While White advocates do sparkle with intelligence and insight at times, seeing how badly they are screwing things up in some basic respects and believing that I’ve got a good handle on these philosophical/theoretical matters by contrast, I’m venturing a fairly comprehensive post; extending an overview of my conclusions from over the years to where we need to go now as a people in order secure our social systemic homeostasis; as it is threatened as a result of our own errant theory and by effective attack by adversaries seizing upon those vulnerabilities.

It is a long text - this is only the first installment of the follow up - and it will be reworked some as these are notes for audio - yes, I have mercy. I would not torture your eyes and mind with that much reading. I hope to start-in with the first installment of the audio form tomorrow.

........

A good place to begin this second installment on the philosophy of European/ White ethnonationalism is by addressing the most controversial claim of the first part - that there is no unassailable warrant. First, you have to look at the words in that statement - unassailable means ‘cannot be challenged’ and ‘warrant’ means ‘grounds of justification.’

Now, there are two aspects to this claim, one is pejorative and one is ameliorative.

On the pejorative side, these claims to doubt provide wiggle room for weasels.

It is true that this kind of objection can really get more than a little bit “cute”, but rather completely absurd, for example, when one ventures to dispute a DNA match that has a one in 65 septillion chance of being mistaken.

Or when liberals try to take a scientistic idea of race, “one race, the human race”, ignoring the phenomenon of speciation of racial differences, treating this as necessarily unimportant because all people can interbreed.

Or, when they ask a kind of indelicate question which should be almost non-existent, but is shockingly common - such as, ‘so what if Europeans go extinct, lots of them are jerks?’ Or, ‘what is the extinction of European peoples anyway? Aren’t they a mix anyway, and aren’t they still alive, even if mixed into other races?’

Liberals have the nerve to ask these disingenuous questions, while we know damn well that they’d be up in arms about the Amazon rain forest, endangered species or indigenous tribes being destroyed. We are eager to see them go and live with their beloved people.

Yes, we’re getting there, coming back to how the YKW and anti-White liberal cohorts tediously exploit even negligible capacity for skepticism, exploiting and misrepresenting the utility and capacity for willing suspension of disbelief for a facile deployment of concepts of species preservation only where it suits their hubris.

Even though our enemies have been assiduous in trying to get our kind to react away from the systemic homeostatic capacity that is to be found here, in that thin queer margin indeed, there is that positive side to be discovered in interactive pragmatism: where impure warrant and the truth of human fallibility invoke social accountability and the agency of our systemic correction from its current state of dissolution and runaway.

It has been said that the great contribution of pragmatist philosophers is that they upheld falliblism without skepticism - that is, they saw it as occasion to welcome correction.

It is a corrective measure for Europeans to place our relative group interests at the center of our perspective, whereas Not having placed our people at the center of concern but rather placing our penchant for universalism and objectivity at center has left us susceptible.

This centering in praxis brings us to the age old philosophical question: ‘if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise?’ and provides the best answer - it assuredly make sound waves but for us, it may as well not if there is nobody left to talk about it and determine how it, among other facts, counts in our relative interests.

This effort to center praxis accounts for the controversial social constructionist perspective - which has been badly distorted and misreprestned to Whites, whereas it would be and will be quite helpful and necessary when it is understood properly. We’ll talk about that later; this side focusing a bit more on the social interaction of praxis; but I want to talk first about its sister anti-Cartesian, post modern notion of hermeneutics which facilitates the emergent side of praxis a bit more.

This corrective process relies a great deal now on what is called hermeneutics: this is the non-Cartesian, interactively engaged circulating process of inquiry that allows the inquirer to correct hypotheses by transcending mere facticity, re framing arbitrary, ostensibly confusing or even contradictory facticious logics of meaning and action; taking avail of broad narrative perspective to provide context and orientation - e.g., on temporal systems and their history. On the other hand, hermeneutics allows for a graceful zooming in for close, rigorous readings of facts and data in operational veifiability of hypotheses.

Fallibility and correction doesn’t merely impose the positive, rigorous side in correction of impure warrant and fallibility by asking important practical questions of an event’s frame - right DNA wrong person doing the criminal act? Wrong DNA kit?...

It also allows for imaginative breadth of narrative form in the hermeneutic step back, the willing suspension of disbelief in our broad and historical social systemics, to ask the legitimate question, in working hypothesis, where does the responsibility for what that DNA did/does begin and end? Again, this re-framing can be pejorative weasel stuff - the kind which we’ve been subject to under PC for these past few decades, or it can relieve us from truncations of accountability, the kind of weasel games that we’ve been subject to from the right, its pseudo objectivist position, weather of its liberal variant or under the pseudo conservative guise of the right wing that left us susceptible in rational blindness in the first place - a game of pure pseudo objectivity which the YKW have been reinvoking with increasing vigor and scope since 2008, while encouraging elite, deracinated White right reactionaries to sell out and join them against the concept of unionization and coalitions of Left ethnonationalism in order to make quick work of social accountability.

In either event, in service of requisite rigor or requisite imagination, by maintaining fallibility and requiring accountability, we bring humans, our relation to one another in praxis, into the centrality of concern - and no, that is not a call to universal brotherhood.

With hermeneutics we have the capacity to suspend disbelief and liberate ourselves from the arbitrary flux of mere facticity and engage the interactive process of negotiating our personal and group coherence. And ultimately, it rescues us from the dangerous runaways that result of Cartesianism, of seeking pure laws above, beyond, within or below praxis - in pure nature, such Hitler’s epistemic blunder in exaggerating struggle, competition and will to power, applied imperviously to praxis.

.......

Coming back to ground our hypothesis at this point we’re going to borrow some radical hypotheses about the nature of Europeans as opposed to people evolved in the Middle East and Africa (Africans discussed later on).

Clerk Maxwell’s Demons and Jewish Crypsis

Clerk Maxwell described two metaphoric “demons” to symbolize classic challenges that people are up against:

1) “Augustinian Devils” are natural challenges, which do not change when you’ve solved them.

2) “Manichean Devils” are man made challenges, which can change the rules of challenges if you’ve solved them.

In the Middle East, where differing tribes found themselves pitted against each other, the challenge was more about one tribe against another; the challenges were not so much about securing natural resources and withstanding the forces of nature as in the northern climates, but the challenge was rather other tribes and their cunning self interest, and so they evolved more in capacity to deal with manichean devils, as Clerk Maxwell called the man made devils which hinged about trickery that could change the rules if you solve them: the Jews Masada literally goes under the motto, “wage war by deception” and the Muslim religion has its practice of takia, which is another form of Manichean trickery, lurking deception, like a snake in the grass ready to be called to jihad.

Perhaps the most naturally ingenious part of this group evolutionary strategy of manichean deception on the part of Jewry is “crypsis” - Crypsis is a phenomenon in nature where a creature can blend-in and become indiscernible from its environment; or in the case of the term applied to Jews, their crypsis is that they can look White and pass for White (European) as they moved into Europe and intermarried with Whites.

On a genetic level they remain distinct as a group and apart from Whites, largely by their own insistence. On a behavior level, their group strategy is typically at odds where not catastrophically antagonistic - notably, while they have maintained their own group homeostasis, their group strategy has a pattern of ‘activist’ disruption of White group bounds and homeostasis.

This evolution follows the Faucett theory of Jewry’s evolution of ‘horizontal transmission.’

Those Jews who returned to Judea after the Babylonian captivity epoch moved into power niches and commenced to develop a parasitic relation to the population and its resource. This parasitic relation was compounded after the Romans conquered Judea and Jewry scattered into Europe. There was some intermarriage with Europeans, but in overall pattern they maintained their distinction and closer relation to even the most distant other Jews as opposed to Europeans. At the same time, as diaspora people in the host nations, their parasitic relation increased as they moved into middle man and professional niches through which they’d eventually consolidate wealth of a host nation. The people of the host nation would eventually realize that they were being exploited and rise up - in the form of the pogroms, inquisition, the holocaust; but some part of the Jewish population would manage to escape to a new host nation. In these murderous events, the European peoples would tend to be killing off the more innocuous, grounded, accountable, if not intermarried (with Euiropeans) Jews. This cycle of horizontal transmission was compounded as the more “virulent” Jews, who had the greatest cunning and wealth, the least social conscientiousness, were “selected for”, as they were able to buy their way out and escape, moving on to a new host to start the cycle of parasitic relation again.

Now, this type of evolution is in contrast to European evolution, especially Northern Europeans. Whereas Jewry was evolved in circumstance where the greatest competition was other tribes and thus manichean deception and parasitic relation was a more pronounced strategy compared to Europeans, for Europeans the challenge to survival was more a matter of ability to deal with the “Augustinian” challenges of Nature, markedly the seasonal changes, and markedly the winter. The Northern European evolutionary attention was not thus putting a premium on the relative interests of the group and its cohesion to deal with challenges from other tribes, as there was not as much flocking to these environs less hospitable in terms of food and or shelter, but the selection was more for those who could objectively deal with the brute facts of nature and survive these “Augustinian Devils” ..this enhanced our penchant for objectivism, science and their attendant susceptibilities - scientism and rational blindness.

As it was understood that people who could get things done in objective terms were valued, and the threat from other peoples was not normally the day to day concern, they also created “higher trust” societies that facilitated marvelous scientific, technological advances and great social resource. Pit these European qualities against the Jewish strategy of Manichean deception, crypisis and parasitism, and you have the makings of a problematic relation indeed.

Now then, after the holocaust, the cycle of horizontal transmission led the select, more virulent Jews to flee to the United States where their parasitism permutated to its greatest hegemonies.

But before I elaborate, I want to emphasize that parasitism is a metaphor that does Not describe all of Jewish behavior, not even all of their bad behavior, which can be more straight forwardly antagonistic - antagonism being something different than parasitism.

The saving grace of this metaphor of horizontal transmission is that the prescription is not knee-jerk reaction and murder, as that has tended to perpetuate the cycle by only killing-off the more accountable, grounded, vulnerable, sympathetic, less cunning and less virulent Jews. Rather than murder, the prescribed answer is maintained separatism in ethno-nationalisms and forcing Jewry to develop “lateral transmission”, a non parasitic relation from the ground up.

However, we need to render a great deal more description of the circumstance. [No, this theory will not hold Jews solely accountable as all powerful; the niches are hypotheses of where they exercise disproportionate influence if not hegemony; we will address their relation to other elites, including deracinating White right wing sell-outs (and the liberals that come form the same root) but later].

As the Jews ascended into European and American niches of power and influence after the holocaust….

The Niches:

It is the hypothesis here that their group evolutionary strategy, crypsis and horizontal transmission has led Jewry into significantly disproportionate representation if not hegemony in more than seven niches of power and influence over society:

1) Media:
Now, as Bowery observes, the bible was the controlled media particularly in times prior to print media, radio, television, movies and internet - combined with other power niches, this niche control would probably spawn other means of communications control. [note the Manichean trick of Christianity]

2) Academia:
Having been selected to pursue earthly success, power, intelligence and in particular, for verbal I.Q. combined with nepotism, they have gained vast over-representation in academia - particularly in the humanities (determination over how society is described, the concepts and stories that are ascribed to ourselves and prescriptions thereupon). [note the Frankfurt School and PC; the lawsuit of Harvard, which reveals that in Ivy League admissions, Jews are vastly over represented if the criteria is merit, while Asians and Whites are vastly discriminated against.]

3) Money/Finance:
As it has been famously said, “give me the purse strings and I care not who is elected”... this is probably the most important category, because even if you have things figured out, there are always people dishonest or desperate enough to be bought off. [Note the 2008 subprime crisis, the culmination of a boom bust cycle which put Jewry into its greatest hegemony in the horizontal transmission cycle - whereupon “the left” became the great enemy [story from Frank Meyers to Alt and “Dissident Right”].

4) Politics: AIPAC is the most powerful lobby in Washington; just about all politicians are controlled by Jewish interests, particularly by campaign funding through lobbied interests. They can get the United States to do the bidding of Jewry, weather diaspora or Israel, whether through the Democrats or Republicans - Donald Trump gained the presidency by promising to undo the Iran Deal for Israel.

5) Law and Courts: Jews have disproportionate representation in the profession of law; judges; in law school professorships; and in devising and passing legislation - which can overturn popular, democratic vote, as they have overturned popular opinion against immigration and spearheaded other significant liberal changes in law - Brown vs Board, Civil Rights Act, Immigration and Naturalization Act, Rumford Fair Housing, and generally in anti-discriminatory, anti-racism, anti-“hate” legislation.

6) International Business: to which we can extend NGO’s, Foundations, Unions (especially as they can control them, liberalize them and internationalize them) and such - this is an effective means to traverse national boundaries, profit from the exchange, devastate adversaries while increasing their niche hegemony.

7) Technology, e.g., genetic, military and such - such as Stuxnet - can come of their other hegemonies.

8) Religion: Judaism, Islam and the Jewish trick of Christianity - devised to overthrow Roman hegemony, it was ultimately effective in overthrowing Europe.

Now, to be clear, there is no escaping the issue of moral order - not completely, anyway: you cannot simply be beyond moral concern. There will always be actions that are obligatory, actions that are prohibited and actions that are legitimate.

In terms of maintaining social systemic homeostasis, moral order ranks high among concerns. Perhaps survival comes first, but it’s near a chicken / egg question, moral concern is typically related closely to survival; and to matters of practicality - that’s probably why Kant placed morals under the rubric of pragmatics.

Our concern, of course, is with European moral orders, what is happening with them and what has happened with them.

I take a classic White Nationalist hypothesis, which is highly critical of Christianity, not only rejecting the popular idea among western civilization for a thousand years or more, that it is synonymous with moral order, but believing it rather to be worse than a Jewish affection, rather more like a trick played by them upon European peoples.

It tangles-up Europeans most important concerns with Jewish interests - look, after all, at who the Christian god is - and look who the most evil civilization is supposed to be, the enemies of Israel - Babylon and Rome. But its worse than that, in that this manichean trick, played on Europeans originally to overthrow Roman occupation, operated on the European penchant for Augustinian detachment and purity spiraling with the obsequious golden rule [instead of the silver rule, which would simply ask that you do not harm others as you would not want to be and that it is good to expect a reasonable exchange for your deeds], moreover, they added to the purity spiral by universalizing of the moral concern to un-differentiate the gentiles (as GW observes), destroying their capacity for organized resistance and compounding it further with disingenuous directing of away from temporal self interest and to speculative concern for after life instead. They scared people and kept them in line with notions of hell (even if you think of sinning!) and these narratives were their version of media control (as Bowery observed) for nearly a thousand years.

Now, it is true, that one can pluck out verses and apply them selectively even to an ethnonationalist end, that has been done to some extent historically and people might do it again; it is also true that in Christianity, Jewry have created something of a Frankenstein that comes back to kill its creator, but perhaps only culling, like the Nazis did, their less “controlled members;” perhaps non-Christian ethnonationalists would not object too stridently. But I am skeptical of their prospects for long term success, sympathetic to those who don’t like and don’t believe in Christianity - and it is these people we seek to talk to and serve here. We don’t go out of our way to dissuade Christians nor do we revel in mocking them - they are trying to do the right thing, to invoke a moral order, but going about it the wrong way with reams of useless and misdirecting text. Once the broad population could begin reading the text for themselves, let alone comparing it to the gains they made in scientific and other knowledge, the religion would have trouble functioning as an ethnonational moral order.

We do need the semi transcendent, narrative means of hermeneutics to foster a religion that serves our people, to transcend the fact that most of ours are not very good and those who are good, significantly flawed nevertheless; we need the guidance of our patterns which inspire, loyalty and faith in ours past and future; and while there are ways to instantiate this that we’ll discuss, they have not germinated to any kind of significant consensus yet - 14 Words, great start, but our enemies keep tacking on the 88 to derail consensus.

Nevertheless, for those who want to continue to worship the Jew on the stick, who never existed in the flesh, by the way, so long as they don’t get any of that crap on us, we’ll let them go. For Europeans, however, the usual starting points of moral order come with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle - with Aristotle’s framework of Theoria, Praxis and Poesis being given the general nod as the epistemological framework, while there is an increasing Nordicist argument for our natural penchant for attendance to Augustinian detachment, sublimation and planning resultant from nature being the greatest obstacle and translating to a severe predilection for science and technology. The Nordicist view is not necessarily at odds with the Aristotlean view but you see that it has us veering away from attention to social sources and responsibility and can rationally blind us to our social participation for its valuation of warrant as objectively pure and scientific as possible. It has rendered the Northerners in particular, like a naive species when confronted by the Manichean trickery and group interestedness of Jewry.

Northerners continue to be most prone to Jewish trickery as they purity spiral in reaction to Jewish tricks by pursuit of pure and universal foundational warrant against them. This makes them like a bull chasing after red capes - the red capes being distortions and misrepresentations set up largely by Jewish academia, to make them didactic, to have the goyim reject and fight against the very ideas that they need to reconstruct their social systemic homeostasis.

Our Southern European penchant for objectivity may stem from the Greek teleology while our Northern penchant for objectivism from Augustinian confrontation with nature proper; and Christianity magnified this purity spiral greatly with scriptures such as “even if you think of committing a sin, etc”, culminating in “The Prejudice against Prejudice” of Cartesianism that seeks pure warrant divided from natural, relative and engaged concerns on the transcendent, mathematical end; and in Lockeatine foundationalism on the empirical end.

Now, Locke becomes much more relevant even than the French revolution in telling the story of where Western Civilization went wrong vis a vis America, thus basically, where we have gone wrong, period, largely of our own accord, at least in terms of leaving us vulnerable in our capacity ot protect our group patterned interests.

Locke resented the English Aristocratic class having exclusive educational privileges and believed the English middle class should have access; with that, as an empirical philosopher, he argued that there were no classifications evident in perception, they were a fiction of the mind and all individuals had the same perceptions - therefore, all Englishmen should have equal civil individual rights in pursuit of resource. Now, this was a liberalization of bounds within England, specifically a call to liberalization of the Aristicratic class’s exclusionism, but it does not necessarily follow that it would or should break up the union of English national bounds, that they should be opened as well - that weaponization would have to wait for Jewry, their instigation of radical liberal and right wing objectivist purity spiralers who felt they were individuals beyond classificatory/racial loyalty.

This Lockeatine notion of individual civil rights over and above the discriminations of “pseudo” classifications was written into the American way of life, becoming the most distinctive American idea - individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is true that Kant recognized the danger to our moral orders by Lockeatine empiricism - the arbitrary flux that he saw we’d be taken into by this vast over emphasis on the empirical end. Kant tried but failed to rescue our moral order through a foundation of universal principles. Indeed, for those unfamiliar with Kant, he does provide steps in moral rationale superior to Christianity, that can help people get over it - beginning with unanimity, the fist principle, to think in agreement with yourself, to the principle of “good will”, treating people as ends in themselves, without which beauty, fortune and intelligence only make a person worse; to his three part sequence of morality, from common principles, to deviations in popular philosophy, to foundational philosophy to secure principles against the vicissitudes of which common and popular philosophy are subject. He failed, he was still Cartesian as Heidegger said, he was still pursuing a universal foundation, in many respects the last thing we need to emphasize for our social systemic homeostasis, for our relative interests; and while Kant was taking a step in correction, alas, Locke’s idea of Civil individual Rights was already institutionalized in America.

Particularly after the horizontal transmission of a more virulent YKW to America following the holocaust, the notion of Civil Individual Rights would become one of their key instruments of weaponization against potential threats of White grouping.

Alinsky style, they would make Whites live up to their rules, their principles ad absurdem. They understood that Locke’s anti-classificatory notion was not in their group interests but they were not altogether worried about it because their religion and tradition was strong enough about preserving themselves as a group. What they wanted to do was their level best to make sure that any vestigial White group classificatory defense that remained in tact despite the universalism of Christianity, despite the Enlightenment’s prejudice against prejudice, including Locke’s prejudice against classificatory discrimination, was subject to a weaponization of civil rights against Whites.

They did this to devastating effect, flattering White moral superiority and objectivity with the Brown vs The Board of Education school integration decision, The Woolworths Lunch Counter decision, The 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, handicap, age; The 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act; and following the ‘encouragement” of the 1965 black riots in Watts, L.A., you won’t have to dig too deep into relevant attorneys and presiding judges to locate a significant force behind passing the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which prevented discrimination regarding property sales and rental. Their handiwork is all over anti-racism promotion broadly; and whether in law, in activist integration projects, special programs for minorities, or in conditioning of popular culture, the gist of it is anti-group classification and discrimination thereupon - specifically, for Whites. It is Locke, weaponized against White classification and discrimination thereupon; and this activism was realized through their power niches, some specialized for that purpose, whether NGO’s, groups like HIAS, the ADL, The NAACP, with Jewish leadership and the Marxist Highlander school behind it; foundations and the like; or influential Supreme and 9th Circuit and other Court members rendering their Constitutional anti-social classification decisions.

This Oxymornonic rule structure is taken to its sine qua non, manifest in the evil ruling against “Disparate Impact.”

This rupturing of White classificatory bounds and the discrimination thereupon necessary to effect social systemic homeostasis of our human ecologies is the modern epoch having been pushed to its logical extreme in objectivist purity spiraling, weaponized by our adversaries, YKW, and opportunistically exploited by outgroups and crass liberals deployed in coalitions of group advocate ‘unions’ (I use the word union loosely, to mean bounded membership group) against our would-be classificatory bounds.

Anti-racist, anti-sexist, viz. anti-group discriminatory activism played fancy with paradox. If you said you didn’t discriminate, but treated people as individuals with the same rights as anyone, then they would treat you as disingenuous, ignoring the history of discrimination against these kinds; however, if you went along with efforts to help these groups overcome discrimination against their kind, with affirmative action programs and such, then you were indeed classifying and discriminating - you were a racist, sexist, etc.-ist by definition. Thus, you could always be put in the wrong, no matter what position you took as a White man; but never mind, so long as you were discriminating against Whites. 

The YKW are expert in identifying terms and concepts that facilitate their social systemic homeostasis as a distinct people. Good for them, but their academics have deployed their manichean trickery - which I call red-caping - to have Whites argue against these very ideas that Whites need for their social systemic homeostasis, a reaction and revulsion against their own interests created by crass distortion and didactic misrepresentation of the social organizing concepts that the YKW have deployed or abetted with absurdity and singularly against White organization.

They are playing into the most sacrosanct of American stories when they pander to the Cartesian civil rights of their undergraduate students. Academia becomes like a big business of selling sheer talk. The paying customers are undergraduates - often not so gifted - who are fed and readily consume this hyperbolic, if not gravity and biology defying, anti White liberal talk as a group of 18 - 24 year olds in pernicious feedback loop with liberal, disproportionately tenured Jewish professors in perpetuity.

As generations of students have been inculcating ant-white racism, it is destroying Whites. The means became more sophisticated with The Frankfurt School - The virulent Herbert Marcuse’s notion of liberating tolerance, claiming the right to be intolerant of intolerance - of anything but “the left” (liberalism against white bounds) - of course, he was not advocating a White Left and that’s where it will get interesting. No, he advocated free love and polymorphous perversion, while his tribe’s media allowed that to be blamed as strictly characteristic of the hippie motivation. Just as the “decade” was allowed to be blame for civil upheavals.

If you really want to understand the disruption of our moral order, how it started to go into runaway and you are serious about it, you don’t go neo-trad reactionary and start blaming them hippies and the quote “feminization” of men.

In sum: The disruption of our moral order is an expression of White America’s Lockeatine denial of social classifications and the legitimacy to discriminate upon the basis of those classifications weaponized against Whites (markedly, the 15th Amendment, enfranchisement of blacks), which happened to go into activist overdrive in and around the 1960 with school integration, the Civil Rights Act, Immigration and Naturalization Act, Rumford Fair Housing prohibition of property sale/rental discrimination and anti-racist projects generally.

Anti-racism is ant-social classification and discrimination thereupon, it is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

Now, to understand this catastrophic runaway of modernity weaponized, we need to briefly understand what characterizes modernity compared to other forms and ways of life.

Anti-racism is anti-White classification and discrimination thereupon, it is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

As briefly as possible (Modernity, Wails, Post Modernity, Traditional/Ethnocentric, Primitive Monocultural):

Modernity:

Modernity’s initiation and high point is with the Cartesian separation of thinking from interaction (or the attempt, anyway), in favor of a quest for universal foundations. Toward that end, there was an Archimedian Cartesian end, in mathematics and other principles conceived as transcendent of nature, and an empirical end, where fixed and detached foundations were sought within nature - and that is how we are characterizing the Lockeatine empirical philosophy we described before, with his wish to dismiss classificatory patterns as an illegitimate basis for discrimination because they were not perceivable in the moment, he thus held them to be fictions of the mind.

Modernity is characterized by a valuation of experiment and change, with a belief in progress - what is new, it is believed, is generally going to be better. It continually puts resources at risk in the background belief that it is moving toward ultimate, foundational truth. This way of life and thinking did yield wonderful advances in science, technology, the positive aspects of the industrial revolution, liberal ways of life and more. It also provided a liberation from unnecessary, destructive and backward tradition, custom and superstition. However, not only did it also risk, hazard and wreak havoc with its own inherited forms and ways, but in its narcissistic universalism, it ran rough-shod over coordination (even) with other cultures/peoples/ways of life - not that they should necessarily be willing and able to go along with an across-the-board modernist agenda any more than our people should.

However, with the positive advances Modernity was making in many regards, it’s performance requirements gained strong logic and power of contextual force through those positioned to profit along with the captains of industry and the neo-liberal merchant class over the public, a general class which was formerly ordered below monarchy, aristocracy, feudal lords and clergy.

Growth and liberalism of classificatory bounds for new market reach and experimental extravagance was ever expanding. With the belief in the inevitability of progress leading to solid universal foundations that must be revealed when all the bugs of our superstitious tradition, custom and habit are worked through, indeed our very inherited forms are put at risk to testing: what is “new”, even the mixed race person, will inevitably be better. The performance requirement thus - this is not new, work to change.

This performance requirement leads to a few problems, however.

1) The first problem is obvious and I’ll let other people elaborate. They will cite examples of how mulattoes have lower I.Q.s than Whites and so on….but there are a myriad of ways in which our forms and ways can get worse, not better.

So let me move on to a second problem with modernity’s performance requirement to work for change and what is new.

2) The charmed loop of modernity: this is not new, work to change, achieve change, celebrate change, the celebration is barely over when the change is no longer new and you must work to change again. This valuation obviously grinds up traditional forms and ways; and who among us has not heard the sophomoric objection to solid and important ideas that “this is not new” as if that somehow makes it unimportant?

Modernity is not only culpable in running rough-shod over other ways of life, but has also been culpable in running rough shod over animal species and our environment.

3) The paradox of non-conformity: there is a strong performance requirement of modernity to not conform to custom, habits, traditions and group identity, to be a unique individual - creating a paradoxical identity all its own - “be different so that you can fit in.”

4) Modernity is narcissistic and puts resources at risk. Running rough shod over coordination with other lives because it does not see them as fundamentally different, it runs into coordination problems thus while at the same time risking its own resource to this experimentalism.

5) Modernity proceeds by a great deal of critical skepticism; this has the drawback of sometimes making it difficult to suspend disbelief and sufficiently enmesh in even the benign, helpful and necessary ‘narratives’ of one’s inherited forms and ways.

Communications scholars work this out through a scheme based on Aristotle’s notion of optimal competence.

A) Minimal competence cannot satisfactorily gauge, participate or withdraw from traditional practices. It cannot judge an even exchange, cannot give more than traditionally expected without being ingratiating, or less than traditionally expected without being taken as unfair.

B) Satisfactory competence can only satisfactorily participate in the structured framework of traditional practices; it is only capable of gauging the fair value of exchange traditionally expected.

C) Optimal competence can deliberately participate in traditional practices without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity, being aware and capable of other options - it has the capacity to gauge withdraw from traditional practices and inherited ways without being alienating; it can deliberately give more than expected without being ingratiating or less than expected without being taken as unfair.

Within the disorder of late modernity, there is no stable traditional society to reliably uphold traditional structures, one is either Minimally or Optimally competent.

Post Modernity:

Recognizing that the performance requirements of Modernity were running rough shod over traditional and more ancient forms and ways of life, including to the detriment of Western peoples, the concept of Post Modernity was conceived to protect people’s inherited forms and ways of life against the juggernaut.

Post modernity is to reflect optimal competence writ large.

Unlike modernity, it is not narcissistic, it recognizes significant differences between one’s own culture/people and others and can manage coordination between these difference without putting resources excessively at risk for failure to recognize differences.

Willing suspension of disbelief -

Crucially, the post modernist must develop a certain capacity for willing suspension of disbelief to sufficiently enmesh in inherited forms and ways in order to hold up to the skepticism of modernity and challenges from other cultures and people.

The warrant for willing suspension of disbelief is established through verifiable pattern.

Sometimes also called “the hermeneutic turn”, post modernity provides a liberation from the mere and arbitrary facticity of empirical Cartesianism by way of hermeneutics’ engaged, circulating and sequential narrative form’s capacity to move into vistas framing and re-framing broader patterns of truth to facilitate coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.

Coherence being the first task of any individual and any “people.”

As post modern, a people do not see themselves as obligated to change, as they recognize where what is new may not be better for them and therefore they can maintain their inherited forms and ways for the most part; they can also withdraw from unhelpful traditions, customs and habits while introducing modernist change where useful or necessary. They can manage inherited forms and ways and modernity, and coordinate with other cultures/people without imposing their traditions or modernist change upon them; or without naively allowing other, traditional, ethnocentric societies to impose themselves and their ways the post modernist’s destruction.

The other forms and ways being:

Wails:

Many people simply do not know what to do and manifest their despair; or they bear down harder on Modernity or Tradition.

Many people are overwhelmed by the disorder, waste and destruction of late modernity; and where they do not manifest the darkest social aberration in reaction to the tangle of injustices, they may haplessly flail-about and bemoan the failures of modernist and traditional ways, simply not knowing what to do; they might eventually double down on modernity or tradition hoping that the problem is that it has not been tried hard enough.

Monocultural society:

The first form of society, a simple way of life which recognizes no other. It may not even recognize other ways of life and people as human, but rather something more like food for the communal stew pot. As globalization moves us toward monoculturalism, “racists” need to be concerned that they will be looked upon as non human.

Traditional ethnocentric society:

Unlike modernity, it was not narcissistic, it recognized outsiders and other ways of life; and had different ways of dealing with them as outsiders - not putting its resources at risk with them the way that modernity does.

Traditional ethnocentric society can become problematic when it is impervious to some of the better aspects of modernity and becomes so intransigently set in its ways, treating them as necessarily superior where in fact they may not be, especially in dealing with others and common environs; and where it fails in its dealings and coordination with others and in felicity of environment, it can expresses a needlessly destructive, violent, early stage of modernity; as it goes imperial and supremacist thus, it is liable to instigate reciprocally escalating diatribe - for example, by invoking and provoking narcissistic, quantitative comparison where qualitative niche differences might be respected as representing incommensurate rule structures facilitating intra and inter group symbiosis, not a matter of equality/ inequality, necessarily requiring dominance or submission.

Communications scholars have made a diagnosis and a prescription, well reasoned - so, why do people think that “post modernity” is a bunch of cynically ironic, deconstructionist, hyper-relative da da nonsense?

My hypothesis based on experience, erudition, observation and talking to relevant people is because YKW.

It has a great deal to do with their position and influence in academia - tenured professors in a feedback loop with undergraduates, age 18 - 24 in perpetuity - where they would have been able to influence an understanding of post modernity, which would allow Whites to protect their culture and people against modernity and antagonistic ethnocentrisms had the YKW wanted them to have this clear understanding. Some of the YKW motivation in this position was not so much straight forward malice as it was better for business; their big business there, as I had said - selling talk to the paying customers, who were the undergraduates. PC identity politics and the interpretive critical model divorced of rigorous reality checks, allowed for more participation of students, whether they could meet true rigorous verification or not, simply if they had the money or took out an unreleasable student loan. But overall, I do believe the reason why post modernity wasn’t taught properly to the broad public, and badly misrepresented in fact, as crazy, hyperbolic liberalism, just more modernity in fact, follows a consistent pattern of YKW disruption of any key concepts and terms which would facilitate Whites coordinating and organizing in their group defense - in fact, making these concepts didactically repulsive to Whites, getting them to react against their own interests.

They are experts at identifying and taking what is important and necessary to maintaining their group systemic homeostasis - e.g., this notion of post modernity for themselves; but then they instigate and promulgate its misrepresentation to the gentiles - in the case of post modernity, as “da da”, in order to disrupt the potential for White ethnocentrism to gain in strength and systemic homeostasis. That’s why I’ve taken to calling the proper form of Post Modernity, White Post Modernity, to distinguish it from their da da misrepresentations.

But this is one of many of what I call “red capes” set up by Jewish academia.

Basically, what they are doing in their manichean war of deception, time and again, is taking terms and concepts useful and necessary to social systemic, group homeostasis and misrepresenting them with distortions, gross exaggerations or their exact opposite - Post Modernity is an important example. It is meant to help people to maintain their inherited forms and ways of life against the ravages of modernity, antagonistic ethnocentrism or just plain ignorance - it is crucially important idea for clarifying and directing rectification of these matters, but they represent it as ironic, deconstructionist da da.

Let’s move quickly past the crucial matter of our moral order being misrepresented - red caped - by the self destructive nonsense of Christianity - “our tradition” wasn’t even really our tradition and didn’t ultimately serve our ends. I don’t want to get tangled up in a discussion of Christianity now, but Modernity did provide a first liberation from pernicious traditions and superstitions such as that.

We’ve already explained how they’ve weaponized modernity and the prejudice against prejudice against us.

The period in and about World War I is usually cited as the end of confidence in Modernity and its belief in endless lineal progress; thus prompting Post Modern corrective.

In and around this time their are all kinds of relevant goings-on about the re-formation of The Federal Reserve Bank - comprised of less than a dozen private banks, my understanding is that there was vastly disproportionate Jewish influence (Rothschilds typically cited) from the start and almost all of these banks would become Jewish owned (Goldman-Sachs typically cited as the most powerful) - in and about this matter, there are also stories of shady influence of Woodrow Wilson, the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, Brandeis, and the Balfour Declaration, a deal struck, it is said, to bring America into the war in exchange for declared Western support for Zionism.

These would be examples of their group interests being served where ours are being destroyed; however, these issues have been covered elsewhere and I neither want to belabor nor commend what tends to be an overwrought “World War I was a bad war” story told by an overly Germanophilic American WN, as I do not see Kaiser Germany’s grounds and plans for conducting WWI as overly compelling. Nevertheless, the epoch of and about WWI is generally looked upon as the death of confidence in Modernity, limitless progress and so on. From its ashes the first murmurings of Post Modernity started gaining some momentum.

The Post Modern turn, also called the hermeneutic turn, was an anti-Cartesian movement that traces its roots in Descartes’ contemporary and first adversary, Vico; it was moved along significantly by Nietszche’s criticisms of modernity and began to gain theoretical wings with Heidegger.

The idea, again, was to resolve the Cartesian detachment, its estrangement of theoria by prompting us back into organic concern within the centrality of praxis. This was done by conducting inquiry as a matter of engaged hermeneutic circularity - deploying narrative form to capture historical perspective on our relative interests and circling to rigorous, even microscopic scientific inquiry and focus where necessary; moving to broad vistas on the history, breadth and imagination of our social system to provide relevance and orientation on the other hand.

While Heidegger did have corrective grounds to emphasize more of an individual emergent perspective within his praxis, later scholars were warranted to argue that the courage to be one’s self ownmost toward death as the lighted path of authenticity was an over emphasis if it was expected that it would simply and naturally spawn the corrective of social systemic homeostasis ....despite the fact that this was a concern of Heidegger, as he saw his folk caught between the “pincers” of Russia and America.

His student Gadamer would advance the socially interactive nature of praxis with his philosophical hermeneutics taking a view toward the significance of marginals, thereby enhancing the corrective direction of participatory engagement and our relative interests in praxis - the historical and temporal perspective of people in relation to one another.

I will come back to the issue of marginals later, but they help to naturally locate and establish authentic parameters of a people.

While modernity provided a liberation from pernicious tradition, custom and habit, Post Modernity’s hermeneutic turn, its willing suspension of disbelief as noted above, provides a liberation from mere facticity, the arbitrary throws, tangles and paradoxes that we are subject to in the mere facticity of moment and episode. Conceptual and narrative form of hermeneutics allows us to transcend the moment and episode, to amend, abridge abridge and negotiate these tangles in order to achieve coherence of our authentic pattern - the first task of any person or people
.
Authenticity in this inquiry would be largely translated in our contemporary technical language as sufficient Alternative Range of Functional autonomy of and within the class (the group).

Hermeneutics is necessary for any individual if the are going to have a coherent autobiography. Hermeneutics doesn’t just tell fictional stories. It tells real stories and allows you to transcend arbitrary flux and make a full, coherent story, not only for individuals, but also for the group. So, Whites having some skill, if not mastery of hermeneutics, is essential. And for Jewish and other academics to misrepresent that as if it is all just license for any flight of fancy, anti-science and anti-reality, is egregiously bad misdirection.

Coherence demonstrated, we can manage accountability to our social capital, agency in the optimal competence as we described before to warrant our human ecology and our part.

However, we need to come back to the topic of YKW red caping and misleading of concepts and terms otherwise useful, if not imperative to social group homeostasis.

We mentioned Post Modernty as one, a crucial idea being misrepresented as da da endless deconstructionism and hyper relativism.

Hermeneutics is another - crucial idea misrepresented as the capacity to interpret matter in just any which way, as anti-science. In fact, so heavily has hermeneutics been misrepresented as such, that when I tried to talk to Kevin MacDonald about it, he insisted that hermeneutics is anti-science. I know that it’s not. Hermeneutics is anti-scientism - bad science and bad application of science that can often stem from the very Cartesian mindset that it seeks to remedy by participatory, processual engagement in inquiry. If hermeneutics were anti-science, if sheerly averse to facts and verification it would be betraying its anti-Cartesian mandate - i.e., going off into some entirely non-empirical world is Cartesian as well.

Hermeneutics is narrative capacity that allows for liberation from mere and arbitrary facticity by imaginative hypotheses into broader sequences and units of analysis, opening up vistas of contextual orientation - e.g., on the temporal breadth and history of our system - to provide coherence, accountability agency and warrant; while its non-lineal capacity allows the inquirer to circulate back rigorously to empirical verification for closer readings as need be.

Social Constructionism:

It has become conventional to cite its father as Vico, a contemporary and first major critic of Descartes. And that assertion is reasonable given Vico’s pivotal stance and for the fact that indeed he sought to take Aristotle’s initial move in Nichomachean Ethics farther to subsume theoria into praxis. However, the roots of social constructionism do go back to the ancients, while its trunk and branches follow though many people, including some of the philosophers discussed.

Following up on Gadamer, the American Pragmatists and some from other fields, such as G.H. Mead, but markedly Gregory Bateson, a communications perspective began to develop which would seek a more radical correction for the Cartesian divide and its myriad destruction of ecology, including the human ecology of different peoples.

This cultivation would germinate into the Social Constructionist school of thought which would seek to take the post modern project further, more radically subsuming theoria into praxis; by answering, but not so simplistically as to be Cartesian, in favor of the social end of the question, “if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise?” scholars are correcting for Modernity’s Cartesian imperviousness and unaccountability to social consequence; sensitizing us to the fact of our social indebtedness and joint responsibility for the making of our world.

Communications scholars would take the deep dive with this, not in mere social constructivism, which addresses the products of processes, but in social constructionism, which examines the process of interaction itself as the unit of analysis - this is a communications perspective which would maintain that we live in communication - even the sidewalk is communication - in an effort to gain insight into processes to correct for the destruction that Ethnocentrism can visit upon us, but more acutely now, that Modernity visits upon us through its gratuitous experiment and change, its singular reviling of inherited forms and ways, its Cartesian individualist detachment, lack of accountability to nature and the human ecology of groups. With this communications perspective we might sensitize people by contrast to our social interactive engagement, reflexive effects, indebtedness in pervasive ecology, including the validity of different groups, ways of life and their niches.

Now, before we get into the usual boring stuff that would be whisked out to the delight of our enemies by a reactionary Dr. David Dickhead proclaiming that “race is NOT a social construct"as if he’s doing us a favor…

Or similarly wHen Jarod “they look (((HuWhite))) to me” Taylor then turns around and claims that they (referring to social constructionists and their students, apparently) want to say that “race is just some mere optical illusion”...

The truth is that there is no ultimate need for even the most serious of scientists to take exception to social constructionism properly understood; and there is much for them to gain by it.

Social Constructionism does not deny facts, evolution, the value of science, etc.

Some will think take this anti-Cartesian mandate as a claim that Cartesian coordinates and such should not be used, despite their indispensable utility in certain disciplines. That is not the idea at all. The concern is not to get stuck there in Cartesianism and neglect that fact that the ultimate concern for these inquiries is in application to our relative interests.

With regard to hard facts, it will claim to have some agency to determine how facts come to count at least post hoc. It maintains this prerogative in order to centralize our perspective in praxis, to prompt fallibilistic correction and sensitize our perspective on accountability to our social interactive indebtedness - which at the other end from mere facticity, does start to look more like joint construction - starting with some agency in our parents choice in union to create us and moving on to still less metaphoric examples of social construction, as in a team of engineers and workers of various kinds joining efforts to build a high rise complex or a space ship.

It is crucial to drive home the idea that a centralizing of praxis is about correcting the Cartesian detachment, therefore again, it is not about denying reality or fact. Again, same was with hermeneutics, that would be contradict its anti Cartesian mandate.

The misunderstanding that people are having has to do with red caping again, of social constructionism, by distortion and abuse of the concept through that feedback loop again, between ill-motivated liberal professors seeking to deconstruct White boundaries and otherwise inarticulate 18-24 year old students who find a role to participate where they might not otherwise.

A good test to tell whether someone is abusing the concept of social constructionism is to ask whether or not you have to put the word “mere” in front of the term social construct of social constructionism to convey their meaning and intent - if so, then you can presume that you are dealing with solipsism or some other flight of fancy, not social constructionism. They are betraying its anti-Cartesian mandate and writing off its call for social accountability with their “mere” claim.

And there is a reactionary feedback loop that the YKW can manipulate, in fact they are still in the process of manipulating this anti-social reaction - Paleocon, alt-right, dissident right - between generation internet bubble and the boomers, who would double down in scientism, tradition, Nazism…larping in reverence of naturalistic fallacy, Abrahamic religion, take your right wing reactionary pick - as the millennials are fed umbilicaly by right wing boomers they are insulated from correction of their anti social reaction in their internet bubbles - irony bros and the like shit who “know it all” (nothing from experience), when they finally did try to bring together the various anti social tents under one umbrella, unite the right Charlottesville, they were falling into a trap and predictable disaster.

In Sum:

Social Constructionism is another means to take people back into praxis and sensitize them to their radical relatedness and indebtedness to others in co-creating their world. Along with hermeneutics it provides accountability, coherence, agency and warrant for individual and group. But as such it is another important idea that YKW academia has abused along with their liberal minions. I don’t want to belabor this argument here, but to make quick work, if you have to put the word “mere” before social construct, or social constructionism, then it is not social constructionism proper, but rather an abuse of its anti Cartesian mandate by divorcing the concept from its social interactive accountability which would provide for correction for all but the insane or sociopathologically dishonest. A social constructionist position is entirely valid, even in regard to science. Many things about our lives are constructed quite actively and others things are constructed at very least post hoc in terms of how they count. The advantages to social constructionism are abundant as stated. But as usual, the YKW know what is good and necessary for group homeostasis in post modernity and they have misrepresented it and distorted it terribly so as to misrepresent it and make it a didactic turn off to Whites to instigate a rigid, right wing anti-social reaction to turn people off - including our own organizational initiatives and capacities.

...

Now, it was Heidegger who brought the post modern hermeneutic turn into high relief in philosophy as an anti Cartesian means to negotiate praxis - and our first task in the thrownness, to achieve coherence, is facilitated by hermeneutics. This is the means by which we transcend the arbitrary flux of mere facticity into broader coherence and a range of functional autonomy that Heidegger would refer to as authenticity - this would apply to both individual and group.

Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, came up with a few absolute gems vis a vis his Philosophical Hermeneutics.

One being the denunciation of the enlightenment’s (i.e., Cartesian) “prejudice against prejudice.” Another student of Heidegger, Hannah Arendt, added that the enlightenment “was far from innocent.”

But coming back to Gadamer, he had another great idea.

However this idea too, was so badly red caped that I mistakenly thought that Gadamer was Jewish.

Redcaping the concept of marginals:

Concern for marginals is a great idea for instilling and determining a natural, existential sense of praxis, that is to say, getting a sense of our natural group classificatory bounds.

Marginals will be near the borders and bounds and have a sense of where the shoe pinches, being first to suffer when the boundaries falter. Their feedback on the system then can be invaluable. Moreover, having compassion and having accountability to and from them promotes the responsible, delimited notion of good will that is good for the morale of our system. We are not resented and resisted and they are inclined to help maintain the bounds because they are helped by us within reason as well. Moreover, it is good upkeep for all of us, as we are all marginals from time to time for whatever reason, maybe because we are just so damn smart.

The concept of marginals is particularly important for Whites since their being understood properly as being within our union bounds, it would not only help us to gauge our parameters, but to treat them humanely and fairly is part and parcel of our Augustinian nature - we want nature to decide who lives and dies. So, to help them within reason, while not allowing them to over burden our system or those of us doing well, is to reconstruct our natural way.

Reconstructing our Augustinian nature is a fine virtue as ultimately it will be Augustinian devils which decide the fate of people.

However, this idea of marginals has been red caped by YKW academia such that “marginals” are depicted as those outside the group or antagonistic who ‘should be’ let in and included -  this (as I will argue) is liberalism of our (would be) union bounds, not socially accountable leftism for us. The concept of marginal was so perverted thus, that I mistakenly thought that Gadamer was Jewish for this abuse of the concept of marginals.

These red capes are no small matter, they are confusing our people and as we react as right wingers, we look bad and turn people off for our ostensible lack of compassion.

And so with the confusion of these concepts necessary to group homeostasis within the post modern condition, hermeneutics, social constructionism, post modernity itself, the YKW have maintained a condition of disorder and wails among Whites.

But we need to take little step back historically, back to where they were still weaponizing modernity against us and where the post modern turn as suggested by Heidegger put me on a path to correctives of their bum steers of weaponized modernity and misrepresented post modernity.

My hermeneutic / autobiographical contexting in historical perspective:

If I was persuaded that hermeneutics was nonsense, I would not have initiated a key line of inquiry and inference that facilitated my capacity to make sense of my life and circumstance, and what then to do about it. But in the 80s, I did glean advice from Heidegger, that to make authentic sense for one’s self and circumstance, one does need to set out one’s autobiographical perspective in historical context.

As a White man in my twenties in the 80s, I suffered what was going on the second decade of feminism in coalition with black civil rights and power harrowing White men without effective societal correction.

I discerned that my autobiographical consciousness was awakened within a context of what I called the paradox of hippies and feminists and what I would come to refer to as their incommensurate gender agendas.

The agendas of blacks, power and civil rights, and Jews were distinct and incommensurate as well, as were the agendas of traditional men and women, but factoring that in comes after initial contexting.

The initial contexting was:

I saw that hippies were motivated by a desire for Being by contrast to the Vietnam draft. I latched onto the significance of Being, moving from the semiotic of The 1967 Be-In, to Heidegger’s dwelling on the term, of course - he elaborates on Being as “Dasein”, the non-Cartesion “There-being”, though I hadn’t gotten to that level of elaboration yet, nor to Heidegger’s MidtDasein (Being amidst one’s folk), as pointed out by Michael O’Meara, though that would be a clear inference to go along with this valid, important, but unarticulated motivation of the hippies.

Then I considered my outrage at the kind of things that feminists were complaining about at the same time as males were being considered so intrinsically valueless as to be subject to draft into a war on the other side of the world for a matter of no clear and present danger.

[To note: the argument for war with Vietnam was to intervene with an impending domino effect of Marxism; however, Ho Chi Minh had sought support and normal trading relations with America first, before turning to Marxist alliance for what was really his ethnonationalism. China was a historical enemy of Vietnam; other strategies could have and should have been tried as opposed to conventional war].

The essence of the hippies began to sort-out on gender lines (and eventually on racial lines as well); the hippies were not articulate about their motive and it had to be inferred as I mentioned, but I did piece it together with further clues such as from the rock opera Hair - as it emphasized the gender aspect , viz. of male being, with “my conviction” and the Dasein/MidtDasein aspect with “walking in space”, i.e. that White men, as hippies, were seeking something very basic and deep: it became a ready inference in the human potential pop lexicon of the times, that White men were seeking the basics in the hierarchy of needs, that kind of Being was on the most fundamental level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs/motives.

I need to digress

Before some right wing turkey tries to say that I am advocating some kind of feminization of men, I need to note here: Your first duty as a man is not figuring out how to be a real man and impress chicks with all the trappings of machismo, but rather it is to observe what your first duty is as a male come man - which is to protect your kith and kind, particularly your females as they are vulnerable; you protect them by instantiating boundaries/borders. The underlying motive of the hippies was a call back to this very essential motivation of midtdasein. And until such time as you are willing to contribute to setting the limits of those boundaries and borders that would ostracize traitors and interlopers who violate midtdasein, I want neither your complaints nor advice about being a man, not having a woman and what to do about it, etc. We aren’t after universal maturity, we’re after White maturity.

While witnessing the horrors of Vietnam on T.V. as a kid, I surely objected vehemently to the idea of being sent there as a requirement for being a male; nor did I like coming of age where feminists would react in blood curdling indignation if you noticed how they looked, good or bad; the black riots in Newark, summer of 1967 (how’s that for a contrast to the Be-in and summer of love in San Francisco?) and ‘68 when M.L. King was shot (I was irritated that the announcement of his assassination interrupted my cartoons); I did not like - at all - hearing Malcolm X saying that “The black man would rule”; I fought ferociously the “chocolate” nurses/orderlies when I had my tonsillectomy at age seven; and I found being bused to go to a black school at age ten for a program of “integration” to be a nightmare something on the order of being thrown into the gorilla cage at the zoo - fight or flight was my response there too (not pacifism), but I digress…

We’re back in the 80s now

In the hermeneutic I’m setting forth here, I’m seeing an instructive frame of referenced to the hippy and feminist agendas occurring within Maslow’s hierarchy of needs/motives, with the agendas (I’d later come to say) being incommensurate - feminists never having been particularly sympathetic, but their agenda getting taken into overdrive, pandered to exponentially, while the inarticulate White male agenda of Being was completely buried once the Vietnam war was over and there was no longer the all too obvious contradiction to the notion of sheer White male privilege across the board as there was with the blatant contradicted of the Vietnam draft.

Then I turned toward the feminist literature.

Some key exemplars of second wave feminism in the 60s were:

Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and The Single Girl, 1962, based Soren Kierkegaard’s either/or, it argued that a girl is going to suffer whether she saves herself for marriage or if she goes ahead and has her flings, so she may as well go and have the enjoyment of her flings. Gurley-Brown parlayed her notoriety to publish and edit of “Cosmopolitan” magazine, there at every check-out counter, Gurley-Brown was an important influence through the times as were a few others, notably Gloria Steinam, Bella Abzug and Elizabeth Holtzman, who upset the infamous Emanuel Celler (the long presiding kosher Congressman behind the 65 Immigration and Naturalization Act), as she took his seat on an Equal Rights for Women platform in 1972 - as I said, the year that the Vietnam Draft ended and empathy for White men ended, followed by a deluge of feminism, with women seeming to complain about just EVERYTHING; that year, 1972, the year that feminism went into overdrive, the only year Steinam’s Ms. Magazine turned a profit. Others have argued that the Rockefeller Foundation wanted to drive down wages by introducing more women into the work force. That could be true as well.

But the most influential feminist of the sixties and probably the most influential period, along with Simone de Beauvoir, was Betty Friedan with her book The Feminine Mystique, 1963.

To my theoretical delight, I found very conveniently that not only was Friedan literally a student of Maslow, but her thesis of women’s liberation put forth in this book was that it required their being able and free to pursue self actualization, the highest levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

I analyzed her point of departure as having been taken from de Beauvoir’s Second Sex, 1948, page 672 in which de Beauvoir states in scathing criticism, ““This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotlean morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”

It is only a bit of a digression, but a necessary digression to note that another Jewish feminist, Carol Gilligan (82), would take a quasi neo-traditional angle, not Friedan’s modernist angle of saying that women had the same fundamental needs as men and needed equal representation at the traditional male table, but rather focusing on the qualitative differences of females and saying that their traditional seats so speak, should be elevated at the table - their different predilections, their different kind of morality itself, needed to be elevated in respect along side the male table. Nevertheless, Gilligan was still functioning within the adversarial feminist framework and also took a line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure - 1948, Page 681: “ but she knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”

Gilligan does make some uncanny arguments however, so as not to digress, the point now is that a four way topoi is emerging within Maslow’s hierarchy, feminists and hippies are modernists, reversing or overcompensating the traditional directions on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in order to ‘differance’ and distinguish themselves from tradition, while Traditional Men and women are tending to over compensate the traditional directions in response to the disorder of modernity.

Problems for the hippie agenda of White male “there-being and being amidst his folk”

They were up belying traditional direction of masculinity, that one should soldier on imperviously, stoically, intrepidly onward and upward no matter what.

Nevertheless, they were correct to feel a motivation that mere customs and habits, traditions of masculinity had gotten out of hand in this regard - the world wars and Vietnam had demonstrated that calling upon men to risk their lives had to be better warranted than baldly asserting that ‘this is what men do when their country calls them to do it.”

Another difficulty with this is that in prescribing blind confidence, it instigates an opposite course from intellectual survey and ultimately, enough balance to act intelligently. As noted, we are not after universal maturity, but observe rather that different human systems, say, between Whites, blacks and Asians, have different rates of maturity; and that there is something of an inverse relation between confidence and empathy - too much confidence is not sufficiently intellectual. Whites naturally have an optimal range which allows for a sufficient measure of hesitance, survey and empathy to foster more intelligence and creativity than brute masculinity would allow for.

Ritual incitement through rites of passage need to take into account the matter of optimality when evaluating the masculinity of males sufficient to be deemed worthy men.

Bateson criticized the Naven Ritual Rites of passage of Indonesian tribes for producing harsh, overcompensating males.

And neo traditionalists now seem prone to buy into the idea that our White men are being made feminine, they are prescribing an overcompensating modernist, universal maturity, that is going to threaten to prescribe a black ideal of masculinity upon White men, as black masculinity serves well to win the masculine day in the fall out of moment and episode left in the wake of modernity - a more impulsive, less reflective and sublimated, more momentary and episodic assertion that does not express the White masculinity at its intelligent and creatively patterned best.

If traditional requirements are to be re-applied, a more helpful critique would be that women ought to be required to less masculine and competitive, more thoughtful and cooperative than feminism is prescribing (This would at the same time compel men to assert their interests). The feminist agenda for actualization was rather out of turn.

Nevertheless, the White male agenda for Being and Midtdasein, was hard to articulate for its call for the taboo bridling of the more exaggerated expressions of masculinity, for the fact that it was about the organic synthesis of being, below words and the sublime analytic parsing that have one rising above the din in self actualization. In an important sense, it was a non-intellectual, verbal motive, rather an organic motive.

And adding to the ineloquence of White men was the problematic practices of feminism, wherein a man could be cast as wimp or pig no matter what he does - try to treat her as one of the boys, he’s a male chauvinist pig, try to treat her gingerly out of respect for the special quality of her gender, he’s a wimp.

Moreover, the motive for Being/MidtDasein was hard to articulate as it flew in the face of America’s most distinguishing allure, the opportunity for an individual man to achieve vast heights - land of opportunity.

The hippies were not articulate, not even exemplars who did happen to achieve vast heights, such as John Lennon, who did not know what it was about and the significance fo Being/MidtDasein for White men (Lennon would call women the nigger of the world as if all men had it so good as he then did; he trivialized hippiedom, saying “it was a great way to meet girls”), and they and their movement became buried and disingenuously associated with affectations such as free love - Herbert Marcuse calling upon males from just anywhere to prey upon the women co-evolved in the maintenance of your kind is not Being for men.

Blacks having Civil Rites (ostensibly the middle of the hierarchy) that do not allow White men to discriminate on behalf of our kind is not Being for White men (a right below rights).  Blacks pursuing black power (apparently the top of the hierarchy) is not Being for White men. Women taking the advantages they have on basic and middle levels of Maslow’s hierarchy and parlaying them into an adversarial and displacing agenda, taking once compensatory realms for men away from them, is not Being for White men. Especially not while the White male agenda for Being did not have enough sympathy from over compensating traditionalists either, whether men or women; while White men were still being categorized summarily by feminists as having White male privilege from the ground-up.

Simone de Beuvoir’s feminist critique of men only looked at privileged men and paid short shrift of the vast sacrifices required of them - even in the wake of the World Wars (The Second Sex came out in 1948), the vast sacrifices required of men, of their very lives, their being, just because they were men.

Friedan’s perspective was much the same. She looked at disproportionate representation of men in elite societal positions, in manifest self actualization, and concluded that according to Maslow’s hierarchy, they had to have gotten there through a lineal course of differentiated fulfillment of basic levels; and while that may have been true in cases, other men really were great and just proved themselves; indeed, there was some vestigial, traditional reserve of higher positions for men out of respect for the fact that they were expected to make these basic level sacrifices. But they were coming more and more under fire from feminists and anti-Whites; while there were also cases of men achieving not for differentiation of fulfillment but for sublimation of Freudian or Nietzschean deprivation or even privation of basic levels needs.

Those men who succeeded, achieved “self actualization” despite brutal rites of initiation - such as Vietnam draft, the brutal disregard of their ordinary level needs and being in that war - they’d be clear examples of where Friedan’s use of Malsow’s model to suggest that men were on top by sheer dint of Maslowian fulfillment of lower needs and oppressive advantage thereupon would not characterize the situation accurately.

Maslow calls lack of fulfillment on lower levels “low grumbles”, and lack of fulfillment on higher levels, “high grumbles.” The comparative conceitedness of the high grumbles of feminists when compared to and ignoring the low grumbles of males ( who didn’t want to die in Vietnam so that corporate magnates could get a good deal on tire rubber) had to be enraging to many men. Can you imagine the rage of those men who would succeed despite all deprivation on basic levels, only to be knocked down by feminists as deserving only to be knocked down for being at an oppressive advantage!? or being expected to succeed despite all privation, such that if they did get there it would only prove their privilege and deservingess to be knocked down? or being knocked down by Traditionalists for not succeeding even though they were not taking into account that modernity had left them without the same resource and compensation? It’s a wonder that more men didn’t go psychopath.

Compounding this was the time in memorial charmed loop of didactic incitement. The first causalities are organic and tautological concerns, such as being and sociality, incited as unworthy, babyish concerns, one is sent headlong on their way into the Platonic forms, Cartesian coordinates, Jesus or some other sky god. That is, if a person or group has sufficient hegemony over another, they can incite complaints for being and social accountability, and cast them into a self destructive charmed loop whereupon you are a wimp, pig, dupe or permanent puerile initiate no matter how you react to the incitement.

Crucially, this incitement to higher self actualization in disregard of socialization and irrespective of what other people think is also a part of what breaks down the bounded quality parameters of our systemically patterned human ecology necessary for its homeostasis.

The Dark Side of Self Actualization…

The American emphasis on civil individual rights (its disregard of social classifications) operationalized as self actualization, particularly as Maslow drew the lines and feminists and traditionalists over corrected along them, contributed significantly to disrupting the White classificatory system into runaway. While black civil rights were slated for ordinary level needs of enfranchisement and dignity, above the messy organic needs of Being that the hippies sought, black power sought actualization and was incommensurate as well; at the same time the Jewish agenda of anti-racism disallowed White classificatory boundaries and discrimination thereupon as a broad but direct taboo among the public following-upon their Trotskyism after World War II; they built anti-White coalitions of the feminists, blacks and other minorities - the burgeoning, “PC” assault on remaining White classificatory bounds.

Coming back to our hermeneutic, a pervasive horror scenario is building by contrast to what should be. There is a gradual build up of terror against White men. From the threat of draft into Vietnam to the threat of de-sexing for rejecting gratuitous traditional obligations of masculinity, the non-prioritization of the American dream of material actualization impervious to one’s sociality, to the disregard, and in fact, non articulation of the hippie motive for being/midtdasein, to feminism going into over drive after the war was over - and what could be more painful than having the women that you are born to love and protect trained so effectively to hate, criticize, betray and destroy you; taking up coalition advocacy of those who sought to destroy you. Malcolm X saying that blacks would rule, the riots when he and M.L. King were killed; to Eldridge Cleaver feeling good about raping White women, considering it an act of insurrection and revolution; the Black Panthers; to the mortifying, Orwellian civil rites placards in every public institution that you walk into announcing that discrimination against wild, violent animals - only trained that you are privileged oppressor - was strictly prohibited by the Supreme Court and US Constitution. It is important to note a reaction to the disruption of being able to defend against destructive patterns because (((liberalism))) invariably points to the outliers, the exceptions, which of course there are, while it denies the pattern.

“The sacred ministry of betrayal” is what de Beauvior called the feminist motive, “you’ll never do to me anything more hateful to me than I’ve already done to you.”

Indeed, what could be worse than having the women you are born to love trained and considered paragons of virtue for hating you and betraying you, but that was the propaganda for both feminists and more and more, even for traditional women when in accordance to modernity’s universal maturity. The damn hadn’t burst yet in the 70’s and early 80s. You didn’t see normal White women, middle and working class, walking around with blacks; but the logic of meaning and action being implicated by media, academia and politics was obvious and ominous in implication of destruction and demoralization.

Disorder of Modernity and Pandering increased One-Up position of females…

Whenever you thought it couldn’t get worse, it did. The anti white male rhetoric in tandem with pro black rhetoric just got worse and worse, reaching a crescendo by the 90s.

But I’m setting the background here of a system gone into runaway for lack of correction, specifically missing the significance of the hermeneutic turn with the Hippies rebellion for being/dasein/ and midtdasein as systemic homeostatic correctives [“Being” being approximately synonymous with an innocent until proven guilty right to live].

Problems with Maslow’s story of actualization itself.

As noted first of all, Maslow’s story of self actualization presumes a lineal course in a hierarchy of needs - once lower level needs are fulfilled one is free to move on to higher concerns up to self actualization. There is, of course, a certain amount of truth to this but it is a bit simple and lineal to deal with reality, not only for the matter of incommensurate gender needs that we’ve described, but in reality of the upshot implications of what this kind of human potential paradigm, in America, heralded as land of opportunity, is likely to provoke. 

It is a trap to toxic incitement, quantifying self maximization at the expense of qualitative relational and social concern to begin with. To reject the call for men is to risk desexing.

People immersed in pop culture are not likely to realize that Maslow’s story of self actualization was actually a bastardization of Aristotle’s idea of self actualization, which was based, naturally, on the Aristotlean idea that self actualization was the realization of the end of a natural teleology of the individual. And, as always, with Aristotle, it was to occur within the balance of the golden mean - achieving an optimal state and tempered in our biological concern as such, not toxically pursuing maximization. One may generously presume that Aristotle would recognize further that we, in our human nature, are mammals, concerned with human relations and engaged in praxis as we are, have responsibilities to be good citizens, not concerned for our self actualization ex nihilo.

Now then, through the perspective of Maslow’s modernist, pop psychology hierarchy of self actualization, so paradigmatic of the human potential movement as it was, we are able to see that it played a part in sending the American story of individual liberty in pursuit of happiness into runaway, social classificatory restraints be damned - the disorder of social classifications, the disorder of modernity.

While Aristotle was somewhat blameworthy for the sake of misleading European social systemic homeostasis by not quite taking theoria, viz. teleology, radically enough into praxis, i.e., people in interactive relation to one another, he did at least begin that project.

However, even though Maslow talks of relational concern, democratic spirit, etc. in his notion of actualization, it is rather ad hoc, occurring after Cartesian detachment of individual being and its quote ultimate end in self actualization has already been posited.

Thus, it lent itself perfectly to the toxicity of the human potential movement and its dark sides, including dramatic reflexive reversals of its pursuit into aberration. Which would express natural corrections to systems pushed into runaway for the disregard of their patterns.

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns, that’s the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.” - Bateson, added, the quantification in mocking lieu these patterns isn’t funny….the Lockeatine project could only produce dark, satanic mills”..

The question becomes, how do we build-in balance from the start as an ideal in line with Aristotle’s optima and in line with our nature so as to prevent systemic runaway and brutal, anti social corrections to an essentially toxic, socially irresponsible paradigm?

The remedy is what I would try to develop into a thesis in graduate school in the early 90s.

But first we must take a step back again in this hermeneutic to the broader perspective.

Disregard of social classificatory patterns and discrimination thereupon ruptures social systemic homeostasis. As this potential for individual liberty, classificatory patterns be damned is central to the American way - Constitutional - it is exceedingly difficult to criticize, withdraw from or do anything about. It is ostensibly about individual freedom, liberty and happiness. Campaigns of anti racism and PC (women, blacks etc. against White men) are, if anything, even more to do with the destruction of classificatory patterns, such as race, than human potential stuff.

However, this perfect storm was a necessary result of the enlightenment/ Lockeatine de legitimization of social classification and the YKW weaponization thereof - prohibiting classiificatory discrimination - by White men, anyway, ala Alinksi - to create the radical disordering effects of modernity.

As in Woman, Fire & Other Dangerous Things, people still have the need to classify in order to make sense despite the Lockeatine prohibition of social classification - they need to categorize on a “human-sized scale” in order to make sense of patterns between the abstract and the particularly concrete. They wound up classifying by atavistic default to the lowest common denominator and the base tropisms of things that were simply too difficult to ignore, such as the categories Male/ Female and the high contrast tropism of Black/ White. These classifications become magnified at the expense of others.

Within the disorder of modernity, the one up position of females (you’re so lovely, may I have a date?), even puerile females emerged with increased significance. In that position she is pandered to from all directions, especially by virulent YKW, who are trying to demoralize White men with divide and conquer by their own women; but they are pandered to by all males, including those previously of classificatory outgroups, who wouldn’t have ready access to White females.

In this position pandered to thus, she can become a powerful social gatekeeper despite her ignorance. She sees herself gaining in power (albeit short sighted, prior to the empathy that she would develop for the vulnerability of children of her own kind in a stable order), her most base inclination to incite genetic competition as a female (otherwise sublimated to a more Augustinian level - sperm after egg, etc.) is in a charmed loop and becomes normal