White Post Modernity and The Queen’s Jubilee

Posted by DanielS on Monday, 17 August 2020 05:00.

In a recent podcast, Dangerfield ran clips from an English village in the 1970’s celebrating The Queen’s Jubilee.

Dangerfield remarks among his derision of “Post Modernity” read (((post modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity, and “The Leftists”, read international, red leftists as opposed to White ethnonational left, that these “Leftists” will denounce the celebration of “The Queen’s Jubilee as right-wing reactionary nostalgia.”

This is not really quibbling on my part. Rather, it provides a good example of why it is important to understand Post Modernity correctly, viz. White Post Modernity as opposed to its (((red caped))) misrepresentation along with other language currency counterfeiting the depth grammar of left and right.

Dangerfield says, “these leftists want to say that these English villagers celebrating the queen’s jubilee” is an expression of right wing reaction.”

However, Post Modernity proper, viz. White Post Modernity/left ethnonationalism, would say, on the contrary, that it can be fine and good for these English villagers to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Unlike the rule structure of Modernity, a practice (and a people) does not have to be different and new in order to be good; and should not be put at risk to uncontrolled experimentation.

If it is a healthy tradition, one can feel free to participate and reconstruct the practice/people without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity (as opposed to modernity’s paradoxic mandate to the individual: “be different so that you can fit it”); one invokes a willing suspension of disbelief in the hermeneutic (liberated from Modernity’s mere facticity) and one does so understanding when it is healthy for one’s people (while one is free to Not participate and can give way to Modernization when a tradition is not healthy for one’s people).

You begin to see why it is important to have a clear understanding of Post Modernity, viz., White Post Modernity.

For one clear example, for capacity that it provides for Optimal Competence, as per Aristotle’s description of performance requirements: minimal, satisfactory, optimal.

A minimally competent person could not participate in the Queens Jubilee appropriately, because they would not understand it well enough - thus, not understanding how to reconstruct the practice normally, or adjudge where the practice might be right (despite modernist derision) or where it might be going wrong (despite its having been tradition).

A merely satisfactorily competent person can ONLY participate in a rather verbatim reconstruction of the practice. But given the disorder of Modernity, lacking the stability that once underpinned the practice with assurance (e.g., The Queen has our interests at heart and would never decry those against immigration as “racist”, nor lord accountability to the universalizing Jesus over us, as opposed to accountability to our native people, nor have a grandson married to a Mulatto), there is no such thing as the kind of stable criteria for one to reconstruct; one must have more understanding of the context.

Hence, given the disorder of Modernity, especially (((weaponized))), as it were, there is no stable traditional order to practice satisfactory competence, one is either minimally competent or optimally competent.

* Aristotle’s discussion of minimal, satisfactory and optimal competence uses the example of fairness in exchange and knowing the difference.

Satisfactory competence can only make an equal exchange.

Minimal competence doesn’t understand an equal exchange, might make an equal exchange by accident, or give less than the appropriate value or more than the appropriate value, not really understanding it.

Whereas optimal competence knows the equal value of an exchange but can exchange less without being niggardly in truth or can give more without being ingratiating in truth.

It is not only necessary for English and all European peoples to understand Post Modernity properly, but it is also quite possible, not too hard at all for the vast majority of our people to understand its performance requirements; minimal/optimal. Hence, we must not be deterred by Jewish red-caping of terms and concepts.

Related at Majorityrights:

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

White Post Modernity

Comments:

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 19 Aug 2020 09:06 | #

Next podcast I will probably begin with a refresher class on an another important aspect of the post modern turn properly understood, also known as the heremeneutic turn.

The liberation from mere facticity ...as Heidegger would say…

With hermeneutics your’e liberated from arbitrary flux of the mere empirical world, and capable, as he’d say, of an “authentic” human existence, i.e., homeostatic (systemically self governing and self corrective), rather than stasis reaction…whereof you’re just reacting to the flux of stimuli (like an animal)...rather with heremeneutics liberation from mere facticity you are free to structure your actions coherently on the basis of learned concepts and narrative…

...including the warding off of what is not of your emergent qualities.

This is necessary for both individual and group coherence - coherence being an aspect and at very least semiotic of what Heiddegger called “authenticity.”

Now, if you think about it, the concept of race or nation group requires this hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity in order to maintain the working hypothesis of the group/race, as it and its value is not empirically evident in all of its temporal and historical breadth.

Maintaining group coherence is characteristically a Left Ethnonationalst concern, as the concept of group unionization and coherence (and individual, interactive coherence) and its subjective and relative interests underlies the term, left, while underlying the term right is a concern for facts irrespective of subjective/relative interests (which we nevertheless need to know), and a narrow, rigorous, more absolute but less accountable basis of warrant - because of this, the right is better suited to provide feedback*, but not a rigid, permanent (detached and estranged) state of mind and identity; whereas the left provides calibration and the working hypothesis, with its relative interests in mindset, accountability and correctability structured by the unionization of the ethno-group, its human condition.

* This objective feedback, accountability and correctivity is crucial difference between White Left Ethnonationalism and their absurdist Characterology of “The Left” (“The” left, as in the Marxis and Cultural Marxists with their nutty abuses of concepts, weaponized against Whites, as if they are the only ones who might deal with social group concerns) that the Alt-Right, Dissident Right, Third Positionists, Neither Left Nor Rightists have been nudged by Jewish marketing program to go along with ...

Now, remember, Post Modern Coherence is interactive and co-constructive, not lineal. Therefore, for example, the practice of The Queen’s Jubilee need not be celebrated strictly as always, but could be modernized where interactive input observes that it is going off course of maintaining Native English, ethnonational coherence, and reconstructed accordingly inasmuch as the tradition of monarchy is seen fit to retain.

...

In the podcast I might also discuss the triangulation that’s being deployed against WN coordination. I will certainly discuss that in my next post, which should go up sometime today, if not tomorrow.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:32 | #

How about addressing the gap between the academic living in his head, with all his special little words and certainties, and the lived experience of the people?

A short passage from my advice to PA, in a sub-section titled Communicative and communicable:

Any nationalist party must wholly belong to the people, wholly serve the people and no other cause, reflect the best character of the people, cohere the people’s natural interests, express the people’s natural will, and in all things seek the people’s security of existence, freedom and good. The political relationship of party to the people is that of affinity, the party’s emotional bond to the people that of blood and family. The party has no need of instructing or ordering or forcing, any more than the people (and the British people particularly) have any need to be instructed, ordered, or forced by its politicians. Those things belong to parties which have no affinity, no bond of family to the people.

In contrast to those parties’ top-down ideological dictate, ethnic nationalism uniquely functions on the principle of emergence. This being so, the party members – only subscribers today – must develop their activism as a two-way channel to their constituencies. Just as with “We Were Never Asked”, PA must offer means of expression by the people of their shared interests, and that expression, so consonant with philosophical ethnic nationalism, must carry through to and energise the day-to-day communications of the party. It is a symbiotic relationship, a perfect political relationship; for what are politics if not from the people? Saul Alinsky himself never had such an advantageous point of departure in his three decades of community activism in Chicago.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:32 | #

GW Says: How about addressing the gap between the academic living in his head, with all his special little words and certainties, and the lived experience of the people?

A short passage from my advice to PA, in a sub-section titled Communicative and communicable:

Quoting himself, he says: Any nationalist party must wholly belong to the people, wholly serve the people and no other cause,

DanielS: The White Post Modern suggestion is absolutely in the interests of the Native English, as it is also absolutely in their interest to have a competent world view which coordinates with others at the same time. The performance requirements of Modernity are famously impervious to coordination with others, and wind up not only running rough shod over the resources of others as a “necessary” hazard, but also rather naively put their own at risk. Whereas traditional ethnocentrism has tended to fail in coordination to the detriment of the ethnie for other reasons (whether through hubris along with other improper reading of the niche abilities of others, not seeing the need for more respectful coordination), leading to conflicts not in the best interest of the native ethnie.

So, when you say, “serves no other cause”, you are leaving out this crucial aspect where White Post Modernity distinguishes itself from both Modernity’s oblivious universalism and Tradition’s oblivious ethnocentrism - neither of which would serve the native English for the conflict insufficient White Post Modern competence would visit upon the erstwhile matter of coordination.

GW: reflect the best character of the people, cohere the people’s natural interests, express the people’s natural will, and in all things seek the people’s security of existence, freedom and good.

DanielS: And so WPM would be serving these concerns best.

GW: The political relationship of party to the people is that of affinity, the party’s emotional bond to the people that of blood and family. The party has no need of instructing or ordering or forcing, any more than the people (and the British people particularly) have any need to be instructed, ordered, or forced by its politicians. Those things belong to parties which have no affinity, no bond of family to the people.

DanielS: Obviously you’d want politics and the genetic interests of the people and their land, viz. the English, to be “natural” to them; and that is why anybody talking “politics” in their interest will be using words and offering some advice in order to help them make sense of rule structures which are Not “natural” to their interest; as you do “instruct” them when, for example, you advise that Christianity does not derive from Native English moral order. It’s practice by the English may move somewhat toward coherence with their interests with their aptitude and creative license when put in their control, but the text and anyone who reads it, is receiving alien “instructions.” ...some are liable to join with its universalizing prescriptions believing, like Luther, that they “can do no other.” ...and that’s just the example of Christianity and the need for words to deal with it that you, yourself, see as necessary to “instruct” with… you might say that you are “describing”...

As on the whole, this seems to be a thing for pure behaviorism un-interfered by the “impurity” of language; which neither you nor anyone else will practice, nor should you continue to try. It appears rather to be a perfect expression of Modernity, wailing Modernity in its wish to get back to pure empiricism in the “innocence of mood signs” as Bateson suspected.

It is apparently a reaction against the abuses of “Post Modernity”, read (((Post Modernity))), the red cape Jewish academic misrepresentations of the terms that has become so important to your autobiography that you would prefer that the misrepresentations stand so that you can continue to tilt at them.

But an Englishman might take heart, as that’s two Englishmen offering the analysis - Bateson (regarding the ill advised wish to get beyond language) and the American Englishman (influenced by Bateson in many other ways as well, in his communications perspective) who drew the proper distinction between the performance requirements of Post Modernity / Modernity and Tradition. So, there is the affinity of blood in the relationship between these “politics” and the native English indeed.

GW:
In contrast to those parties’ top-down ideological dictate, ethnic nationalism uniquely functions on the principle of emergence.

While emergence is uniquely important as a guide to the nature of the individual Englishman and the English people, it would be a straw man and not even “descriptive” to say that those using the interactive unit of analysis are rendering “top down dictates”, as they are closer to descriptive of what the English are doing when they act in their ethnic genetic interests both in the trajectory of their emergence and in their interaction through the use of English language, concepts and behavior conducive to their interests - much as the abuse of these concepts causes you revulsion (understandably).

GW: This being so, the party members – only subscribers today – must develop their activism as a two-way channel to their constituencies.

Well, this “instruction” is conducive to the communications perspective, i.e., interactive and socially constructive.

GW: Just as with “We Were Never Asked”, PA must offer means of expression by the people of their shared interests, and that expression, so consonant with philosophical ethnic nationalism, must carry through to and energise the day-to-day communications of the party.

Just as we’ve seen the disease of Cultural Marxism and its Political Correctness make its way from academia to non-academics, along with Alinsky’s weaponizations of Modernity, so too philosophical expression conceived by Englishmen (much through academia and their natural traditions) for their people’s interests can make its way and contribute, for their part of the community, to common parlance - it’s in the very etymology of the word communication - “making common.”

GW: It is a symbiotic relationship, a perfect political relationship; for what are politics if not from the people? Saul Alinsky himself never had such an advantageous point of departure in his three decades of community activism in Chicago

DanelS: Indeed, it is as perfect a fit as can be.