Before I begin Part 4, I need to make a preliminary note about one major red cape that I’d neglected to mention - that being equality/inequality red caping sameness and difference.

I’d mentioned that equality and inequality was redcaping the issue of commensurate and incommensurate logics of meaning and action; and that remains true and important with regard to distinguishing paradigms and niches that should not be subject to false comparison.

But there is the simpler matter of “inequality/equality” red caping sameness and difference - as in qualitative sameness and difference; markedly, being evolved for different aims, at least in evolutionary context and thus, its not being entirely sagacious to apply a singular, quantifying comparison of equality / inequality across the board THE universal merit lest one hazard not only those on the short end of the stick but one’s own where other criteria become relevant.

I’ve discussed these matters so often - and have been gas-lit so often by obnoxious right wingers determined to hang on to the claim that “THE ESSENTIAL MATTER OF THE LEFT IS ALL ABOUT EQUALITY”, that I’d forgotten to mention it because I’m a bit tired of it and there is the unconscious wish to not be too repetitious even though a fundamental issue hasn’t been driven home.

Anybody who argues that our enemies are the left and the left is all about equality should shut up.

It sounds bad (elitist) to our people and our adversaries to chase that red cape and it is not nearly sophisticated enough to stave off vain, narcissistic and false comparisons that can backfire; whereas the qualitative differences of niche theory and the notion of commensurate/ incommensurate niches and paradigms are far more likely to facilitate coordination rather than provoking reciprocally escalating diatribe.

I recognized a red cape being prepared where a tribal professor took issue with Thomas Khun’s notion of commensurability/ incommensurability and its potential application to the social sciences: a good and important idea for our social organization and defense was being readied for red caping and misdirection.

..... As for for Part 4

Systematizing our resistance.

To achieve this, I’ve set out a limited number of problems in our way in step 1.
Now for step 2:

2) Corrective Measures for Europeans/Whites

A) Unionization and other good things from the left vs its misrepresentation to Whites as liberalism.

B) The DNA Nations

C) Re-tooling Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs/Motives to effect White social systemic homeostasis.

When speaking of antagonism to our homeostasis we need to continually look at two different groupings. First, we must look at Jewish power and influence which, as indicated, comes from two directions itself, top down, issuing confusing and misdirecting directives to the gentiles and from the bottom up, from their biological habits. The next group we must look at are right wingers, especially our own - as reactionaries, tending to seek pure objective or religious warrant they can be blinded to their indebtedness, to social accountability and compassion; and open back doors for entryism - whether through the rational blindness of pseudo objectivty, the scientism of might makes right on the order of Hitler, the scientism of natural fallacy that treats human nature as dehumanized, as if below its nature in praxis, or the Judeophilism and universalism of Christianity or Islam or Judaism itself: Right wingers tend to want to narrow and perfect their warrant for accountability; and where they proffer accountability at all it is in a narrowing group of individuals, even down to one, in relation a supposed relation to god, or just pure god and “Nature”, an idea that outstrips responsibility to the social system and its human parameters, the union as we may call it when deliberately established. Interestingly, it is here, in this quasi objectivist basis that right wingers and liberals merge from the same source; it is why they are equally as obnoxious and destructive, the right wingers only tending to be a little more stealthy in their misdeeds and reactionary in their pseudo accounting, while liberals tend to be more flagrant in their sense of visible license.

The YKW have always wanted us to identify as liberals and right wingers because it has these underlying associations of being irrational, unreasonable, unaccountable, incompassionate, ati-social and uncaring. They have been adept at manipulating us as right wing reactionaries ready for war, maneuvering us into wars that are most destructive to ourselves, while killing some of what would be to them, their more traitorous types, their types more humble, accountable, integrated with the gentiles. At this point in their cycle that is what their elites are doing, i.e., all they can do to align with White right wingers.

You hear it everywhere, “The Left, The Left, The Left” is doing this degenerate, horrible liberal thing. Again, they are the ones that misrepresented THE LEFT as an international thing, anti-White unions, coalitions with completely distorted and absurd notions of social construction and hermeneutics - completely inaccurate to what these ideas and post modernity were conceived for at their best.

This is what they do Not want us to be - a White ethnonational left properly defined.

And so we become a White Ethnonational Left in order to unionize our bounds, and to establish it as opposite to liberalism - you are in the union or you are not. If you are in the union you are accountable to us. We can hold our elites to account this way, where they might otherwise betray our relative interests with pseudo objectivist or religious arguments, try to impose entryism of outsiders upon us - we are not third position for this reason..

By this union, we provide the social accountability that can also maintain the happiness and loyalty of our rank and file as well; and our marginals, all contributing to maintain our social systemic homeostasis.

The right advocates by facts and faith whereas the left advocates by groups of people. Whites are only “the right” in reaction internationalist Marxist and Cultural Marxist attacks on our bounds and borders. Advocating on the basis of our European/White people, we are an ethnonationalist left.

Again,taking opportunity to define left for ourselves, not in Marxist terms, but allowing for private property, wealth and individual liberty unharried by too many accounts requested. Democracy can be limited to the demonstrably competent and duty bound to the boundaries and borders. The boundaries and borders of the Union are the most important feature. They can be defined by National bounds but are always accompanied by group union membership.

But make no mistake, it is the union of the ethnonation that is the proper unit of defense; it allows for subsidiary community, of course, but is patient for your idealism to be disillusioned when your local community turns weird on you, and you are in need of the transcendent pattern of what you consistently like and value in the broad pattern of your people; and you are in need of their being of a size which is formidable, particularly in coalition with fellow ethnonations on the world stage.

Separatism is the first step, separatism is the ultimate aim, separatism is always possible.

DNA Nations

And we can do this for our genetic basis with the DNA Nations. We can work out coordination with other races, where mixed people can go or where people who have other values besides race can go; while we are vigilant of ethnic genetic distance and what admixtures are most harmful, what tendencies certain people have. But the great advantage of the DNA Nations is that it allows us to coordinate and preserve our most precious resource, our DNA, in our ancient homelands and in diaspora - irrespective of the politics of our lands—while we slowly build the capacity to re establish our land claims; moreover, while we develop a political body large enough to wield power, whether a military large enough for the world stage or an economy big enough to take us to outer space.

I will not elaborate on the concept of DNA Nations and its capacity for coordination from the smallest unit of two people to grand ambition as it has been covered enough here; and it will be promoted, as it remains not only a possibility but cause for great optimism: it is a means to curate our genetic groupings while we organize and coordinate our resources and relations to other groups and environs. The sheer popularity of genetic testing is one reason why this optimism is warranted.

Nevertheless, it is because gender and individualism are such difficult components to manage within the disorder of modernity that we will need to come back to a re-tooled paradigm of actualization as a site of its fair negotiation.

It is difficult but it is not all so difficult once our boundaries and borders are established - in fact, it will reveal our distinct advantages, which will be compelling of loyalty.

Managing Actualization

- retooling Maslow for an optimal circularity of needs, with topoi (guidlines), the most fundamental being socialization through unionization.

A) Managing Actualization by subsuming it within our praxis (our socialization) and stabilizing our systemic homesostasis through an optimality in balanced integration with basic and mediate levles, with emphasis on the use and enjoyment of these levels as well.

While I have recently heard Greg Johnson getting a pat on the back and a few chuckles for cleverly saying that placing our people at the center would take care of “the magic hand” that doesn’t take care of us, I have made the same sarcastic rejoinder here at Majorityrights in response to arguments that want to foundationalize our defense in “nature” below praxis or in metaphysics, but a bit more thoroughly by saying: correction and guidance of our system in homeostasis will come through the unionization of people, viz., as ethnonationals in recognized socially delimited interaction and accountability, not through “the magic hand.”

Aristotle is the single most respected figure of the west, i.e. Europe (and with good reason).

The concept of Actualization as a major issue began with Aristotle.

Unlike Maslow’s concept of differentiation of fulfillment on basic levels, Aristotle’s concept as with his philosophy across the board, was based on balance, and specifically with regard to people, optimality (not maximization) in respect to their human nature as biological creatures, and specifically as mammals, who care about relationships.

While Aristotle was the first and set in motion what would become the essence of the post modern project with his concept of phronesis (practical judgment) as necessary in praxis (people in relation to one another), his concept of actualization, again, as all of his philosophy, was still more guided by lineal teleologies than we would be satisfied with today as White Post Modernists. Teleology of our biological nature does provide proper guidelines to an extent, but we’d want to avoid quite the reifications that would take us in its implied Cartesian direction to put us back in the same socially detached and non accountable position with regard to our social systemic source and resource.

We are going to ask the radical question, when is an individual ever outside of relationships and not dependent on them more or less? And come up with the honest answer - never.

With that and with the White Post Modern Project of curing the Cartesian estrangement, we are going to place our praxis at the center of our outlook - our union and our coalitions, in coordination with other human and pervasive ecology, as the “a-priori” of our condition - molecules and people in conversational relation, Harre would say.

Now, the prejudice against prejudice, as Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, called the Enlightenment and its Cartesianism, and the weaponization of the anti-social classification Lockeatine end by the YKW as “anti-racism” is an attack on our capacity for group classification as Whites, identification and discrimination thereupon.

Given that, we coordinate on the popular consensus of how our molecules come to count - in DNA haplogroups and we unionize our groupings to defend against this elitist and liberal antagonism.

We do this with hermeneutic circularity to cover an optimal survey of our social systemic needs as they themselves circulate in requirement - not only of our needs, but in survey of antagonisms to our social systemic homeostasis, whether from within, our liberalizing traitors, or without - watching out first and foremost for subversions by YKW but not only…

And through that one and only given reality of socialization, we are going to cultivate another three aspects to round-out our social systemic homeostasis.

White survival, the 14 Words, our right to exist as human ecologies, to recognize and stave off efforts to kill and genocide our people as our people authentically are - not in some huddled, animal like, interbred remnants like scared animals - thus, in full groups with alternative range of functional autonomy that would include our sovereign habitats is related to

Being There-Being (Dasein), its non Cartesian call into authentic, organic life-process; and Being amidst the group (MidtDasein) - Socialization as Being in Kind (as GW and Otto call it; and “Being-of” where you need to take the non-Cartesian hermeneutic survey to a perspective dwelling in your emergence).

In ordinary terms, its about our “right to live”, and I am comfortable enough to suggest that I am describing more than I am prescribing an essential gist of White Nationalism in this aspect of what will be a quaternary system - topoi to guide an optimization White/European social systemic homeostasis.

I like to quote Soren Kierkegaard here, “sleep is the highest genius.”

Self Actualization - or just plain actualization, I don’t think I’ll get much argument about this one as one of the topoi. Our people are ambitious, industrious, they like to achieve and it is unwise to try to stop them; they must only be tempered by the fact that the pursuit of achievement can be toxic and needs to be accountable to praxis,  to our social and genetic capital, to our social systemic homeostasis, or it can cause runaway and may, in fact, be an expression and instigation of reflexive reversal to toxic aberration. It is also the case that we need to emphasize more the Aristotlean idea of actualization - as opposed to the modernist idea that you are to achieve something new and beyond the ordinary, in fact what it means to be actualized is to realize the natural end to which you were born as a biological creature. We must be accountable to that reality, while we amend it as tradition and correct the modern notion by moving more thoroughly into praxis.

Now, I am deliberately flexible in the definition of self actualiztion. It does not even have to mean anything salient by social standards, more like the old teleology, it could mean simply actualizing who you were born to be by natural process of maturation.

Actualization could be about pique moments, after which you forget about it and attend to more ordinary things…

With socialization as the a-priori, however, the very idea of self actualization will be equipped with a feeling that it coincides with doing good for our people on the whole or it may as well not exist, may as well not be recognized.

That is, Self Actualization will be facilitating social systemic homeostasis, not rupturing it as it had in Cartesian modernity.

Finally, there are two other topoi that we need to round out the quaternary system of our homeostasis. And these are crucial -

But again, I do not think that they are a hard sale.

They are ironic opposites on the intermediate level -

Routine and Sacrament.

These two needs/motives have suffered greatly through subversion in modernity.

They are necessary to stabilize the system.

They shouldn’t be too hard a sell because they can be very enjoyable if freely chosen and participated in.

Sacrament : is largely about reverence for the episodic manifestation of that which is, will be and has been essential to our social systemic homeostasis and survival since time in memorium.

The ceremony, narrative and reverence that bring these episodes together in patterned coherence is how moral orders (what is prohibited, obligated or legitimate) and religions are formed - as we should form a new religion which has the securing of our social systemic homeostasis and existence as its basis.

The etymology of the word religion has wisdom. “Re” is related to kingdom, but better for us to say “realm” since we aren’t particularly advocating monarchy, we are advocating realms; while “ligia” has the same root as “ligaments” i.e., to re-attach those of the realm to one another.

One of the very beautiful things about this notion of sacrament is that because it is drawing so deeply upon the pattern, any one of our people can potentially participate, show reverence for the sacrament.

Unlike some aspects of Self Actualization, it does not require special ability, skills or manifestation, doesn’t require that you have reached your personal maturity (teleological actualization), or even that you’ve had some kind of peak experience as a result of the sacrament - just that you recognize and respect its significance to the pattern - and you are, after all, a part of the pattern that those who are actualized are actualizing from; you can take pride as such that you are facilitating its continuance even if “ordinary” or marginal for now. ...though I’d question how ordinary anybody is who is walking around and thinking after tens of thousands of years of evolution.

I’ve talked a great deal about how “Sex as Sacrament” - monogamy and careful mindedness about sex and selection is an important option to institutionalize (to the point of providing for single sex partner for life hopefuls) for our social systemic homeostasis - as a control variable (helping us to curate and manage our human ecology) and to stave off the cynicism of natural fallacy. To maintain loyalty and undercut the pseudo moral high ground that the Abrahamic religions, notably Islam, have over us.

Again, as sacrament, recognized as a part of a great pattern and willing suspension of disbelief that is secured within the union, one is not pressured to be great in every moment or episode - it can transcend momentary and episodic imperfection to move to a relational level and provide huge relief to individuals and the system. Even ordinary or less than ordinary people can participate if they are fair in their expectations of a partner; a match maker feature should be a part of this for all “union” members, from the elite to the marginals; and as a part of a responsible union, they can trust that they will not be left behind in the genetic arms race if they are merely fair and monogamous.

And with “lefty” resource understood in our interests properly, White post modernity, social constructionism, hermeneutics, we may begin to cultivate a new religiosity of the pattern, for it is necessary to seek this semi-transcendence given that most of our people are not particularly good at this late modern point in time and those that are good are deeply flawed. To save ourselves from despair and maintain our inspiration then this capacity for hermeneutic transcendence of the moment and episode, to take us to a relational level and level of cultural pattern is crucial - hermeneutics is not trivial at all.

You have class, having class allows you to glide past the need for petty demonstration, provoked or otherwise of the moment or episode. You are of the pattern, of the White class.

The Basque philosopher Unamuno would point out that the perfection of forms give us guidance in quest such that the vicissitudes of fortune are as waves crashing harmlessly against the rocks girding our vision. Our White Class formally bounds and guides that vision.

Of course the idea of sacrament, particularly for the patterns of our people, is going to be under continual attack of alien ethnocentric criticism and modernist skepticism, but there is no need to yield to this skepticism - the pragmatic relativism of our interests recognizes fallibility but in allowing participatory correction does away with the need for endless skepticism.

Routine: People need some routine in order to have enough redundancy to establish coherence and the quantifying enjoyment thereof.

Coherence, as we have said, is the first task of any person (who wants a human existence, that is), it provides a basis of understanding by which to gauge events in an authentic range of functional autonomy; as deliberate liberation from mere facticity.

By routine we relax our mind from new and challenging tasks and, in a well ordered society, gain the respect of doing our part in maintenance; also taking the time to learn skills passed down from our forebears from time in memorial. The patterns that can develop can be quite enjoyable - some people may like to garden, for example. Furthermore, like the other basic levels, without this basis that you can come back to, there is no stable, authentic self actualization going to come about.

Though not unguided by organic process, routine establishes the notion of deliberate, systemically circulating hermeneutic inquiry.

It is probably the first step in the hermeneutic turn’s liberation from mere, arbitrary facticity, into coherence. And fundamentally necessary though it is, probably the first casualty to the humiliation of didactic incitement - tautologies are its first victim, while the first steps of hermeneutic coherence and authenticity requires them.

I believe White men have suffered greatly in this regard, having these basic levels, organic being/midtdasein, routine and sacrament attacked by modernist skepticism, the culture of critique; the shrill, didactic incitement of feminists and anachronistic lack of empathy from traditional women.

People may think that I am defending all manifest aspects of the hippies per-se - that’s not it. What is to be recognized is the significance of their motive - Dasein/MidtDasein for White men per se, a certain level of intrinsic valuation - the significance of its being covered up and their inability to articulate the cause.

Nor am I saying that this motive was enough by itself, but rather crucial among missing elements that would be pivotal to our social systemic homeostasis to this day.

When I come back, I will talk about this re-tooling of the hierarchy of needs to negotiate a fair and satisfying topoi for modernist and traditional men and women in order to effect European/.White social systemic homeostasis.

[taking a break to be continued]

8 March

Particularly if we can get a handle on our trajectory of separatism and unionization, as we might, say, through the DNA Nations, I believe that there are ways that we can appeal to both women and men that can be fully satisfying to both and create the groundswell that will ultimately generate a critical mass to gain, sustain and manage our systemic autonomy - our homeostasis.

That said, we need to propose these goods, that is, topoi of constituent needs that would appeal and serve as a better guide than Maslow’s hierarchy, in an overall emphasis on optimality and circulating organicism, through ongoing correction in engaged, circulating process of social systemic reconstruction.

A fundamental challenge to achieving this is the need to sell (so to speak) our people on the use and enjoyment of these basic and intermediate levels;  and the natural fit - personal and social - in optimization and circulating fluidity of need fulfillment as opposed to a lineal maximization of self interest.  Particularly in the growing social abyss of America, it is a wonder that the Maslowian type quest does not result in reflexived reversal to aberration more often, though it does that quite enough. While the quest for individual actualization, particularly as it is in sync with the Lockeatine rupture of social classification and YKW weaponization thereof, does more than its part to perpetuate the rupture our would-be social systemic homeostasis and concomitant moral order.

Of course the concern, what drives people into inauthentic quest as opposed to the authentic meandering of Dasein in circulating hermeneutic among these four goods is the fear of being left behind and losing out that comes of no-accountability, of non-unionization. On the other hand, if you have the comfort of knowing that your part and the genetic capital of which you are a part is valued and protected such that it can and will bring about systemic correction, then you are relieved the anxiety of inauthentic quest, being prematurely driven beyond the basic and the routine.

But there is the additional complexity to deal with in that the agendas of modernist male and female individuation to self actualization are incommensurate, while strict insistence upon traditional agendas of differentiation is not sufficiently competent to the circumstance of late modernity, come post modernity.

Heidegger does of talk a lot of Being, and rightly so.

Specifically, there-being and being in kind (GW) is to direct people back from the Cartesian detachment and estrangement, back into the engagement of praxis on the most fundamental, organic level of being as such, in a sometimes slowish, meandering process that builds through our emergent qualities as GW correctly likes to emphasis of Heidegger.

Though the Jewish jivers love to pander heavily to our right wing reactionaries of the boomer generation who then engage a reconstructive feedback loop with the young millennial fogies in their insular internet bubbles, the truth is that they are chasing another red cape - of the hippie motive.

The Hippie Be-In.

Though the hippies were of course not perfect and did lots wrong, the hippies were red caped as liberals. You may think the hippie motives were mere hedonistic self indulgance, liberal and trivial, they were not - at least inasmuch as they would be articulate - they did not articulate their movement nor take it to the political stage, but what they were a manifestation of was most profound and indeed organically motivated - the essential motive that they were manifesting was not silly at all, it was very profound for White people - the Being of White Males translates ultimately to the Being of Whites.

And yes, that is a bit of a post modern turn, from most all of world tradition, to suggest that males should be attributed a basis of intrinsic value before having to prove themselves - typically in life or death battle.

That White men have intrinsic value, certainly to our system, of our genetic heritage, and ought not be treated as expendable for the mere custom and habit of war; where midtdasein, our people’s boundaries are impinged upon, that is different, then our being is challenged and we must fight, males more practically leading in that effort.

But until such time as clear and present danger, where negotiation, say, with the Vietnamese for resource in exchange, which they probably would happily have done, an Aristotlean would be asking what are optimal requirements of manhood and what is toxic?

“Naven Ritual Rites of Passage produced harsh, over compensating males.” - Bateson

“The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” - Kenneth Burke

While Epicureanism is misunderstood as advocating rank hedonism, the empirically grounded philosophy was actually guided by a prioritization in the use of pleasure - ranking thinking the highest.

Our problem is not that our men are not masculine enough in accordance with some universal criteria of maturity, where we would lose to blacks anyway if sheer masculinity is the gold standard. The problem is that our boundaries are not guarded and the semiotics of the sentinels, our marginals, the value of ordinary rank and file, and the idea of being in kind for young men, have been run over rough shod by modernity and anti racism.

There-being and being in kind for females is more and more at risk as well, of course, but it has not been a priority of their agenda because it has been more or less a taboo to violate their being.

That is not to say that “double standards” should never exist, particularly with regard to incommensurate qualities as of the genders.

You can violate female Being and ordinary needs, but at cost of violating a very strong taboo; and again, she can normally call in the thugs if not authorities.

That was one aspect of “the double standard” wherein men pursuing sex partners were sporting (because it is generally harder) while promiscuous women are bullies.

On the other hand, a woman who slaps a man might be showing spunk (and he might deserve it), but a man who hits a woman is a bully for reasons of his obvious physical advantage.

The idea that promiscuous women are bullies (and they are), ought to be more commonly argued.

On the other hand, yes, there are some lucky white men who are pampered and have their basic needs satisfied and it probably helps them work their way up the hierarchy of motives to actualization. However, as I said, this was taken for granted by key feminists, implicitly by de Beauvoir and more literally by Friedan, when in fact, males are more likely than females to be confronted with deprivation and privation on these levels than females if for no other reason than more is expected of males, they are expected to achieve and they are expected to be more tough - they can’t just “be.”

I believe the selling point to White men is that they are not going to achieve anything without a solid basis in being and that it is enjoyable anyway (sleeping is the highest genius). And that the idea can be sold on women in that men will be less crazy if they are not deprived fulfillment on these levels. That allowing White men to have this does not deny them or White women participation in the other topoi, but again is necessary to sustain the system and any worthy actualization.

“Naven Ritual Rites of Passage produced harsh, over compensating males.”

Again, assigned intrinsic value of a certain measure, and thus not duty bound to toxic rites of passage, as in the case of obligatory fights to the death where there is no clear and present danger, a less torturous paths to manhood will be better for both genders - less crazy men and less abused women for their being resented (it certainly would remove some of the excuses the sociopath might conjure, and thus be easier to correct).

On the other hand, if women taking the modernist initiative want to pursue self actualization in emphasis over their traditional role, as many of them do, we can allow that because our union rule structures are non-negotiable - the option of negotiating liberalization of the border is not there, no matter which gender has the power.

Nevertheless, our enemies will continue to pander to the female tendency to incite genetic competition which translates to liberalization of our boundaries. And there remains the phenomenon of their increased one up addressive position, a position that can garner support where men are “not to be babied”, a position which is in fact, pandered to relentlessly within the disorder of modernity, having them take for granted undue confidence and ability to articulate their motives, incentive to maintain the gate keeping structure that empowers hyperbolic liberalism, eventually of themselves into positions of power through the levels of basic support that men are deprived of.

In a word, there is reason to be on guard against her inclination to liberalism and thus she should be subject to more rigorous tests against this inclination to liberalism - unlike the traditional pampering of women, if she is to pursue a nontraditional role of “leadership.” At any rate, she will be accountable to the White class.

This increased liberal attitude with regard to women, that they are Not strictly obligated to a traditional role, like Sex as Sacrament, will be a selling point for loyalty to our kind against our adversaries.

Most men and women will probably gravitate to more or less traditional roles and that is well and good. We are not trying to create effeminate men or masculine women in any case. we are looking to assimilate our nature’s organic process of balance.

Friend Zone - a good place.

To digress for a moment, I’d like to propose turning “game” on its head and advise that guys actually see getting into the “friend zone” with women as winning the game. That way both of you are relieved of obligations to live up to some toxic and premature expectations; you could be coming from a myriad of foibles that would be looked upon as unacceptable if not ameliorated for the forgivable fact that we are evolved for possibilities, but nevertheless render them innocuous in the friend zone. And safely there, assured that’s enough, you may find that there can be something more to the relationship or that it takes you into the company of a serious relationship. At any rate you have something excellent - a friend; and quite the opposite of convention, the relationship is long on legitimacy and short on obligation - you are free to be who you are - an excellent thing.

When considering what makes us distinctly human from other creatures, our capacity for friendship was another of Aristotle’s observations of humans in praxis.

...

Lets have a little overview/outline of how the western philosophical story goes:

It is said that of the pre-socratics, one favored a view toward process, Parmenedes, and one toward forms, Heraclitus.

It is suggested that Western philosophy took something of a wrong turn (at least in emphasis) in going with the forms through Plato. Aristotle reigned in forms a bit with a temporal grounding in teleology, and corrected for the a-temporal aspect of the forms with an epistemic distinction between theoria, which could abide the harder sciences to a more perfect end; while praxis, the world of people in relation to one another, is more changeable and thus requires more practical judgment.

The LaRouche people have a valid criticism that Aristotle performed a disservice in taking the formal ends back into nature as it curbed western man’s imagination. However, that capacity is later restored in post modernity with hermeneutic facility.

Coming back to our time line with the Greeks and their forms, there is important weight to this criticism as it put western philosophy on a trajectory of impervious reification and ultimately to Cartesianism, while it was incited along that way by Christianity (which I call a Jewish trick; what some Jews mockingly refer to as “Platonism for the masses”).

Cartesianism is likened to a quest to separation of mind from interaction: this quest had great technological and scientific yield; but in praxis it’s detached first to third person relation, if fixed rigidly apart from interactive survey, leads to estrangement, rational blindness and imperviousness - its steadfast belief in the “new” as progress to foundations and over emphasis on experimentalism toward that end put the resources/inherited forms of westerners at risk while narcissistically running roughshod over the resources and practices of other people’s, cultures and pervasive ecology: Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, would call it scathingly, “the prejudice of prejudice.”

This modernist, ultimately hyperbolic liberal trajectory is instigated by the charmed loop of didactic incitement.

Vico was Descartes contemporary and first major critic. In advancing Aristotle’s project, Vico would take theoria more thoroughly into subsumption in praxis; with that, he was practicing an early form of hermeneutics and social constructionism, pre-saging the (necessary) post modern turn. Unfortunately, he was much less known than Descartes…

Locke tried to foundationalize the empirical end of Cartesianism, using the prejudice against prejudice to deny the reality of social classifications (markedly, the Aristocratic class’s discrimination) as “fictions of the mind” which he maintained must yield to individual civil rights as we all have the same perceptions.

Kant saw the danger and tried to rescue moral order from the arbitrary and the momentary but he was still Cartesian; and Jefferson had already institutionalized Locke in the American constitution anyway.

However, criticism of modernity gained traction with Nietzsche.

Heidegger would take the post modern turn further, recognizing our thrown and arbitrary condition in praxis and with that the necessity to achieve “authenticity”, first of all in coherence, by means of a liberation from mere facticity through hermeneutic circularity - this non Cartesian circularity provides facility to balance the pre Socratics, dwelling on form to capture emergentism, while engaging the process of interaction through the verb Being, there- being, Being in kind, etc.

...we may act into the internal relation of rule structures as we are a part of them, co-evolved with them
.
And to paraphrase our Basque philosopher Unamuno, again, ‘the perfection of forms give us guidance in quest such that the vicissitudes of fortune are as waves crashing harmlessly against the rocks girding our vision. You have class, having class allows you to glide past the need for petty demonstration, provoked or otherwise of the moment or episode. You are of the pattern, of the White class.

The Post Modern, hermenteutic turn, spawned many good and necessary ideas and concepts for those interested in protecting their people and cultures against the ravages of modernity, its corresponding liberalism and antagonistic ethnocentrism but…

The YKW had weaponized the unaccountable, objectivist and a-temporal precepts of Modernity to hyperbolic liberalism (social classifications are “racist”) along with hyper-relativist, overly “imaginative” reactionary trajectory to mis represent Post Modernity against Whites, pandering to liberals firstly and then right wing reactionaries - who will naively or disingenuously go along with the program of their people’s destruction, as they both stem from and maintain the same objectivist root (theoria) that reflexively effects hyper-relativism and needs the White Post Modern cure(s)/Hermeneutic turn.

But make no mistake, it is the union of the ethnonation that is the proper unit of defense; it allows for subsidiary community, of course, but is patient for your idealism to be disillusioned when your local community turns weird on you, and you are in need of the transcendent pattern of what you consistently like and value in the broad pattern of your people; and you are in need of their being of a size which is formidable, particularly in coalition with fellow ethnonations on the world stage.

What I am saying here is that the White post modern project very seriously has got to be about taking theoria, taking our people into a perspective of praxis, of socialization as unionized with ethnonationalism to provide the bounds; and of course we have a concern of Being which is approximately synonmymous with living, with the organic fact of wanting to live, wanting to fight to maintain your kind and Being-in kind, which is midtdasein, is the same thing as ethnonationalism.  Then, I maintain that the intermediate, stabilizing levels, of the heirarchy of needs are very necessary to reinstantiate as important and enjoyable ..but necessary to instantiate our social systemic homeostasis, that is, routine and sacrament; and then, any kind of self actualiztion, however you might define it, has got to coincide with and occur within the process of socialization so that it doesn’t disrupt social systemic homeostasis, it reconstructs it - otherwise, what are you doing it for anyway? If you’re not doing it for us, if you’re not doing our system any good then you’re an enemy - you’re ostracized.