-direction I should say, of inquiry into a process of authentic engagement as opposed to being stuck in rigidity, fixation and detachment - thus, “anti-Cartesianism” directs us back into (authentic) engagement with other vital processes (importantly, the emergent, as you call attention to), including taking us back into the social world - into praxis.  I have said from the start that he may not have taken it far enough into praxis for my aims - which is to centralize the gauge of our people’s relative interests (as opposed to objective detachment or subjective myopia). Again, that would be valid in the context of this post because I was asked to explain how I am using these terms.

The slowness of the process and taking to heart of what is essential are one way (at least) in which Heidegger connects process to where it is barely a process but a standing aside and allowing for the “evincing” of the emergent.

Process is there, nevertheless. His commendation of slowness is excellent (at least for Europeans) and is a very different kind of thing from what Wittgenstein was doing.


116

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:58 | #

the “anti-Cartesianism” comes into play in facilitation (providing relief, as you might say), re-direction I should say, of inquiry into a process of authentic engagement as opposed to being stuck in rigidity, fixation and detachment

This is correct, but it is important not to set the bar for re-direction and subsequent process at an unrealistic height.

Heidegger accepted the fact and even nature of what I like to term ordinary waking consciousness.  This is not to say that everything in Cartesianism is packaged with that consciousness, but the centrality of the subject is true of us, and permanently so.  Heidegger simply has to accept this, because this, and everything that flows from it, is the human condition, from which escape is only ever fleeting and personal.  As a people we can never inhabit a permanent alternative state of willed detachment, consciousness and authenticity.  But we can face towards it, we can know a little of it, and we can incorporate its benefits into our daily existence, such that the negatives of an existence “lit” only by the absence we know now can be ameliorated.


117

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 11:34 | #

First is not the same as most essential (inter esse)

I agree that it is important to not set the bar too high and that is something which you help to articulate very well by ensconcing the authentic consciousness of the subject in a world view that is not all too conscious (not feeling constantly compelled by the instrumental, for reasons too subjective, too objective, or too “the they” but resonating rather, with the emergent) and generally, as Heidegger also helps in saying, to not set the bar too high, is thinking slowly, in a meandering, qualitative survey by poesis. And while the subject is the inevitable entering point of caring interest, its viewpoint is calibrated authentically from there in a broad systemic view based in the relative interests (inter esse) of its folk (social group/middasein) within the emergent world. That is another description of midtdasein (and you contribute very significantly to the articulation of its authentic form). And if the folk are centered in praxis and led by leaders with a view to their relative interests, the calibration of the group should feed back to serve the authentic interests of the subjective starting point which the subject will come back to inevitably, in the moment they seek to re-orient anew, to call back from estrangement their authentic position of caring. But if the subject is not getting sufficient feedback from the system, marginalized as such, their authentic concern would bring to bear their subjective perspective on the system’s inauthenticity, acting as a homeostatic corrective (I believe it was Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, who fostered this idea).

Thus, First - subject - isn’t the same as most Essential (inter-esse) - Midtdasein - subject ensconced in a world view of relation within the folk. In fact, the first subjective relation is not to this third person (Cartesian) point of view, but rather, the subject in relation to second person (parental relation)...from that starting point, it moves into emergent and third person relation (us) to calibrate midtdasein - if the social system is correctly oriented - which it presently is not (because it is all too Cartesian) - hence the need for a centering not rigidly stuck in the Cartesianism of the psychological perspective, but in the communication perspective, in interaction, beginning with first to second person relation and then prompting engagement in non-universal maturity, to socialization in midtdasein - the relative interests of the social group.


118

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:12 | #

The shattering of our concord occurs because we differ on the belief that, as intellectuals, we can make or guide the making of a new life for our people.  My clear conviction is that this task is well beyond the power of, let us say, representational thinking.  Narrow movements can be brought into existence, and they can have due traction on the political.  But that’s really the extent of it.  Relative interests are not a silver bullet.  The large array of very fundamental difficulties we are facing as a race, including one that is 1500 years old and others that reach several centuries back into the history of the West, counsel for a more cautious view.

By the way, my people are not a social group.  There are social groups in my people.


119

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 14:41 | #

Well, I conceive of “your” people as both a social group (evidence by the fact that you refer to them as yours) and a biological taxonomy as well.

What you are not seeing is that objectivism is a prescription as well and not a silver bullet either.

It takes time for corrective rule structures to take effect in the social world. If they make sense and are conducive (and the ones that I am talking about do make sense and are conducive, to both the group and individual distinctions) then they will have a positive, homeostatic effect on the human ecology (and personal integrity).

The Internet is still new, we are just getting free from the (((controlled media, academia, religion, finance, law, business and political control))).

I didn’t say the relative interests of the group were a magic bullet - that’s a straw man - I said that is the general orientative correction against the Cartesian world view that has led us into estrangement and vulnerability.

It takes time and elaboration from there.


120

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:53 | #

Nationalists, of all people, have to respect blood and belonging to the soil.  If you take that seminal meaning away and just say, “Look, there is a connection so it’s all just social” you are making a grave error of classification.  The social is a universalising medium.  If you were to look instead at the general awareness of kinship, or lack thereof, which enters into social inter-action you might have a useful critique at the end of it.  But I still don’t see what active elements can be built that way.

We already know that to generate a large historical shift requires a revolutionary phalanx.  Example and inspiration create movement.  In comparison, how do you get from a few intellectuals practising hermenutics and coming up with rules to a revolutionary mass movement?


121

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:25 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:53 | #

Nationalists, of all people, have to respect blood and belonging to the soil.

And I do. But I also respect them for their genetics - such that they are a valid concern as a nationalist group in places where they were not evolved - say, in Australia.

  If you take that seminal meaning away and just say, “Look, there is a connection so it’s all just social”

“all” ...“just”  social -

That’s a straw man. Bad one. I even state clearly in the post, that the necessity to insert “just” or “mere” is when you know these terms are being abused in a Cartesian sense. I didn’t say it was all just social.

you are making a grave error of classification.

So, I’m not making this grievous error. I recognize the importance of evolution’s connection to habitat.

It would be a part of the non-Cartesian process of there being, Dasain and MidtDasein

But I also want the English, for example, to survive, even if the British isles are one day covered in a sheet of ice and become uninhabitable; even though the land had much to do with their evolution.

And even though immigration, from neo-liberal capitalism, cultural Marxism and the rules of the Empire have brought many other peoples to their land, if I suggest that the English, as I would suggest to other Europeans, develop rule structures for citizenship that would require an over 90% native population, that marriage licenses, birth certificates and citizenship be granted on the basis of certain qualities and quantities of English people being maintained, it is only a suggestion, not a “prescription” that I am imposing, nor can I enforce it - though there is obviously no bad will toward them in evidence or intentionality.

The social is a universalising medium.

Not necessarily, no.

If you were to look instead at the general awareness of kinship, or lack thereof, which enters into social inter-action you might have a useful critique at the end of it.  But I still don’t see what active elements can be built that way.

Maybe one day you’ll see. If you want to prescribe that English people rely on “awareness” of their kinship to suffice in maintaining them as a people, I can leave you to your experiment, wish you luck and even support your essays in that regard as far as I can, i.e., pretty far.

Most of the rest of us want a modicum of ground rules for borders, boundaries, citizenship, passports, Visas, marriage licenses and so on…along with a general understanding of what is considered legitimate, obligatory or prohibited among the citizenry.

We already know that to generate a large historical shift requires a revolutionary phalanx.  Example and inspiration create movement.  In comparison, how do you get from a few intellectuals practising hermenutics and coming up with rules to a revolutionary mass movement?

Its a long story, but hermeneutics would be one of the best way to achieve it: clue, it’s not opposed to science, facts, or a focus on emergence and native nationalism.


122

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 19:00 | #

Guessedworker wrote:
A philosophy which gives life (or takes it away) from a social or socio-economic group may by association give life to (or take it away from) a race, sub-race, ethnic group or tribe.  Or it may do very little of either.  If we require a philosophy to give life to a race, sub-race, ethnic group or tribe with the maximal possibility of success, we must avoid making a category error in the first place.

The broad category of philosophies which would give life to peoples is named nationalism.

That sounds like a good idea in theory, but in practical reality it doesn’t actually work that way. After all, that is like arguing that the most efficient way to propel a car forward would be to strap some Rolls Royce jet engines onto the roof and run them on jet fuel.

Of course, in reality, the more practically efficient way is truly to go through a gear box and driveshaft to turn the wheels, even though this would appear to be less efficient on the face of it.

The same applies in this case. You could just come out and say, “just be a nationalist”, but that doesn’t prime the person to know how to make that happen, much how “just make the vehicle move forward” doesn’t give teach them how to think about making that happen.

Guessedworker wrote:
Philosophy issues from Man’s questioning of the world ... from his discriminative capacity.  It is not inherently political to ask philosophy’s central question: What is good for Man?  If the answer is constructed from first principles, without concern for a particular outcome, then it can never be said to be contaminated with political thinking.

I would say that scenario can never exist, though.

Firstly, who is ‘man’? The universal human which humanist philosophers such a Kant posited existed, certainly doesn’t exist, and if it did then it would be the case that liberal-humanism would have thus ‘solved’ all the world’s ‘problems’ already. We all know this isn’t the case.

Secondly, no one can say that they are a disinterested inquirer without any concern for a particular outcome, since the subject who is making the inquiry is themself shaped by social and economic forces and is inquiring from a certain standpoint. This may sound like ideological cynicism and/or ‘critical theory’ (ie, placing critical distance between yourself and your own policy preferences and even your own methods of research inquiry), but I take it a step further: even an attempt to place such a critical distance is in itself coloured by cultural, genetic, and epigenetic choices that were made for us and which we had no particular control over. What is more dangerous than knowing this and noting it, would be an attempt to cover this over by supposing that disinterested inquiry could happen, or that the mind doing the inquiring can exist absent of all forms of determinism.

Further yet, I’d say that the only time that an inquiry can be entirely disinterested with no vested stake in the outcome, would be if that inquiry were somehow done under the condition of reaching ‘Ground’, having acquired rigpa. However, in such a case, nothing of utility in the material world would be learned anyway because all that would be seen is an atemporal and open-dimensional process in which nothing is of any objective consequence because all events are intrinsically ‘empty’ outside of the meaning that an interested party places on them. After all, ‘reality’ itself cannot care who dies or doesn’t die: only people care.

There can be no statements of ‘ought’ without there being a will behind such a statement, and that’s not a bad thing, it’s just simply a thing that is what it is. There was a very good quote by Cecil Rhodes, in which he said “What is the end of empire? So often desert sand or ruins. But there is a force, which drives us onward, and one cannot evade it if one would.”

Guessedworker wrote:
But politics is also the art of the possible, and therefore it, like theory, looks both ways.  It first asks: How does theory’s answer become the reality of our life?  Then it descends with its own answer into the inevitable contest, relentlessly battling, negotiating, sometimes overcoming, sometimes being overcome.  This process is not singular, but manifold; and involves struggle in the connected realms of discourse, position, traction, and mobilisation.  It involves the pursuit of the power to act as well as the action itself.  It is a long, long way from the contemplative stillness of the philosopher’s book-strewn, dusty study.

I partially agree, but again, I’d reiterate that the ‘contemplative stillness’ of the book strewn study should not be taken as indicative of a disinterested inquiry, since that’s impossible.

Guessedworker wrote:
Well, I’m not sure what to make of this.  I think you need to define “science”.  Are you talking about the modern scientific method, or some more ancient use of the term?  The Pre-Socratics, for example, sought explanations in Nature for the questions which pre-occupied them.

By that I mean any usage of it which involved running tests and then verifying the result. So that can be the modern scientific method, but it can also include any kind of experiments that preceded that as well.

Guessedworker wrote:
We are endeavouring to institute one or another, broadly conservative and defensive variant of a philosophy called nationalism.  I take such a philosophy, in its simplest nativist form, to be the quiet, even unnoticed engine of every polity in history which has not directly sought the enslavement or dissolution of the native people of the land but has, on the contrary, recognised at least some constraint upon Power in the natives’ interest.

I wouldn’t use the word ‘conservative’, to describe my approach though, since that can mean anything. After all, Lord Castlereagh and Prince Metternich were ‘conservatives’ extraordinaire, and their role in history was that of a concerted attempt to crush the blossoming of nationalism in the mid-1800s in Europe. While on the other hand, people like Giuseppe Mazzini, Giuseppe Garibaldi, and Simon Bolivar (El Libertador), were 100% liberal-nationalists but in that time period liberalism was a vehicle that was capable of building nations because it was an ideology that was capable of performing the function of moving the bourgeoisie into the command seat to ‘rationalise’ economics around the framework of national borders resting atop nominally popular ‘assent’ during the early capitalism. The liberal victories in those scenarios, when those particular victories were both good and bad, in various ways, but there was no question as to which force was building nationalism in that that particular time period.

Eventually of course liberalism would lose that national-building nation-rationalising capability, it was inevitable.

The nations that missed the bus on that, because they were still in a feudal stage or were colonial dependents (large swathes of Asia for example), would be passed by entirely by these developments, and would ultimately come onto the stage of nationalism (and when I say ‘nationalism’, I mean the actual existence of a rationalised and economically defensible national state and not just a ‘feeling’ or a tribal arrangement) much later—after the 1920s—under various ideological thought-forms, most potently, fascism (literally - national syndicalism) or socialism (eg, left-nationalism).

British conservatism, more properly known as Tory Corporatism (a form of capitalism in which the interaction of the classes was regulated by older customary practices such a ‘noblesse oblige’ and feudal-style reciprocal relations between the worker and the employer) was itself broken down by the time of the Irish famine because that famine was the proving ground on which the British Liberal party demonstrated via ‘live fire’ that it was possible to maintain the system while remodelling it to suit the needs of the bourgeoisie predominantly and almost exclusively. After this stage, there were some limited battles in parliament to try to resuscitate British conservatism’s ‘traditional’ core, such as Lord Salisbury sparring with Lord Elcho over the ‘proper’ treatment of tenants in London housing projects, but ‘conservatism’ was already changing before their very eyes at that point.

I say all this just to point out that basically the word ‘conservative’ doesn’t really have any ideological content, it is like an attempt to preserve the present balance of power within a historical block as it is, whatever that balance happens to be, and to maintain it firmly in its place. This is not to say that a person would not ever want to do that, after all, if you have things exactly as you would like them to be then conserving and defending the existing political achievements makes sense. But that can apply in the context of any ideology, and cannot necessarily be a synonym for ethno-nationalism.

Besides, what you call “the quiet, even unnoticed engine”, is precisely the thing which may or may not be contained within the philosophical vehicle which “may by association give life to (or take it away from) a race, sub-race, ethnic group or tribe” that you mentioned at the beginning of your response to me.

The big difference we seem to be having here is that the engine is so quiet that we are having a dispute over whose car this engine is really inside of. I simply propose popping open the bonnet and looking at it, and I’m sure we’ll find that in this epoch, the “quiet, even unnoticed engine” is presently inside the left-nationalist car.


123

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 23:18 | #

I didn’t say it was all just social.

Blood is not just social.  The familial is not just social.  Consciousness of bonds is not “inter-action”.  Ethnocentrism is not “inter-action”.

You do not capture the essential in the social categorisation of blood.  You lose the vital focus, or the focus on the vital.

It would be a part of the non-Cartesian process of there being, Dasein and MidtDasein

If you are going to take these terms you must also take Heidegger’s conception of calculative and essential thinking.  Otherwise, it is philosophically illiterate and dishonest to speak of what discloses to or in Dasein.  You would be saying that, post-detachment, the same quality of consciousness (“thinking” in Heidegger’s terminology) applies. Of course, once you do that ... once you ackowledge the realm of Dasein as a unique, active perceptual environment (active as opposed to “acted upon” or mechanistic) ... you are no longer able to argue for a calculative-functioning sociological analysis undertaken by intellectuals.  Now you must argue for consciousness, the attention, Nature, and emergent, natural qualities.

As I said, this is an wholesale revolution, not a piecemeal sell-off of Heideggerian parts.

Most of the rest of us want a modicum of ground rules for borders, boundaries, citizenship, passports, Visas, marriage licenses and so on…along with a general understanding of what is considered legitimate, obligatory or prohibited among the citizenry.

Well, my current focus is on the ground-floor philosophical questions.  If and when I ever exhaust those I will move on to theoretical matters.  I might even arrive at the political one day.

hermeneutics would be one of the best way to achieve it: clue, it’s not opposed to science, facts, or a focus on emergence and native nationalism.

In my reply to Kumiko’s first comment on this thread I noted that “politics is also the art of the possible, and therefore it, like theory, looks both ways.  It first asks: How does theory’s answer become the reality of our life?  Then it descends with its own answer into the inevitable contest ...”  It is necessary to know that such generic questions ... questions of an existential kind ... are essentially derived.  The word “descends” signifies a return to calculative thinking and to the Cartesian subject.  Within the general scheme of things, rule-setting is a political act.


124

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:14 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Oct 2016 04:18 | #

  I didn’t say it was all just social.

In fact, I said that if you have to use the word “just” and “all” in this context, that is a terrible straw man - a sign of Cartesian anxiety.

Blood is not just social.

I did not f-ing say that it was just social. But it does emerge a way to organize social groups - compatible blood types ...and its been a traditional, archaic way of talking, “blood” was the stand-in term for relation before genetic science.

The familial is not just social.

The word family can be etymologically related to the word “philia” and thus, lend itself to scientific taxonomy. I have no reason to dispute that… but in application to people, in particular, a family is largely a social structure and concept.

Consciousness of bonds is not “inter-action”.

Consciousness of emergent bonds may glow in one’s mind with the evincing of its truth, but that, lighting up of neural pathways, release of endorphins, that sudden drawing in of a dart of oxygen to fuel that part of the brain that our organism wants reinforced to retain its health providing truth, whatever happens, it does not happen free of interaction - sorry, can’t be done.

Ethnocentrism is not “inter-action”.

It certainly is interaction, but in a direction that tends to turn toward one’s own people and away from thoroughgoing interaction with other group systems.

You do not capture the essential in the social categorisation of blood.

You might not capture its most vivid and inspiring essence through post hoc categorization and working hypothesis, valid and important thought they are, but the resonance of its being - assuming in this case that you are talking about blood as the systemic form of a haplogroup - would be something that you (and Heidegger) is striving to evince in your interactive process of clearing away the non essential.

You lose the vital focus, or the focus on the vital.

It can be, and that is why I value and commend your dwelling upon the emergent.

  It would be a part of the non-Cartesian process of there being, Dasein and MidtDasein

If you are going to take these terms you must also take Heidegger’s conception of calculative and essential thinking.

I already have. As I have said, Cartesian coordinates and objectivism are important in moments, episodes and as criteria for verification… you agreed that part of the idea..an important part of Dasein is to provide relief from being stuck in artificial detachment, rigid, myopic imperviousness to organic engagement in interactive process ...which allow not only for a calculating survey, but also for qualitative and historical survey of the emergent along with perspective on its dimension - and dimension is definitely a part of authenticity as well.

Otherwise, it is philosophically illiterate and dishonest to speak of what discloses to or in Dasein.

I don’t present myself as anything like an expert on Heidegger - nor was I called upon to be that in this post - it is about my terminological system. I have a sense of (errant) philosophical frameworks that he is trying to correct. I take from him what I need most and apply that to correct against intransigent philosophical / theoretical error. And I am amenable to correction in return. But if you want to try to say that Heidegger was not building off and playing off of Aristotle, Nietzsche et al, I would not brag about your philosophical literacy. If all you were to know is one philosophical perspective, you wouldn’t even know that very well.

You would be saying that, post-detachment, the same quality of consciousness (“thinking” in Heidegger’s terminology) applies. Of course, once you do that ... once you ackowledge the realm of Dasein as a unique, active perceptual environment (active as opposed to “acted upon” or mechanistic)

Active..you are acknowledging its interactive - good.

... you are no longer able to argue for a calculative-functioning sociological analysis undertaken by intellectuals.

Of course I can do that and so does Heidegger. He is doing that when he talks about “his folk”, their being caught between “the pincers” of East and West etc.

Though again, I think your stubborn attention to the emergent is fruitful. And I totally predicted that. As I have said with Bowery, your Cartesian anxiety will yield good and important insights along the way - because you both have the mental horsepower for those yields, despite bad advice that Cartesianism doesn’t represent a philosphical perspective that has caused great personal and social problems in need of remedy - Heidegger’s philosophy was facilitating remedy.

Now you must argue for consciousness, the attention, Nature, and emergent, natural qualities.

If consciousness is not active ergo interactive, it is not consciousness ..but if the attention blunts consciousness to some extent and takes us into a more organic state of mind that is not necessarily a bad thing..it might facilitate attention to what is essential.

As I said, this is an wholesale revolution, not a piecemeal sell-off of Heideggerian parts.

I am not selling-off Heideggerian parts piecemeal. I have taken to heart and focused (paid attention to) the aspects of his philosophy that are most curative of what we need in the face of anti-racism. From the context of the American situation, its Cartesian Constitution, its racial disorder, that means engagement of the process of re-constructing the social group. Whereas, in the context of an Englishman in England, peoplehood, the grounds of the nation and the circumscription of its national bounds is a historical taken for granted - thus you focus on its conservation through careful attention.

I’m sorry that you see these two things as mutually exclusive, but I don’t and it’s your problem if you insist on a false either or.

  Most of the rest of us want a modicum of ground rules for borders, boundaries, citizenship, passports, Visas, marriage licenses and so on…along with a general understanding of what is considered legitimate, obligatory or prohibited among the citizenry.

Well, my current focus is on the ground-floor philosophical questions.  If and when I ever exhaust those I will move on to theoretical matters.  I might even arrive at the political one day.

Well, if you want to focus on ground-floor philosophical questions and finally graduate from the class of 1921, then you are going to have to deal with interaction.

  hermeneutics would be one of the best way to achieve it: clue, it’s not opposed to science, facts, or a focus on emergence and native nationalism.

In my reply to Kumiko’s first comment on this thread I noted that “politics is also the art of the possible, and therefore it, like theory, looks both ways.  It first asks: How does theory’s answer become the reality of our life?

Well now you are acknowledging that it works both ways - they are not perfectly separable, good - and that is has practical applications for our lived life as a people, as it should.

Then it descends with its own answer into the inevitable contest ...”  It is necessary to know that such generic questions ... questions of an existential kind ... are essentially derived.  The word “descends” signifies a return to calculative thinking and to the Cartesian subject.

As I have said, what is relative, subjective and objective are not perfectly separable. A healthy European individual system will dwell in Cartesian calculation and objective facts of necessity for moments, episodes and he and the social system will take this to heart and unfold it in subsequent episodes as important referential material. He should just not try to deceive himself that these yields do not have and should not have subjective and relative social utility. He should rather re-engage in authentic relation and relative application thereof, after his Cartesian excursion.

Within the general scheme of things, rule-setting is a political act.

A social political act of rule-setting, and some of those socially accepted rules, will sometimes derive from a Cartesian standpoint to provide descriptions and hence lend to prescription of what a healthy European individual and social system does.

You do hedge it, finally, by the use of the word “general”...in the “general scheme of things”, rule-setting is a political act, but your distinction between the philosophical and political here is largely a facile and false distinction. It is probably based on the idea that other people aren’t operating from sensible experience and generally accurate assessment of the empirical world - deployed against me thus, I return volley your use of the word “general” as you do with me - in an effort to stave-off your wholesale dismissal of what is good and fine and should be refined, not altogether done-away-with as useless obstrution.

If you want to say that “rule setting” is generally political, I believe this is over the line of a false dichotomy, but at least we have a start in concession to some merging of the disciplines. 

But then I would say that your insistence upon the centrality of the Cartesian perspective and description, while denying the validity of the hermeneutic turn and social interactive, social constructionist perspective ... is crossing into the realm not only of science but into scientism, away from authentic philosophy. 

I believe you are getting bad advice from Bowery - who once had a melt down and literally tried to prohibit me from using the word, “Cartesian.”

“Stay far away from it! You are demoralizing our people!”

He doesn’t understand what is being done philosophically and that this project of criticizing the Cartesian philosophical perspective does not have to undermine his projects at all - he cannot see that for his (understandable) Cartesian anxiety, enmeshed in the perspective of the terrible panmixia of America as he is.

He had a similarly indignant reaction to criticism of “Empirical philosophy”

He didn’t understand that this is referring to Locke, Berkeley and Hume and their Cartesian errors.

It is not saying that “empiricism is bad”

Like you, coming from stem predilection, he has difficulty seeing these ideas from a non antagonistic standpoint.

MacDonald was much the same - he insisted to me that “hermeneutics was anti science.” 

It is not - not in its proper form anyway ...obviously he was reacting to the abuses of students and teachers in echoing social studies departments. ..just as you and Bowery are.

Maybe its an expression of your scientism - that “this is just what males do” - they never suspend disbelief in competition constantly against eachother and seek to destroy the other’s social constructs to get to the “real scientific, natural foundation” ...and not say, compete against natural obstacles, theoretical crudities and to cooperate with people who are doing all they can to cooperate with you in your interests against those who are truly antagonistic.

Meanwhile, here come the Jews, Muslims and Africans to take your co evolutionary women and otherwise plunder the place.


125

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 18 Oct 2016 06:05 | #

Kumiko writes:

that doesn’t prime the person to know how to make that happen

Indeed, pure philosophy does not prime the person “to know how”.  That is why theory exists, and politics too.  Each has its realm.  You sound a bit like a sixties revolutionary who is trying to extend her own field of operations as proof of the totality of her revolution.  It works much better the other way round: everything is philosophical, that is, everything has a revealing meaning … everything connects to the beginning.  Political meanings are philosophy making the world.  Politics belongs to philosophy … is a product of its mission ... not the other way round.

who is ‘man’?

Well, I wrote, “Philosophy issues from Man’s questioning of the world ... from his discriminative capacity.  It is not inherently political to ask philosophy’s central question: What is good for Man?”  Is that statement non-applicable to any ethnic member of the human family?  I don’t think so.  I came across a digest for a Mankind Quarterly article the other day by Prof Richard Lynn.  It discussed the intelligence of the larger, more negroidalised groups of Pygmies, and proposed an average IQ for them of 53.  Yet Pygmies mythologise like the rest of us.  It isn’t somehow “too Western” for them to seek understanding of the world they encounter.  This is simply what Homo sapiens does.  Nowhere, not even in the jungles of central Africa, does he live as an animal lives, or mentates as an animal mentates.

no one can say that they are a disinterested inquirer without any concern for a particular outcome

It’s not a question of political interest.  You yourself asserted in your initial comment that some form of proto-scientific thinking, and the theoretical modelling and testing it afforded, lies at the root of philosophical thinking.  The process of serious thinking is one of building truth on truth, from the ground up.  At each stage it must be internally consistent and properly structured.  It isn’t a political colouring book.  The thinker must go where his thought takes him.  He has surrendered control to intellectual integrity.

Critical Theory, btw, is a reductio ad absurdum got up to exploit perspectivism and serve the Jewish ethnic interest in the genetic dissolution, and therefore the dissolution of ethnic competitiveness, of European-descended peoples.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellectual integrity beyond the fact, since the hostile, manipulative ethnic perspective is hidden, that the theory is true of Jewry itself.

A “universal theory” would accommodate interest (Heidegger’s sorge) in its ontological structure, without assigning to it the particular politico-ethnic values of the originating intellect, thereby allowing Nature to inhabit the human subject.  But the Abrahamic mind invokes God and chosenness, and that sends all such consideration to hell.

Overall, I think you and I are talking about a similar thing really, and basically it’s the capacity for objectivity.  It’s not a small point, and bears, ultimately, on Mind and reality, and the extent of perceptual accuracy evolved for the taking of adaptive life-choices.  That said, I don’t discount the possibility (going on probability) of a north-south global variation in the capacity for objectivity.

What Heidegger gives us is a graded transmission from the esoteric to the exoteric, to use your terms again, measurable not by the attenuated proxy of religious obedience but in something I described at the close of my Part 3 “Human” essay this way:

Now, if standing on the sacred edge of the transit, within “what is”, constitutes the ne plus ultra of the individual’s perception and experience, a general re-orientation towards it … a discrimination for its truth, in the midden of nihilism, de-moralisation, anomie, and self-estrangement which, in our time, greatly shape personality (Heidegger would have said negate the European being), mirrors that at the communal level.  Within its (obviously truncated) practical range, this is still the turn to light and to our earthy, ineffable, already known, always present truth, as well as a radical politics of European people’s health of mind, freedom, unity, interest and collective will.  Under its revolutionary influence, the thought-world would become ideologically unsecured and, so, open and receptive.  The systemic revolution would begin here.  Liberalism’s two unreconciled and, ultimately, unanswerable driving questions, “What do I want” and “Is this fair”, would lose their currency.  The conflict and confusion of identity which, historically, have always been generated by Jewish thinking about the destiny of the gentile, and which are inherent to both wings of the liberal project, could have no point of purchase.  Ditto the pathological failure to recognise value in our kind even to the point of chronic ethno-masochism.  Ditto the related cultic, left-liberal fawning over non-whites.  Jewish thought itself, with its imaging of the raceless, compliant gentile in the end days, would lose all its formative capacity.

I do think you must allow the possibility that good ontology, and philosophy generally, is not only possible but necessary and real.  You mention genes and determinism, as, in a different sense, I mentioned genetic clustering and clining earlier.  Indeed, no man can escape his nature - or needs to.  Heidegger’s argument for Dasein’s revelations is very much a naturalistic (and quite eastern) argument for whole-minded perception.  The whole mind, in this regard, is actively more than the political-emotional sympathies of its owner.  Rigpa’s ground, no.  But a philosophy … a pure philosophical structure ... for a simpler, collective groundedness, yes.  The word is authenticity, and it isn’t notably political.

What is more dangerous than knowing this and noting it, would be an attempt to cover this over by supposing that disinterested inquiry could happen

Where, then, is truth?

There can be no statements of ‘ought’ without there being a will behind such a statement

Make that is/must and we’ll be pals for life.

I wouldn’t use the word ‘conservative’, to describe my approach though, since that can mean anything.

In this case it means that nationalism, as a particular thought-world, has a (rather generally) progressive ↔ conservative polarity.  Thus, fascism is/was a progressive, idealist and teleological ideology, while ethnic nationalism is a conservative, realist and identitarian ideology.

the word ‘conservative’ doesn’t really have any ideological content, it is like an attempt to preserve the present balance of power within a historical block as it is, whatever that balance happens to be, and to maintain it firmly in its place.

And social conservatism?  What is its role in ethnic nationalism, and what is its relation, ultimately, to human evolution?

I simply propose popping open the bonnet and looking at it, and I’m sure we’ll find that in this epoch, the “quiet, even unnoticed engine” is presently inside the left-nationalist car.

But I don’t recognise left and right within a Weltanschauung that runs from existential thinking about the authentic life and nature of the people to thinking about the regnant and striving spirit of race.


126

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:49 | #

GW, do you think your philosophy could act as a counterbalance to the many instances of numb nuts eccentricity we’ve witnessed here over the years from otherwise intelligent men?  For instance Richards’ apparently sincere belief that Breivik was a digital fabrication of the Jews.  And Daniel’s apparently sincere belief that whatever makes him butthurt is a conspiracy of “distraction” to which he must respond by becoming as implacably censorious as Richards was when you gave him the keys to the kingdom for a time.  It is at times like that that those of us with more neurotypical brain wiring want to slap them across the face and say, “Wake the fuck up, you goofy bastard!”


127

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:08 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 18 Oct 2016 20:49 | #

GW, do you think your philosophy could act as a counterbalance to the many instances of numb nuts eccentricity we’ve witnessed here over the years from otherwise intelligent men?

Captainchaos, my forming a platform free of a Hitler worshipping such as you would propose to bring here to make it “normal”....or people who insist upon Christianity, such as Daniel Antinora, who said he would “get ‘his’ Majorityrights back” for its sake and Hitler’s…..or people like Uh, who wants to treat Jews as White, and has been kicked off of Counter-Currents for that reason..

Incessant trolling from Haller and Thorn…who harassed me for years because I recognized that they were trolls, running interference and trying to get this to be a Judeophilic Christian site .. both of whom wanted rid of me…

These are not conspiracy theories.

It is not a conspiracy theory that these kinds and a few others who worship Jesus and Hitler wanted me out of here and I wouldn’t allow for it because we have a very non-eccentric platform now - which is honestly dedicated to the interests of White/European peoples.

Though Bowery is welcome but backed off of his own accord, more because of Graham than I, Bowery did literally try to forbid me from using the term “Cartesian”, telling me to “stay far away from it” ...also said that I should stop talking about modernity! (yelling). That we should get behind his ideas of pair wise duels lest we become eusocial, among other true eccentricities…is not a conspiracy theory.

For instance Richards’ apparently sincere belief that Breivik was a digital fabrication of the Jews.

Richards really was crazy and now you are trying to liken me to him, because you want GW to get rid of me on behalf of Hitler in coalition of like Hitler advocates, Jesus worshipers, people who want to include Jews in our advocacy, people who place the individual and science above all (even at the expense of Europeans if we are not particularly worried about turning into eusocial insects because we also look at things from a group perspective).

And Daniel’s apparently sincere belief that whatever makes him butthurt is a conspiracy of “distraction” to which he must respond by becoming as implacably censorious

How am I implacably censurious?

We have a platform. And you have places to go if you want to worship Hitler. So, your thing of trying to put me in a category with Richards - because I don’t whorship as you do and recognize that we don’t need that here; and because I recognize that it is important that other people who recognize that have a place to go - won’t work.

as Richards was when you gave him the keys to the kingdom for a time.  It is at times like that that those of us with more neurotypical brain wiring want to slap them across the face and say, “Wake the fuck up, you goofy bastard!”

Speaking of counter productive eccentrics - think of how much better a chance Craig Cobb would have had of building a White community in Leith if he had just left out one flag - the Nazi flag ? He could have set up all the European flags in front of his house and nobody would have hassled him.

You want to make Hitler idolatry “neurotypically normal” ...it isn’t, of course, but there are several places where you can go that try to treat it that way.


GW’s philosophy can act as a counterbalance to my oversights and more ..it would do it better if he would suspend disbelief in me as one acting with his same interests and not the concept of me as an academic foil representing pernicious if not useless affectations to “true” philosophy.

For example, his wanting to go along with the Jewish trick that “THE Left is the enemy” or that I am arguing with the social concept many things which I have never argued for (equality, anti-science, against elites), show a fatigue of having been saturated in a culture effected by “critical theory” and a reaction to take it on, not a look at the things that I am saying as they actually are and for the reasons that I suggest them.

The “left - right’ paradigm has no utility” is another ruse by our enemies - who want anything, anything but a White left.

Why? Because it does have utility and it will work.

Though I have said as much before I will say it again:

Wherever you set the line of elites being in an important position for the maintenance of our well being, a position to do great harm to our people, if crossed - THAT is where I am saying that class ends (there is a side where rank and file can cross too). It is proposed basically as having the same boundaries as nation (species) and race (genus). Now, if GW were to say that there are no traitors or people making unacceptable errors tucked in among our elite, who should be ostracized, that would be ridiculous. Of course he is not going to do that. Neither am I. The error he makes is in not assessing what I am saying accurately, in talking past me, to things that I am not saying or suggesting that I am wanting to impose intransigently ill conceived and harmful inorganic structures, that I am against the natural expressions of the people of elite abilities and want to deprive them or divide working people as a natural expression of their part against those who are doing better, etc. ...or that I think that people of the rank and file can’t go too far and cross the line of nationalist interest as well in some hair brained concepts.

If he were to see what I am saying with the White Left accurately, he would see the sense and utility. The problem that I have had thus far, is that he is so enraged by what he’s experienced in misrepresentations and abuses of some of the ideas that go along with this more socially conscientious way of looking at things, that he finds it near impossible to suspend disbelief in seeing these ideas in a way other than the way Jews have presented them, which, in his modernist response, requires total and unrelenting skepticism - “to clear them away utterly in favor of the emergent.”

But he’s playing into a Jewish game by reacting so completely to their distortions and abuses of the ideas of the social - which is the idea of the nation, the region and local delimitation against alien imposition: a modicum, at least, of rule structures to protect the emergent in a hostile and hazardous world.


128

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:15 | #

I object to you, in effect, attempting to turn Majority Rights into your own private, dinky little sandbox.  Make no mistake, that will be the outcome if you continue to censor all that is not consonant with your own narrow view of things.  Now I know you don’t believe that - you believe your outlook is as panoramic as the human condition itself.  I’m afraid it just isn’t so.  All that is socially salubrious is of the left while only individual avarice exists on the right?  That is an insult to decency, reason and nuance to which only a Pol Pot could agree.

Nothing will be advanced here save your own blinkered obsessions unless a no-holds-barred debate is allowed; with the expectation that each man will be a man and not lose his shit when his ego inevitably becomes bruised.  Many of you guys are practically senior citizens and you react emotionally as if you were a 13 year old girl being dissed on Facebook.  Grow up, and grow a pair, for fuck’s sake!


129

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:43 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:15 | #

I object to you, in effect, attempting to turn Majority Rights into your own private, dinky little sandbox.

Re-read the post, wunderkind, and try to say that it is a dinky little sandbox.

Furthermore, as if it was not in response to a request for a definition of terms as I deploy them, i.e., not theory of everything

Make no mistake, that will be the outcome if you continue to censor all that is not consonant with your own narrow view of things.

My view of things is not narrow, but it is to develop a platform that doesn’t include Hitler idolatry, Jews, Christianity, scientism and bizarre conspiracy theory

  Now I know you don’t believe that - you believe your outlook is as panoramic as the human condition itself.

It is quite broad, yes.

I’m afraid it just isn’t so.

Be afraid all you want on behalf of your Uncle Adolf, or whatever blinders you to the myriad of things under consideration here, but it is so.

All that is socially salubrious is of the left while only individual avarice exists on the right?  That is an insult to decency, reason and nuance to which only a Pol Pot could agree.

It is a perspective on social groups and it has been a surprisingly predictable outcome that people who identify as the right, of whatever kind, react and object to that (as you do).

Pol Pot was, on the contrary, the result of wailing modernity - wanting to strip away all that was “impure” and an “affectation” to his culture. He was on a trajectory with what the right and its desire to strip away all “unnatural things” is doing, not White post modernity and its capacity to negotiate the helpful aspects of modernity and our inherited aspects which we seek to protect and foster.

Nothing will be advanced here save your own blinkered obsessions unless a no-holds-barred debate is allowed;

Horse shit. A no holds barred “debate” is just open season for trolls and diversion, who want to engage us in endless debates to no end that are already sufficiently resolved.

If we want to invite Hitler, Jesus, Jews, scientistic or conspiratorial obsessive..or liberal people for that matter, here for a debate, then we will extend such an invitation. But it has to be under our control, otherwise we are back in the same modernist nonsense - never allowing better hypothesis to breath in elaboration because all must be constantly under attack, because the necessary result will be absolute universal foundation ...and that endless trolling is the only means to sort it out ...it isn’t ...on the contrary, it is an obstruction.

with the expectation that each man will be a man and not lose his shit when his ego inevitably becomes bruised.

It’s been done, its a sheer modernist thing and I have just explained the reasons why it is counterproductive.

Many of you guys are practically senior citizens and you react emotionally as if you were a 13 year old girl being dissed on Facebook.  Grow up, and grow a pair, for fuck’s sake!

Nice try. But I have explained the reason why your wanting to transform the platform into a free for all is counterproductive.

People who insist upon Jesus, Hitler, Jews, scientism, endless conspiracy theories, have plenty of places to go.

And there is much to elaborate here.

It speaks badly of you Captain Chaos, that such elaboration is not what you care to do.

All you want to do is troll, flout, “debunk” and get LOLZZZZZZZZZZ.

That was a culture practiced by a few of usual culprits here, but it is of a modernist paradigm that has run its course and exhausted its utility ..beyond the point of diminishing returns, it opened the platform to outright obstruction. Thoughtful critique is one thing, it is part and parcel of hypothesis testing. Constant skepticism another. Willing suspension of disbelief is also a necessary part to test working hypotheses. We are at that point.

That you cannot see the reason in the many topics of discussion evident in this post alone, and do not want to engage in elaboration, but rather want to bring that endless skepticism to bear shows that you are acting in and on behalf of those in bad faith.


130

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 01:29 | #

Daniel writes:

I said that if you have to use the word “just” and “all” in this context, that is a terrible straw man - a sign of Cartesian anxiety.

It is a sign of mild exasperation with someone who takes a portrait, and not even a portrait but a detail of a portrait, for the sitter.

a family is largely a social structure and concept.

But it isn ‘t.  A family is a kin-group, not a social group.  “Social” describes a behavioural part, not an over-arching conceptual whole into which everything can be fitted and by which everything can be known.  I don’t think you really understand that academia does not understand racial and ethnic identity.  It is a mistake to presume, along with the 125 IQ sociologists, that behaviour explains identity.  Identity, or the estrangement therefrom, explains behaviour.

You’ve got it the wrong way round.  To segue from the conventional sociological analysis to an ethnic nationalist analysis you have to come at the issue from the appropriate direction.


131

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 02:13 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 01:29 | #

Daniel writes:

  I said that if you have to use the word “just” and “all” in this context, that is a terrible straw man - a sign of Cartesian anxiety.

It is a sign of mild exasperation with someone who takes a portrait, and not even a portrait but a detail of a portrait, for the sitter.

It’s not a sign of exasperation to begin with, the only exasperation is in my having to repeat it - as I had said it above and had said it several times before, but you apparently ignored it - that’s where he exasperation comes in.

  a family is largely a social structure and concept.

But it isn ‘t.  A family is a kin-group, not a social group.

It is not just a physical or biological unit either: It is a small group - at least three people and it is social, going beyond the considerations of other biological creatures, mammals even.

  “Social” describes a behavioural part, not an over-arching conceptual whole into which everything can be fitted and by which everything can be known.

I have not proposed that everything could be known by its standpoint. I have even said that in the comment above (stating the obvious in regard to the mandate of the post) that it is not a “theory of everything.”

I don’t think you really understand that academia does not understand racial and ethnic identity.  It is a mistake to presume, along with the 125 IQ sociologists, that behaviour explains identity.  Identity, or the estrangement therefrom, explains behaviour.

If I were to say that “behaviour” explains identity then that would be Cartesian and that is why I do not say that.

(note, behaviorism is a first to third person panoramic perspective)

You’ve got it the wrong way round.

I do not. You just don’t want to see what I am saying. True, I come from another angle from yours, in order to balance off right wing perfidy which abounds in would-be White advocacy, but I am not approaching it from the “wrong” way, in that I am not excluding your view, close reading, as you are trying to exclude social/historical/temporal perspective.

To segue from the conventional sociological analysis to an ethnic nationalist analysis you have to come at the issue from the appropriate direction.

The appropriate direction is hermeneutic, that is, closer and broader readings.

You are arguing against a guy who already accepts the reality of your racial distinction; and more than welcomes refinement in that understanding. Thus, you are arguing in the wrong direction.


132

Posted by Terms I TFG & forgot to include on Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:59 | #

Adding:

Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant - I talk about these features of narrative capacity in this article: Kant’s Moral System As Coherence, Accountability, Agency, and Warrant.

That article should not be read in and of itself - it is meant to segue into an article which amends and corrects Kant’s oversights - this article, to be specific: White Left Imperative to Defense, Systemic Health of European peoples (also called Leftism as a Code Word):

These things are so central to my terminological framework and I’ve talked about them so many times that I took them for granted and had forgotten to mention them here.


133

Posted by The Class on Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:57 | #

Adding, “The Class”

I should say that I don’t know how I could have forgotten to include this term for definition when called upon to define the terms as I see them but I do have an idea as to why I overlooked it - we (or I do, anyway) tend to overlook what we take most for granted, what is most central. Thus, what is most central, and essential, to an idea of White Leftism, “The Class”, should have been the first thing that I defined, but I had taken it so for granted (also for having repeated it enough times) that I am only belatedly including its definition in the post now.

The Class - It is a union of people with members and non-members: as White Nationalists, we are interested in how it corresponds quite exactly with both the idea of the nation as your “skin” (your genetic group, genus and species) and native nationalism, along with its borders and boundaries. Elites are members of the class up to the point that they betray its interests; i.e., this is different from conventional class theory in that it does not treat wealth and unequal ability as necessary cause for exclusion, whereas rather significant burden-to and betrayal of general class interests would be sufficient cause for ostracism - whether of the elite or the rank and file.

To avoid “wall papering” over significant differences between necessary skills and roles among the class interest, their differing interests, concerns and vulnerabilities to exploitation, we prefer an idea of syndicalism - i.e., a union of various unions - which, within the class of classes (the nation) do not necessarily keep one permanently bound to a particular union - or even a member of a specific union, necessarily, other than the union of the nation.


134

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 31 Dec 2016 02:04 | #

Well, despite the fact that right wingers would try to project their clunkyness onto to frameworks that I deploy, hermeneutics is anything but “clunky.” It is the most graceful means to assimilate a natural process of inquiry in negotiation between facts and concepts - and contrary to Greg Johnson’s assessment, it is superordinate of dialectic.

Now then, it’s beginning to appear as if Colin Liddell is retarded, in a way.

He’s trying to fit Aristotelian optima and the concept of manicheanism into his square hole, “the alt-right is good and the left is enemy”, but it doesn’t fit.

In his discussion with Millennial Woes, not only does Liddell stubbornly insists on maintaining the suckered (yes, you can say “cucked”) position that “the left” is the enemy, but he slathers his discussion with a usage of Manicheanism which is well off the mark in terms of the utility of the Manichean - Augustinian distinction.

Liddell says that our problem is that we’ve inherited a black and white manichean culture from Jewish influence and Judeo-Christianity.

Not quite. We’ve been reinforced in our proclivity to attend to Augustinianism - to attend to natural devils, as objectivists and Christians - and proceed obliviously to the manicheanism, the deceptive, motivated devil that Jews and other highly ethnocentric peoples deploy.

“God and objectivity” will take care of us by contrast to their ethnocentrim and manichean trickery.

This “god and objectivity” by they way, is what is behind the liberalism, that Liddell and the rest of the Alt Right stupidly insist upon referring to as “The Left.”

Again, who are our greatest adversaries? Yes, Jewish interests and deracinating Right-Wing elitist sell-outs. What do they share in common? Yes, they want to depict “the left” as the enemy.

Liddell and the rest of the Alt-Right have fallen for it.

Aristotle’s concept of praxis, which Liddell butchers as well, on behalf of his alt-right ideology, is a concept wherein the social realm is of a different episteme than the hard sciences.

If you care first and foremost about people and their group requirements - as we must, as anti-anti racists - then the social realm should be central - and delimited as group unionizations, so to speak, so as to manage accountability and human ecology - this concept underlies the ordinary motive and organizing function of leftism proper, unadulterated by Jewish anti-White liberalizing motive to confuse the issue.

Objectivism, a right wing means to avoid social accountability, of which Augustinianism (not Manicheanism) is a naive motivational form, underlies the liberalism that is destroying our people, our organized, accountable defense and is leaving us susceptible to Jewish manicheanism.

And though he talks about it a lot, Liddell doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to America either and I wish to heavens he would shut up.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)
Previous entry: Fuck You Right Wing. Fuck You Alternative Right. The White Class Will Prevail and is Here to Stay.

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Putinism commented in entry 'Putin's Revenge' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 08:12. (View)

Jewish occupy, demonstrate for open borders USA commented in entry 'Africans Deported from Israel “Appear” in Rome' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:08. (View)

question commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:15. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:43. (View)

Crazy Over You commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:22. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:24. (View)

I'm a Man commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:41. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Carolyn Emerick talks pagan folk culture and ethnonationalism with Tara's alt-right panel' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:15. (View)

uh commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:07. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Carolyn Emerick talks pagan folk culture and ethnonationalism with Tara's alt-right panel' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 07:18. (View)

100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 06:39. (View)

The ancient is the modern commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 02:19. (View)

100% European but you might not guess commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:45. (View)

Near 100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:18. (View)

95% Native American (Central) commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:11. (View)

20% sub-Saharan commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:53. (View)

We knew these things commented in entry 'Hermeneutic construction of Putin and Trump's character, positions and relation:' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:13. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:18. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:09. (View)

henry m commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:29. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:51. (View)

This is the Day commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:17. (View)

Emerald City commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:46. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'America: Making The World Safe for Hypocrisy' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:41. (View)

Anything, Anything commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:26. (View)

The Allman Brothers commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:04. (View)

Nobody to Depend on commented in entry 'America: Making The World Safe for Hypocrisy' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:56. (View)

Pearl Jam commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:09. (View)

John McLaughlin commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:55. (View)

Hatfield & the North: Mumps commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:29. (View)

My Love is Alive commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:23. (View)

Wild Swans Love Will Tear Us Apart commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:39. (View)

Happy commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:18. (View)

Wild Horses best version commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:13. (View)

Hangout, Johnson, Lewis, JF et al commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:44. (View)

affection-tone