Why it is important to overcome the red-caping of social constructionism.

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 30 August 2020 06:09.

While I am finishing-up what I think is an important piece on the issue of triangulation against White interests (and I still hope to have it up later today), this material, which was a comment, emerged worthy of shoring-up into a head post.

Although I have been saying this more or less for years, the gas-lighting that I’ve gotten from those reacting to my disabuse of red capes, like children having a tantrum because their kosher coloring book has been taken away, has only forced me to become still more articulate of the matter and to stiffen my resolve. These concepts are simply too important to be swept-aside for whatever motives. There has been no good reason for it; perhaps Nazi idolaters don’t want me to be the purveyor of worthwhile knowledge, Christards don’t want their absurd excuse for a moral order to be shown to be unnecessary or, as I said, the conceptually lame, like children who don’t want to grow up (and out of the provided discourse box), don’t want their characterology of “the left” shown for what it is - a kosher coloring book.

And obviously, Jews don’t want their deceptive games exposed.

While the gas-lighters try to deny accurate inferences that I’ve made independent of academic enforcement, in addition to lived, experiential perspective and various disciplinary perspectives, the disciplinary perspective that I am mainly coming from is a communicologist perspective (interaction unit of analysis); nevertheless, the sociologist unit, the social group concept is more than valid; it does not have to be the only unit of analysis, but when it comes to race and anti-racism, it is central, highly relevant, if not most relevant…and already there in nature, not denying any worthwhile science where it is worthwhile sociology….nobody is saying that we don’t also need biologists looking through microscopes, etc. or “ordinary people” contributing their deep experiential knowledge - in fact, that cannot be replaced. Social constructionism is bolstered by the input of different perspectives and disciplines.

See this response to manciblack:

mancinblack: What is new, is that we are being told sex is more or less a social construct and that for this “the scientific evidence is incontrovertible”.

But mancinblack:

“Social constructionism” is an important concept which has been Red Caped.

It has been red caped as “solipsism” which is the idea that an individual can make of themselves or a group whatever bizarre speculation that they like. And how is that “social”? It isn’t; not for long.

That’s the red cape that the right wing altercast chases, as characteristic of “the left”...57 genders from outer space to choose from, “race is an optical illusion”, etc.

However, to allege that sex differentiation and gender are mere solipsistic choices, a mere social construct, is not socially warranted - it is Cartesian, as it denies the empirical reality of sex differentiation and the practical complementarity of gender roles (a reality which the vast majority of people will subscribe to for the sake of their survival, if nothing else). But as Cartesian it reverses the raison d’etre of social constructionism, which is to deal with the modernist, Cartesian estrangement, detachment that doesn’t deal with our social interactive reality, attentive defense of our groups - e.g., the genders and race - against ravages of modernity, particularly as (((weaponized))), etc. Rather, social constructionism corrects this by engaging the interactive process and lets add, emergence, to include GW’s important non-Cartesian emphasis (though emergentism was never shunned by social constructionism proper).

Social constructionism proper, maintains that there are four aspects of social construction, always entailing at least a modicum of agency:

1. The more literal: as in constructing a building together.

2. The metaphoric: as in parents “constructing” a child, with the help of some sort of input from any number of people around them at present and historically…

3. The hermeneutic: to manage the non-Cartesian process of inquiry between rigor and imagination as need be to facilitate systemic maintenance (individual and group). Hermeneutics is necessary for the liberation from modernity’s mere facticity and the arbitrary episode into coherence and accountability for both individual and to follow the historical expanse and temporal systemic breadth of our people.

4. The post hoc attribution as to how facts count:

That guy may think he’s a woman, but he has a weenie and a Y chromosome, that’s a fact and for us as sane people, that means that he cannot use the ladies room.

Of course the bizarre gender stuff is a red cape to make the concept of social constructionism didactically repulsive to Whites, to dissuade our people from it.

It’s what “the left does” “those social people” “from their sociology classes” ...“those social justice warriors”...

But to overshoot, to overreact to the red cape, to react to the deterministic extreme of scientism reduces our agency, keeps us rigid, rationally blinded, susceptible to infiltration, low on social accountability and correctability and thus manipulable…

..extreme reaction also serves our enemies by frightening away normal people as its anti social lack of balanced, real world judgement (phronesis), humaneness and accountability threatens them (‘that’s just the way it is’) .. scientistic reaction can, in fact, become a living nightmare as it can become an impervious/unaccountable founding principle in the case of dictatorships and misdirected war.

......

This White post modern concept properly understood is meant to provide some agency, but it comes at the price of social accountability (meaning you cannot simply make of yourself or a group of people just anything, not having any empirical lines of distinction - indeed, how is that social?); with that properly managed, it entails coherence through a hermeneutic liberation from the mere arbitrary facticity rife of modernity, providing instead coherence, correctabilty (homeostasis is self corrective systems) agency and warrant ...including to negotiate niche ecology…

It is important for both individuals and groups to have this concept in order to maintain what capacity for systemic homeostasis (self correction/governance) that we do have - even an authentic (as opposed to arbitrary reaction to moment, episode, relationships) holding fast to emergence, being’s authenticity is facilitated.

It is an especially necessary concept for White people to understand given our susceptibility to social group dissolution for our propensities for individualism and to take on natural, scientific challenges rather than social group challenges (e.g., trickery).

It is necessary to fight off deterministic concepts thrown at us by our enemies (the opposite of social constructionism, our adversaries will also use determinism against us), such as “migration flows” which happen like a “force of nature” that must be accepted as a mere fact about which nothing can be done but acceptance. ..or, “(((we)))re vastly over-represented at Harvard because of our I.Q.”, “HBD” (not because of group nepotism).

It is also necessary to fight off the allegation that our freedom is being threatened as such: “they’re trying to take away our individuality”, when our individuality will be destroyed without a group structure to facilitate it somewhere along the line.

Our enemies have red caped social constructionism so that right wing reactionaries chase after the misrepresentation and miss its facilitation of social interactive agency and the vital social organizing function. The YKW are always looking to disrupt functioning organizational homeostasis. They keep right wingers chasing after the misrepresentation and right wingers might even feel clever: “see, scientists can look at a skeleton and determine what race and sex it is immediately” as if they’ve disproved social constructionism… what they’ve done is disproved the red cape and helped the YKW to obfuscate the important concept, which would not deny that factually, there are empirical differences between the races and the sexes.

Tags: Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism, Boundaries and Borders, Cultural Marxism, Far Right, Hermeneutics, History, Infiltration, Jewish Diaspora, Race realism, Social Constructionism, The American right, War of Discourse, White Left Ethno-Nationalist Alliance

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Aug 2020 08:06 | #

When I was in my early twenties I worked in an industrial design studio in Croydon for a time. One lunch-time I walked out of the office to buy my plastic sandwich but I had hardly reached the High Street when the siren of an emergency vehicle sounded, coming rapidly closer. After a few seconds a fire engine hustled past, making an ear-splitting din. I remember that in that moment a man with a dog was walking towards me. Both he and I reacted to the violence of the fire engine’s passing us, gawping at its progress then at each other. He was frowning. The dog, however, was blissfully unconcerned throughout, and just continued to pursue its proper doggy interests.

So three all-too-human things happened here. One is that the physiological shock of the event ran its mechanical course for the dog-owner and for me. The other is that the shared meaning of the same event did likewise. The third is that we were momentarily owned by the event, which had appropriated all of our attentive power and overcome the like action of whatever other, less shrill claims upon us were doing likewise beforehand. The dog, however, remained a free agent.

I am not interested in social constructionism, which is a weak and narrow theory presenting a gloomy view of Artificial Man. Reality ... the world around us at any given moment, of which the organism is a part and in which it is physically present ... is not socially constructed, and our perception of same, even in our endemic psychological state of mechanicity and absence, is only partially social in origin. So we are not cut off in a mind-world of Time and Place. There is always the possibility of finding and return, and that possibility wavers in us at all times, sometimes close to us, oft times far from us. This is the true human condition.

Even so, and notwithstanding the fact that so few intellectuals have been right about anything very much over the last century or three, we must acknowledge that we are all suggestible and enworlded beings with this psychological flaw which takes us away from consciousness of self in the world, and which is contained in my schematic of the Ontological Transit. It is that state which facilitates the action of unconscious impulses and our ownership by externalities. It is a state from which permanent escape is impossible, but which has an oceanic depth we do well not to plumb too deeply. Light is at the surface.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:24 | #

GW: I am not interested in social constructionism, which is a weak and narrow theory presenting a gloomy view of Artificial Man.

I am not interested in your stupid opinion on this, because there is nothing weak, narrow or gloomy about it (except maybe in your understanding).

It is only as weak, narrow and gloomy as the practitioner. ...in your interpretive wishes.

You seem to think that by making proclamations, that you are somehow speaking truth.

As ever, you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

To start, shoveling out your latest pile of shit ... regarding intuitive responses, inasmuch as these are facts as such… it would go to category four, how these facts come to count being the primary socially constructed aspect….

...selection for intuitive acuity could also entail a certain social aspect

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:27 | #

GW: Reality ... the world around us at any given moment, of which the organism is a part and in which it is physically present ... is not socially constructed.

Might you understand, bright spark, that how those facts come to count can be fruitfully said - shown - to be socially constructed, even if as factual, without much room for a variety of interpretive license for the sane? No, of course not.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:37 | #

GW...and our perception of same, even in our endemic psychological state of mechanicity and absence, is only partially social in origin.

The response is the same, how facts come to count entails at least a modicum of agency in interpretive contexting post hoc, shared language and practices to facilitate how those matters count.

...that is to say, some agency post hoc at the very least, while there can also be some preparedness to the momentary event, to have it say, turn out more favorably (e.g. learning to extend one’s fall on the side and roll - say, to mitigate velocity or to put out fire).

GW: So we are not cut off in a mind-world of Time and Place. There is always the possibility of finding and return, and that possibility wavers in us at all times, sometimes close to us, oft times far from us. This is the true human condition.

No, intuition is not the true, distinctly human condition. We share that with animals and any other feeling creatures.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:51 | #

GW: Even so, and notwithstanding the fact that so few intellectuals have been right about anything very much over the last century or three, we must acknowledge that we are all suggestible and enworlded beings with this psychological flaw which takes us away from consciousness of self in the world, and which is contained in my schematic of the Ontological Transit.

You are simply too ignorant and obstructed by your gargantuan ego (and maybe too stupid) to assess properly what I say.

Don’t you just value the life of an intuitive animal, with no humans around interfering with their interpretations, reacting to stimuli, with no need for human level coherence and sense making…. there is a level of intuitive, animal like functioning, and it bears study, but talk about narrow, gloomy and weak - the wailing modernist - for inquiry to be limited to that; and we’d not be obstructed by your dumb insistence on this intuitive level only, were it not for the fact that it provides an excuse to indulge your jealous wish that there be no people with better, more important ideas than you have, so you can sweep aside (crucial) ideas on behalf of your “purity.”

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:09 | #

GW: It is that state which facilitates the action of unconscious impulses and our ownership by externalities. It is a state from which permanent escape is impossible, but which has an oceanic depth we do well not to plumb too deeply. Light is at the surface.

...as observed, you want to stay as close to animal intuition as possible because it gives you an excuse to suggest that you are doing the world a favor with your jealous obstruction, your lame deconstructionist act (for 8 years) of ideas - important ideas - ideas that are better than yours but threaten your autobiographical (self prescribed) status as the unique purveyor of worthy information.

How many crucial ideas that I’ve put across that you would simply sweep aside and under the rug.. It’s a tragedy for all of us, how [I need to be as kind as possible] that you are. I wish that I’d fully appreciated it sooner, brazen confidence in the first place is not my strong suit. But I know it now.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:25 | #

Daniel, social construction is a grim conclusion about the human condition. How on earth can you be so impressed by it? How about thinking about Man outside of the academic box?

Mark Kermode interviews Peter Jackson, director of They Shall Not Grow Old:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdY-1u-rk_M

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:41 | #

GW: Daniel, social construction is a grim conclusion about the human condition.

No it is not. It is an optimistic* and accurate description as to how we go about things, and how we go about making them better.

* Coherence, Accountability, Agency, Correctability, Warrant - all optimistic matters and necessary for individual and group systemic maintenance, human ecology and advance.

GW: How on earth can you be so impressed by it?

Because I know and understand it’s accurate form, not the red cape misrepresentation that you insist on chasing.

Social constructionism extends the metaphor of social connectedness to action and social accountability somewhat, but for a reason, because the Cartesian fall out of the west and its individualism has so badly given these facts short shrift and left us so vulnerable to what has happened to us - while our interrelatedness and social indebtedness is factual, not requiring too much imagination to see, but necessary to emphasize because it has been given short shrift.

GW: How about thinking about Man outside of the academic box?

it is your self serving wish to believe that I don’t think about man outside of the academic box (show me where in academia people are saying what I’m saying - you won’t find it). So, how about you think? Then consider thinking outside the box of discourse that you’ve been (((provided))) between the red capes that you chase, the coloring book pf the “anti natural” left that you’ve been provided to fill in? How about you read what I say before rendering straw man criticisms?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 11:32 | #

It is an optimistic* and accurate description as to how we go about things, and how we go about making them better.

As social constructionism is a rather minor account of a universal but non-holistic truth of Man ... as it is an account of one (academic) perspective on the on-going fate of Man as an enworlded but, in himself, natural being ... the question arises as to why it is of anything more than passing interest to us (or anybody who does not simply want to justify relativism’s attack on human nature). It can’t be of use to us because it holds that reality is what is reconditely agreed by the mass of socially and communicatively engaged beings, since we are advocates for everything that social constructionism pointedly leaves out. It can’t be because it offers a standpoint of social critique, because nationalism offers a vastly greater critique. Indeed, every politics has its social critique. Without it there would be no point in making politics in the first place.

You claim that social constructionism is useful to us as a progenator of:

Coherence, Accountability, Agency, Correctability, Warrant - all optimistic matters and necessary for individual and group systemic maintenance, human ecology and advance.

But which of these are not inherent to nationalism anyway? Coherence and agency are emergent qualities of free peoplehood. Accountability, correctability, and warrant are qualities of the change wrought by ethnic or ethno- nationalist politics. “Individual and group systemic maintenance” is just a complicated way of saying free peoplehood. “Human ecology and advance” can mean anything.

It reminds me of the conversation between Clint Eastwood as Josey Wales and Will Sampson as Ten Bears, in which the latter says, “These things you say we will have we already have.” We are nationalists. We have them. What is the point of narrowing ourselves to social constructionists? What do we get from it that we don’t already have?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 11:36 | #

Here is a question that might open up your thinking: In its arising, is particularism of the individual or of the group; and is it inherent or learned?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 11:54 | #

The response is the same, how facts come to count entails at least a modicum of agency in interpretive contexting post hoc, shared language and practices to facilitate how those matters count.

What is “a fact”, and what does “count” mean? On another thread you have been posting pictures of some very beautiful young women. Facial beauty is a fact, and not a slippery something solely in the eye of the beholder, only in so much as it is a composite of physiological averages for the ethny. In other words, fitness advances in Time from the median point of all the traits of the group members. So, given this essential fact, how do socially learned conceptions of female facial beauty differ from the natural conception? Is the difference in Time anything more than the impact of fashion and individual fame? Is simple beauty relegated in any way in consequence of that passing presence?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 11:55 | #

Oh no.

Let me come back to this later. It’s my birthday and I feel much too good to start reading your bullshit..

Never, NEVER do you try to see how what I am saying might be correct, good and useful…and how it can easily fit with your aspirations which are legitimately shared with nationalists.

But to begin, I guess that there are several people who have taken their brown tongues from Hitler’s asshole and now present them to you for a French kiss.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:06 | #

On They Shall Not Grow Old, which I am disappointed to see you have not run with, the singularly powerful impact of Peter Jackson’s work on that WW1 archive footage lies in the humanity and openness to kind and brotherhood which it reveals. These images grip us not only because of the vast waste of such human beauty which WW1 wrought but because these things live in today us also, and with no less power. We have not been taught them socially by any means; yet there they are. What finer gift can any mere politics speak of than this expression of authentic self-hood? How do you, as an advocate of social constructionism, weave such natural humanity into your social critique better than ethnic nationalism itself does?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:07 | #

GW: As social constructionism is a rather minor account of a universal but non-holistic truth of Man ...

Who said its a minor account and non-holistic?

You did. And it isn’t true, even though you think that because you proclaim something that it is truth.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:10 | #

...as it is an account of one (academic) perspective on the on-going fate of Man as an enworlded but, in himself, natural being

It is not one academic perpsective, it is of a myriad of perspectives..

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:12 | #

Social constructionism is minor because it is small in its conception of human being. It is non-holistic because it cannot accommodate Man, but only a sliver of him, and then it only views that sliver from a narrow perspective.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:13 | #

What part of social constructionism comes from the mass of the people, and not from academics?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:20 | #

GW...the question arises as to why it is of anything more than passing interest to us (or anybody who does not simply want to justify relativism’s attack on human nature).

How does relativism attack human nature idiot? Stop talking to priests and others beholden to Jews.

That is the biggest shape to color-in for the “Leftist Red Cape” .... “The Left is anti nature”...well, maybe the red capes are “anti-nature” but not calibrative working hypotheses and feedback.

As I said, you will never make an honest attempt to understand what I say in a positive sense - we have relative group interests which serve as a calibrative gauge, we need objective feedback regarding facts irrespective of our subjective and relative interests; that’s the healthy default… i is rather hyper-relativism, which as sure as singular, unfettered quests for pure objectivity held beyond social relevance (in fact an upshot of quests for pure objectivism), give insufficient accountability for the natural, social systemic maintenance, that we seek to correct from its runaway.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:23 | #

GW: It can’t be of use to us

You are an idiot and so is your god, Carolyn Yeager.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:27 | #

GW: because it holds that reality is what is reconditely agreed by the mass of socially and communicatively engaged beings

False. It doesn’t say that’s what reality is.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:33 | #

GW: since we are advocates for everything that social constructionism pointedly leaves out.

You need to speak for yourself.

Social Constructionism doesn’t necessarily leave anything out.

What you are attending to is what the red cape leaves out: “Social Constructionism (like “The Left”) is not dealing with Nature.”

And you are a perfect fool for Jews as such.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:34 | #

How does relativism attack human nature idiot?

The nature of Man is to particularise, to discriminate, to select on the basis of human fact. Relativism abhors such absolute certainty, and in all things seeks to blur the clear lines, to muddy the clear waters of Nature.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:35 | #

Nature is not socially constructed. Is it.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:36 | #

GW: It can’t be because it offers a standpoint of social critique

Critique is not the primary aim of Social Constructionism.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:39 | #

GW:...because nationalism offers a vastly greater critique.

How stupid of you to think that social constructionism should be opposed to nationalism. On the contrary, it is an essential resource for its defense, maintenance and advance.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:42 | #

Critique is not the primary aim of Social Constructionism.

Why does social constructionism have any aim, if it is really and (as you claim) holistically true? It can only have an aim (ie, be a teleology) if it is only partially true. Example:

Some masonry is falling from a tall building. A man looks up and sees it, and in the split second he has available throws himself at a child in the line of the masonry’s fall, and saves the day. Let us suppose that this Man is a creature of Nature. Does he require a goal in order to do what he does?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:42 | #

GW: Indeed, every politics has its social critique. Without it there would be no point in making politics in the first place.

The concepts that I have been speaking of structuring of ethnonationalism through unionization or something the like, social accountability and correctability offer this perfectly. I’ve said it, but your gargantuan, unmerited ego ignores it.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:44 | #

GW: You claim that social constructionism is useful to us as a progenator of:

Coherence, Accountability, Agency, Correctability, Warrant - all optimistic matters and necessary for individual and group systemic maintenance, human ecology and advance.

Yes, and more.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:47 | #

How stupid of you to think that social constructionism should be opposed to nationalism. On the contrary, it is an essential resource for its defense, maintenance and advance.

It is not of the essence of human being. You could claim it to be necessary. It would be more accurate to say some part of it might have some contribution to make, even beyond awakening people who studied it at uni and never thought of it in that way. What you cannot say is that it has a primary and essential role in nationalism. It is a tool. Its utility is as yet unproven. I would be interested myself in opening up to wider consideration the nature of enworldment and also that of absence and mechanicity - real aspects of the human condition you are yet to incorporate.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:52 | #

GW: But which of these are not inherent to nationalism anyway?

These are inherent in nationalism but not articulated enough to not be diverted from in all its varieties - not fully in your retarded “naturalistic” nationalism with its magic hand, not fully with populism, Christian and imperialist supremacism claiming nationalism) and especially not irrelevant (as your goal to replace all with the farts from your armchair would have it).. it is more clearly necessary to articulate for diaspora (ethnonationalism can’t be so taken for granted by Americans but probably because it is infused with populist obfuscation, it is necessary to British nationalism to clarify these matters.

Your goal, as ever, is to render me and anyone but yourself unimportant, not matter how important they are, in fact.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:53 | #

The concepts that I have been speaking of structuring of ethnonationalism through unionization or something the like, social accountability and correctability offer this perfectly.

My dear chap, you are in the business of speaking Greek to Greeks. Possibly only to Greeks, but as yet that is far from certain since you claim to be speaking to everyone. The only thing we can say with certainty is that Greek is little spoken outside Greece.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:55 | #

The “magic hand”, btw, reveals itself in the general male agreement that the young ladies whose photographs you have provided are undeed all very, very beautiful.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:00 | #

GW: Coherence and agency are emergent qualities of free peoplehood.

No they are not and emergentism would submit to no such reductionism.

As Heidegger observed, a liberation from the arbitrariness of mere facticity is necessary to establish human authenticity (Coherence) and with that established, human (Agency) as opposed to animal reactivity is established.

Free peoplehood required borders and boundaries, what I suggest is well described as unionization.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:08 | #

No they are not and emergentism would submit to no such reductionism.

You are confused. Particular trait emergence is not reductionist. The human hand, for example, is the phenotypical expression of genotype, but it is not the whole of the expression of the genotype. We nationalists argue with evolutionary psychologists that traits are of the mind also, and those traits extend into group behaviours.

Heidegger was talking about the ontological transit, not trait expression. Do keep up.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:10 | #

GW: Accountability, correctability, and warrant are qualities of the change wrought by ethnic or ethno- nationalist politics. “Individual and group systemic maintenance” is just a complicated way of saying free peoplehood. “Human ecology and advance” can mean anything.

It reminds me of the conversation between Clint Eastwood as Josey Wales and Will Sampson as Ten Bears, in which the latter says, “These things you say we will have we already have.” We are nationalists. We have them. What is the point of narrowing ourselves to social constructionists? What do we get from it that we don’t already have?

GW, all you ever do is try to say that I am not necessary, nothing I say is necessary, the only thing that matters is you and the farts from your armchair.

It isn’t true, it’s not a trivial error on your part, its not something that you’ve done a few times, and with some variance on that theme. It’s all you ever do. You are sick.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:11 | #

A people expressing its own identity and kinship is not unionised. The disparate requires union. Identity (ie, the same as itself with itself) does not.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:13 | #

I am not doing what you think I am doing. I am bringing you gently and slowly to utility, and also to the natural union with the fundamentals of your own politics.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:15 | #

Put another way, if you were a British soldier in 1916, say, and one of these boys in Peter Jackson’s restored archive footage, and you were experiencing and sharing this sense of kin and brotherhood you would, being a thoughtful and intelligent man, look for the roots of this experience. The looking is what we are doing, that is all.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:20 | #

GW: Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:36 | #

Here is a question that might open up your thinking:

What a condescending asshole.

GW: In its arising, is particularism of the individual or of the group; and is it inherent or learned?

It is both.

You have been shown the obvious example before. Isolate a child, say, from English language and its particularities are lost.

Children may be naturally isolated from language is if they’re deaf children surrounded by people who don’t speak a sign language. Although their families often manage a primitive form of communication with them, it resembles the ad hoc gestures that lack the full expressive powers of a language

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:23 | #

To repeat my general thesis:

I wrote just above:

I would be interested myself in opening up to wider consideration the nature of enworldment and also that of absence and mechanicity - real aspects of the human condition you are yet to incorporate.

I am interested in opening up these unvarying burdens of human life, as they manifest in effects in the person and the lived-life, to find the connection or overlap to your own thinking. It is there. It requires a minimum amount of work to uncover.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:23 | #

GW: Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 12:54 | #

DanielS: The response is the same, how facts come to count entails at least a modicum of agency in interpretive contexting post hoc, shared language and practices to facilitate how those matters count.

GW: What is “a fact”, and what does “count” mean?

What a stupid question. And you are accusing people of intellectual pretense?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:27 | #

Isolate a child, say, from English language and its particularities are lost.

There speaks the academic lost to the sharp corners of logic.

A truly isolated child would very likely be a psychopath; and not primarily because of the absence of language - there is no shortage of deaf and dumb people - but because of the absence of love.

I don’t have time to respond to everything you write. A non-response does not indicate an absence of anything to say in reply.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:34 | #

On another thread you have been posting pictures of some very beautiful young women. Facial beauty is a fact, and not a slippery something solely in the eye of the beholder, only in so much as it is a composite of physiological averages for the ethny. In other words, fitness advances in Time from the median point of all the traits of the group members. So, given this essential fact, how do socially learned conceptions of female facial beauty differ from the natural conception?

They don’t necessarily have to, but if you talk to most young men (like myself) who have been enamored of beauty, or of a particular kind, they learn that there are other factors which come into play which can make women initially thought to be beautiful, less so, and women intially overlooked, more appreciated.

But again, all your retarded argument is inside the box. Even if it were an indisputable fact that a particular women is beautiful, that does not disprove or make irrelevant social constuctionism: it is, however, ascribing a modicum of agency in asserting “this truth” of the fact counting as such.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:42 | #

The point is that the beauty of a given young woman is a fact because it is not socially constructed. A socially constructed beauty is a lie. Actual beauty is not dependent on that communication which abides in exactly the “right” shade of eye-liner. There is a particular photo of the Swedish high-jumper Gunhild Larking, taken in a wistful and private moment after elimination from the final round of the event in either the 1954 or 1958 Olympics, which illustrates my point perfectly.

All things, including social constructionism, in their place.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:44 | #

Here she is:

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:55 | #

GW: Is the difference in Time anything more than the impact of fashion and individual fame?

Beauty is not very much a matter of fashion in my opinion, but that may be a bit naive as fashion can play into it politically. We might shy away from certain types thinking that it will obstruct our social advance and vice a versa.

GW: Is simple beauty relegated in any way in consequence of that passing presence?

I’ve tended to “relegate” beauty somewhat in accordance to my Twitter feed and what images I come across of White women as I casually surf the internet.

I have over represented a type (blond with diminutive features which is not necessarily my type) for that and other reasons.

1) I assume that there is large appreciation for this in our audience and i want them to know that I am on their side in what they hold dear.

2) There is a precarious recessiveness in blond hair/red hair and blue eyes that I am concerned to protect as well - and yes, there are unique aspects to this beauty, though I myself, prefer women with straight brown hair and brown eyes, with dynamic features facial features, very white skin, skinny and smallish breasts….

I do not emphasize this type for obvious reasons; and speaking of learning, i have learned that even if you have that “type” that beauty can be only skin deep, and other types of beauty can dazzle you with their intelligence and personality as did Anna Thomson reveal her beauty to me in a walk around Paris ...so cute that she clalled her limp brown hair “blond” as if it increased her value to me… and ultimately rewarding me with a hug before she entered the subway to leave… allowing me to smash my chest into her cute little flat chest.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:56 | #

Taking this line of argument one stage further, social constructionism - if it is a valid tool of a politics of human authenticity - would address the behaviours generated in females who, desiring the desire of males as they do, get it into their heads that they have to become whores, effectively; or have to have breast implants or whatever. It could have nothing to say about authentic human being as such, but something about the errors of the enworlded personality.

That ought to be what we are striving to discover here, now.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:04 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:06 | #

On They Shall Not Grow Old, which I am disappointed to see you have not run with, the singularly powerful impact of Peter Jackson’s work on that WW1 archive footage lies in the humanity and openness to kind and brotherhood which it reveals. These images grip us not only because of the vast waste of such human beauty which WW1 wrought but because these things live in today us also, and with no less power.

I am as aggrieved and moved by WWI as anyone, these destructions to our people are why I do what I do.

GW: We have not been taught them socially by any means; yet there they are. What finer gift can any mere politics speak of than this expression of authentic self-hood?

When are you going to get it through your idiot skull what we mean by social constuctionism? Re-read the four aspects, understand the difference between that and the red cape that you chase or please shut up.

GW: How do you, as an advocate of social constructionism, weave such natural humanity into your social critique better than ethnic nationalism itself does?

Some stupid Nazi like Carolyn Yeager told you that social constuctionism is all bout social critique, critical theory, and you are stupid enough to believe it.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:06 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:12 | #

Social constructionism is minor because it is small in its conception of human being.

No it is not, it is as small only as an idiot mind such as yours might try to make of it.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:08 | #

GW: It is non-holistic because it cannot accommodate Man, but only a sliver of him, and then it only views that sliver from a narrow perspective.

Not true.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:13 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:13 | #

What part of social constructionism comes from the mass of the people, and not from academics?

Those parts which exist/existed in practice but were not formally described by academics.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:16 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:35 | #

Nature is not socially constructed. Is it.

In terms of how it counts, there is truth and good reason why it can be said to be.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:17 | #

To convince anyone of anything you have to possess a reasoned case. But you can’t explain why social constructionism has utility, can you? Beyond blank denial, you have yet to answer my comment below. You only attempted to bat it away. Here it is again:

But which of these are not inherent to nationalism anyway? Coherence and agency are emergent qualities of free peoplehood. Accountability, correctability, and warrant are qualities of the change wrought by ethnic or ethno- nationalist politics. “Individual and group systemic maintenance” is just a complicated way of saying free peoplehood. “Human ecology and advance” can mean anything.

Let’s return to the why of it. No uni language. Why is social constructionism a transformative method?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:20 | #

In terms of how it counts, there is truth and good reason why it can be said to be.

Of course Nature in us counts. The question is not whether or not that is the case. It is. The question is how to kill the attack on it from the usual directions. Why is social constructionism more useful to the common man than the politics of his own nature, people and identity alone?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:26 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:42 | #

DanielS: Critique is not the primary aim of Social Constructionism.

GW: Why does social constructionism have any aim, if it is really and (as you claim) holistically true? It can only have an aim (ie, be a teleology) if it is only partially true. Example:

Some masonry is falling from a tall building. A man looks up and sees it, and in the split second he has available throws himself at a child in the line of the masonry’s fall, and saves the day. Let us suppose that this Man is a creature of Nature. Does he require a goal in order to do what he does?

Why can’t you get this? It’s already been explained to you. Inasmuch as instincts are factual and manifest of innate nature in a moment, social constuctionism doesn’t deny the reality, but it does hold some capacity for determining how that fact counts post hoc.

There can also be some preconditioning of neural pathways.

You know? That man was brought up with honor, not to be selfish and he would save the child rather than himself as other people’s neural pathways might direct them to preserve themselves in that instant in other culture’s logics of meaning and action.

If you and yours want to say that sacrificing yourself for the child counts as a holistic act, so be it.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:31 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:34 | #

DanielS: How does relativism attack human nature idiot?

GW: The nature of Man is to particularise, to discriminate, to select on the basis of human fact. Relativism abhors such absolute certainty, and in all things seeks to blur the clear lines, to muddy the clear waters of Nature.

DanielS: Wrong, relativism prefers, discriminates for what is more important to us and ours.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:32 | #

You are using the term “counts” in a generalised way. It is specific to the gate-keepers of the academic left, the political left, and the media. This is the tail wagging the dog. But you want to apply social constructionism to the whole of the dog, no? Why, in that regard, is social constructionism more useful to the common man than the politics of his own nature, people and identity alone?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:35 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:47 | #

DanielS: How stupid of you to think that social constructionism should be opposed to nationalism. On the contrary, it is an essential resource for its defense, maintenance and advance.

GW: It is not of the essence of human being.

Actually, in line with Heidegger, it is of the essence of authentic human being; in fact necessary as such for liberation from mere facticity and coherence, for both individual and group.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:36 | #

Wrong, relativism prefers, discriminates for what is more important to us and ours.

Here is a bit of postmodern usage for you.

Relativism is not itself relative. It is a fact which disputes the facticity of every other fact, and must be so or it could not function at all. By its function, therefore, it both proves that relativism is particular and factic, and also that it is the only particularism and the only fact.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:42 | #

You could claim it to be necessary. It would be more accurate to say some part of it might have some contribution to make, even beyond awakening people who studied it at uni and never thought of it in that way. What you cannot say is that it has a primary and essential role in nationalism.

I will say that it has primary enough and essential enough role in nationalism. Populism, Naturalism, religious guidiance, all the right wing stupidities that you say are all that is needed is all that has been done and all that has led to this disaster. I have indicated a way to head off these mistakes, the holes and blind spots; and even to the extent that it is not necessary, at worst it is no harm and not mutually exclusive to genuine nationalist efforts.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:43 | #

Daniel, I wrote a piece on essence as the part 1 of my triad of essays closing the Ontology Project. It is the only part published as of this time. Essence is a specific entity, and not a descriptive. I am using as such an entity but you are using it as a descriptive.

To be more precise, the social belongs to enworldment, and not to the foundational and original quality of human identity. I am not saying that “social = bad” as such, which would be erroneous, but that given the endemic tendency to declension which I have referenced many, many times, including on this thread, it comes out that way. For the purpose of an intellectually disciplined witness, it should be kept apart from the essence of us.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:46 | #

Nor is nationalism on the left of the liberal Weltanchauung. Neither is there some original scheme or compass which arrays all political thought-worlds together on some left-right axis.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:50 | #

If you and yours want to say that sacrificing yourself for the child counts as a holistic act, so be it.

I did exactly that two and a half years ago, except the child was my own. I escaped with some broken bones.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:51 | #

GW: It is a tool. Its utility is as yet unproven.

It’s utility will never be proven if you can help it.

But it is a bit more than a tool, it bears descriptive rigor and historical significance at least since Vico’s stance against DesCartes, Nietszche’s interpretism and perspectivism, Heideggers’s post modern, hermeneutic turn…

GW: I would be interested myself in opening up to wider consideration the nature of enworldment and also that of absence and mechanicity - real aspects of the human condition you are yet to incorporate.

I know that the only thing you care about is dumb nature about which you’ve already been told: it is not the real human condition, it is not a condition distinctly human from animals and other feeling creatures. Necessary to study, but a tool for philosophy that perhaps mechanistic types can supply..

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:02 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:53 | #

The concepts that I have been speaking of structuring of ethnonationalism through unionization or something the like, social accountability and correctability offer this perfectly.

GW: My dear chap, you are in the business of speaking Greek to Greeks. Possibly only to Greeks, but as yet that is far from certain since you claim to be speaking to everyone. The only thing we can say with certainty is that Greek is little spoken outside Greece.

DanielS: it was a hasty sentence and wouldn’t it be like you to take advantage of slight unclarity caused especially by the inadvertent addition of the word of...

Here is a better version of the sentence:

With the concepts that I have been speaking of, structuring ethnonationalism through unionization or something the like, social accountability and correctability offer this perfectly.

But you know GW, all it goes to show is that you are on the level of Claire Khaw or some kind of gaslighting Jew asshole.

You will never do what you should do, which is supply the positive understanding of the words and conceits that I bring to bear…......

All you do is look for ways to criticize and dismiss. You are businessman, a shallow, selfish, egomanianiac businessman, who stupidly sees competitors to be thwarted completely, where you should be recognizing valuable resource and your best allies.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:03 | #

You still haven’t really understood Heidegger. He was a philosopher of motion, and motion away from that which is the product of time and place. To instaurate this in the lived life required surgery on the Western canon. So that surgery was purposive; but the whole point of it was a life that transcended mere goals; and the life of another turn or motion, not from modernity but, as Nietzsche might have put it, from the sheer vulgarity and ordinariness of human declension. These two scales of philosophising have to be kept apart. If you try to mix them up too much you will lose the “essence” of both.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:06 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:55 | #

The “magic hand”, btw, reveals itself in the general male agreement that the young ladies whose photographs you have provided are undeed all very, very beautiful.

But the “magic hand” as such, is not protecting our borders and not always protecting these women/girls, not giving them the negative disincentive of ostracism from the nation if they breed out.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:12 | #

All you do is look for ways to criticize and dismiss. You are businessman, a shallow, selfish, egomanianiac businessman, who stupidly sees competitors to be thwarted completely, where you should be recognizing valuable resource and your best allies.

As a direct result of these discussions you have moved your worldview a vast distance from where it was only three or four years ago. You will continue to move and develop your thinking precisely because I am not attacking you personally or insulting you or blocking off your free expression; but am engaging constructively by setting you problems.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:16 | #

But the “magic hand” as such, is not protecting our borders and not always protecting these women/girls, not giving them the negative disincentive of ostracism from the nation if they breed out

The Nature in us has not finished yet with those of our own people who have raised their hand against us. Actually, it is only just getting started.

On miscegenation, as a force acting on our people it is as much a purifier as anything. Whether the fruits of that, in terms of the ethnocentric qualities in us, arise fast enough to effect a challenge to Power before the declining number of us plays out is an impossible calculation today.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:23 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:08 | #

GW: Coherence and agency are emergent qualities of free peoplehood.

DanielS: No they are not and emergentism would submit to no such reductionism.

GW: You are confused. .

DanielS: No they are not and emergentism would submit to no such reductionism.

GW: You are confused.

No I am not.

GW: Particular trait emergence is not reductionist.

But to say that it can find coherence without what Heidegger calls the liberation from mere, arbitrary facticity, and into hermeneutiic coherence, would be reductionist.

The human hand, for example, is the phenotypical expression of genotype, but it is not the whole of the expression of the genotype. We nationalists argue with evolutionary psychologists that traits are of the mind also, and those traits extend into group behaviours.

Emergence is of the individual and group, yes and members emergence complement and reinforce one another….and my are we not sounding like social constuctionists.

GW: Heidegger was talking about the ontological transit, not trait expression. Do keep up.

Your “ontological transit” is rather like a trolley car engine that you tinker with obsessively… beyond what is obvious to anyone, it has little to do with reality and our circumstance and not only have I “kept up”, I have left you clunky dinosaurship behind a long time ago.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:32 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:11 | #

A people expressing its own identity and kinship is not unionised. The disparate requires union. Identity (ie, the same as itself with itself) does not.

Still it may be unionized, may not even require it (doubt it, but for argument’s sake), nevertheless it cannot hurt (especially not if the member’s motives are as sincere as your assertion that they don’t need the union).

As I see union membership, it is effectively the same as citizenship, passports, marriage licenses, birth certificates, social security benefits…

It is an organizational function and as ever, you are too much of an asshole (sick fucking narcissist asshole) to read what I say with a motive positive understanding.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:35 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:13 | #

I am not doing what you think I am doing. I am bringing you gently and slowly to utility, and also to the natural union with the fundamentals of your own politics.

You are doing nothing gentle. You are trying to bomb and bury and obfuscate ideas that are a hundred times better and more important than what you offer from your armchair because they threaten your gargantuan, unmerited ego.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:39 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:15 | #

Put another way, if you were a British soldier in 1916, say, and one of these boys in Peter Jackson’s restored archive footage, and you were experiencing and sharing this sense of kin and brotherhood you would, being a thoughtful and intelligent man, look for the roots of this experience. The looking is what we are doing, that is all.

Who said that I don’t look for the roots of this experience?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:45 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:23 | #

To repeat my general thesis:

I wrote just above:

I would be interested myself in opening up to wider consideration the nature of enworldment and also that of absence and mechanicity - real aspects of the human condition you are yet to incorporate.

I am interested in opening up these unvarying burdens of human life, as they manifest in effects in the person and the lived-life, to find the connection or overlap to your own thinking. It is there. It requires a minimum amount of work to uncover.

And I’ve answered you. I am not telling you to not investigate what tickles your fancy. The problem is quite the opposite: you’ve wanted to eliminate entirely me and what I do…. if you now finally want to find what you now admit is not that hard a means to connect your predilections of inquiry to mine, by all means do. I thought that would be what you do that from the start: should have.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:48 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:27 | #

DanielS Isolate a child, say, from English language and its particularities are lost.

There speaks the academic lost to the sharp corners of logic.

A truly isolated child would very likely be a psychopath; and not primarily because of the absence of language - there is no shortage of deaf and dumb people - but because of the absence of love.

I don’t have time to respond to everything you write. A non-response does not indicate an absence of anything to say in reply

The point is simple, emergence and the innate do not supply everything to complete a human offspring as human: the social is requisite.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:57 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:42 | #

The point is that the beauty of a given young woman is a fact because it is not socially constructed.

But that’s not true. Do you think that she would even be in existence without the cooperation of her social group? Do you think that her beauty is indisputable? In fact, some might find her a bit cold and better angles of refinement.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 16:32 | #

GW: A socially constructed beauty is a lie.

No it isn’t idiot. Why are you so stupid that you continue to chase the red cape?

GW: Actual beauty is not dependent on that communication which abides in exactly the “right” shade of eye-liner.

I never said it was, but some blondes in particular, can be quite shocking without their makeup.

But why the word “communiction” here? Oh yes, you want to destroy me and render me superfluous as compared to the aroma of your farts.

GW: There is a particular photo of the Swedish high-jumper Gunhild Larking, taken in a wistful and private moment after elimination from the final round of the event in either the 1954 or 1958 Olympics, which illustrates my point perfectly. Here she is:

You know GW, there are beautiful Swedish women, English women etc.

and this one I probably like even more…

But you know what? I don’t need them. One of the infuriating things about coming to Poland (I already knew that Italian women could be amazing) is that I had been made to feel in America that Polish women (culture, etc. etc) weren’t worthwhile.

My god. If some law were passed that I could only take Polish and Italian woman I’d sign on the dotted line in a heartbeat. And not that I don’t like and value other European women. I just don’t need any shit, and I don’t need to hear any more stuff about their objectively superior beauty.

Posted by
Guessedworker

on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:42 | #

GW: All things, including social constructionism, in their place.

This is a nasty thing that you are doing. You are hounding me so much on this issue as to create an idea that social constructionism is all, while it does have a superior place to your retarded ontology project.

And here is Ursula Haverbeck as a jugen.

Very fine. Should not be in jail. And should know better than to lie. If facts are the concern, then Operation Reinhardt and gas chambers were real. Then the Nazis were not a righteous regime, who figured out the best way to go about nationalism. Then she would know that denial of the facts is not necessary (in fact a terrible obstruction to nationalism as it invokes deep suspicion) for nationalism ....or social constuction of ethnonational coordination.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 16:38 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:56 | #

Taking this line of argument one stage further, social constructionism - if it is a valid tool of a politics of human authenticity - would address the behaviours generated in females who, desiring the desire of males as they do, get it into their heads that they have to become whores, effectively; or have to have breast implants or whatever. It could have nothing to say about authentic human being as such, but something about the errors of the enworlded personality.

That ought to be what we are striving to discover here, now.

You are an idiot.

Social constuctionism can address what women want, their behaviors, why they become “whores”..get breast implants…

and it certainly CAN speak to “authentic human being as such”, and not just “something about the errors of the enworlded personality.” to the convenience of your gargantuan, unmerited ego, which would appoint itself sole keeper of the deep concern.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 16:59 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:17 | #

To convince anyone of anything you have to possess a reasoned case. But you can’t explain why social constructionism has utility, can you?

I have already; just because you imperviously ignore what I say (instead of lending a good reading) and issue forth torrents of strawmen and gaslighting doesn’t mean that I have not explained it: I have.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:04 | #

GW: Beyond blank denial you have yet to answer my comment below. You only attempted to bat it away. Here it is again:

But which of these are not inherent to nationalism anyway? Coherence and agency are emergent qualities of free peoplehood. Accountability, correctability, and warrant are qualities of the change wrought by ethnic or ethno- nationalist politics. “Individual and group systemic maintenance” is just a complicated way of saying free peoplehood. “Human ecology and advance” can mean anything.

Let’s return to the why of it. No uni language. Why is social constructionism a transformative method?

I did answer it fuck head. Look again.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:08 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:20 | #

DanielS: In terms of how it counts, there is truth and good reason why it can be said to be.

GW: Of course Nature in us counts. The question is not whether or not that is the case.

It is. The question is how to kill the attack on it from the usual directions. Why is social constructionism more useful to the common man than the politics of his own nature, people and identity alone?

Why does a newborn baby not know everything that it will need to know?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:15 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:32 | #

You are using the term “counts” in a generalised way. It is specific to the gate-keepers of the academic left, the political left, and the media.

The Anti Nationalist Marxists and Cultural Marxists might act as gate keepers as to how terms count but indeed I am not using it that way.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:21 | #

GW: This is the tail wagging the dog.

No, I am saying that we can determine how facts come to count and not leave it in the hands of Jewry if we do not, like you, idiotically chase after their red capes.

But you want to apply social constructionism to the whole of the dog, no? Why, in that regard, is social constructionism more useful to the common man than the politics of his own nature, people and identity alone?

Ugh. Again, why is a human child born unfinished, needing to learn and develop much more (with the help of its social relations).

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:39 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:36 | #

DanielS: Wrong, relativism prefers, discriminates for what is more important to us and ours.

GW: Here is a bit of postmodern usage for you.

First of all asshole, you are not marking a distinction between relativism and hyper relativism.

Then, you are depending upon newbies looking onto this stream having the Jewish dada, hyper relativist, ironic, deconstructgionist misunderstanding of Post Modernity instead of my articulation as to how it is supposed to work in the interest of Whites, White post modernity.

GW: Relativism is not itself relative. It is a fact which disputes the facticity of every other fact.

By its function, therefore, it both proves that relativism is particular and factic, and also that it is the only particularism and the only fact.

Why? No, maybe taken to its extreme, in the red cape example of your coloring book, but not necessarily, no.

GW: and must be so or it could not function at all. By its function, therefore, it both proves that relativism is particular and factic, and also that it is the only particularism and the only fact.

Not true.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:57 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:43 | #

Daniel, I wrote a piece on essence as the part 1 of my triad of essays closing the Ontology Project. It is the only part published as of this time. Essence is a specific entity, and not a descriptive. I am using as such an entity but you are using it as a descriptive.

I am using it in a way that to you allows you to portray yourself as the only one with something important to say.

GW: To be more precise, the social belongs to enworldment, and not to the foundational and original quality of human identity.

You are an idiot. I believe you when you proclaim that “Aristotle is simply not relevant” and then want to act like you understand Heidegger.

GW: I am not saying that “social = bad” as such

No no, you are just saying it is totally unimportant, especially when compared to the aroma of your farts.

GW: which would be erroneous, but that given the endemic tendency to declension which I have referenced many, many times, including on this thread, it comes out that way. For the purpose of an intellectually disciplined witness, it should be kept apart from the essence of us.

Well, you better hope that “the intellectually disciplined witness” will not be disciplined enough look beyond this thread to see how it is [for 8 years] that you try to misdirect, strawman and divert from important ideas for who knows what reason, threatens your ego, bothers your Nazi friends, is encouraged by Christards…

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 18:04 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:46 | #

Nor is nationalism on the left of the liberal Weltanchauung. Neither is there some original scheme or compass which arrays all political thought-worlds together on some left-right axis.

I suspected that you were counting on people coming here unfamiliar with my explanations of this and why it is important….at best to make me repeat work for the umpteenth time.

What you are doing is not only stupid, it is egregious.

.....

Briefly, there is not some original natural scheme but there is a reliable, cross contextual pattern (depth grammar) in which “the left” corresponds with social concerns, groups, what Aristotle called “praxis” and their unionization for the sake of advocacy against elite oppression/traitors and impositions from outsiders or rank and file traitors.

Social concerns, in other words, the issues that you are too reactionary to grapple with.

Warrant is established through broad social accountability and correctability (systemic homeostasis). The Unionization of the group sets its calibration. Unionization is probably even more a necessary concept for diaspora, but it is necessary for native Europeans as well in order to gauge accountability.

Broadly speaking, the post modern project is about recentralizing the relative interests of praxis as the default world view as opposed to modernity’s Cartesian objectivity, detachment and estrangement which leaves our people vulnerable to the ravages of modernity’s and hostile traditions.

The Right Corresponds to quests for Narrower and “purer” warrants, whether smaller groups, an individual (dictator or king), god, principles or abstractions beyond nature, or some kind of natural law, below praxis and anything but the briefest form of accountability possible.

At their best, these right wing quests provide valuable feedback on issues important to know and true irrespective of our subjective and relative interests.

At worst their objectivist position leaves them rationally blinded or disingenuously, conveniently paying short shrift to social accountability (that’s just the way it is) to their inter-relatedness and indebtedness to group social capital which leaves their people vulnerable.

The Left absolutely can correspond to nationalism, in fact, it is a natural fit despite your claim. A unionization of the people, national borders and citizenship being the bounds of membership.

The Right, on the other hand, can try to dictate national boundaries but it is inherently unstable because it is not coming of broad warrant and correctabilty.

The right provides means of infiltration and subversion of nationalism by our enemies, whereas left ethnonationalism does not - and that’s why Jews love you and the stupid obstructions that you put in the way of this platform. ... they want people to keep broadly looking upon “the left’ as the problem… saying roughly speaking, “that it against nature” - perfect for your boomer reactionary STEM mindset.

But even the scientific process of inquiry normally requires a working hypothesis, which is not in all respects and moments in contact with nature and reality… but it is available for verification. And when points coming into question are verified, it returns to its status as a working hypothesis.

The working hypothesis end of inquiry, its “non reality, the anti-nature of the moment” which is exaggerated by Cultural Marxists and presented as the “problem” by Jewish marketing firms now that they have to guide “reactionary” Whites to the solution of aligning with them on the right side against “the left” and anti nature…

This serves their ends of fighting off unionization against their elite interests and keeps us organized from doing that as well.

Your reaction follows this course perfectly. That’s why I call you the best friend the Jews ever had.

While in fact, a working hypothesis is not anti nature, it is a working hypothesis, like the reality of our people as a group; it does not require constant verification but it is or should serve as the calibration for empirical verification as need be.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 18:06 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:50 | #

DanielS: If you and yours want to say that sacrificing yourself for the child counts as a holistic act, so be it.

GW: I did exactly that two and a half years ago, except the child was my own. I escaped with some broken bones.

And it does not disprove social constructionism nor its value.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 18:11 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 16:03 | #

You still haven’t really understood Heidegger.

You don’t understand Heidegger.

GW: He was a philosopher of motion, and motion away from that which is the product of time and place. To instaurate this in the lived life required surgery on the Western canon. So that surgery was purposive; but the whole point of it was a life that transcended mere goals; and the life of another turn or motion, not from modernity but, as Nietzsche might have put it, from the sheer vulgarity and ordinariness of human declension. These two scales of philosophising have to be kept apart. If you try to mix them up too much you will lose the “essence” of both.

He was too taking a post modern, hermeneutic turn and with that, also encouraging the holding fast to the anti Cartesian notion of emergentism.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 18:20 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 16:12 | #

DanielS: All you do is look for ways to criticize and dismiss. You are businessman, a shallow, selfish, egomaniac businessman, who stupidly sees competitors to be thwarted completely, where you should be recognizing valuable resource and your best allies.

GW: As a direct result of these discussions you have moved your worldview a vast distance from where it was only three or four years ago. You will continue to move and develop your thinking precisely because I am not attacking you personally or insulting you or blocking off your free expression; but am engaging constructively by setting you problems.

Oh, I see. There could be no better way to spend my 59th birthday than being gaslighted by you, no better way to spend the last 8 years than being gas lighted. I could not possibly have developed my thoughts if you lent a positive understanding instead of these “constructive problems”, this incessant Derrida deconstuctionist bit.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 18:31 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 16:16 | #

DanielS: But the “magic hand” as such, is not protecting our borders and not always protecting these women/girls, not giving them the negative disincentive of ostracism from the nation if they breed out

GW: The Nature in us has not finished yet with those of our own people who have raised their hand against us. Actually, it is only just getting started.

That’s like saying Communism or Capitalism hasn’t been done correctly yet.

GW: On miscegenation, as a force acting on our people it is as much a purifier as anything. Whether the fruits of that, in terms of the ethnocentric qualities in us, arise fast enough to effect a challenge to Power before the declining number of us plays out is an impossible calculation today.

Oh my god. I am not at all convinced that we are only and necessarily losing bad traits with such passive acceptance. I can see bad woman loving your position and worthwhile, important men being irresponsibly displaced. Gross negligence. The only way I would consider looking upon miscegenation as an empirical purification project is if they are to lose their citizenship with Europeans.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 05:09 | #

Adding to comment #86:

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:46 | #

Nor is nationalism on the left of the liberal Weltanchauung. Neither is there some original scheme or compass which arrays all political thought-worlds together on some left-right axis.

I suspected that you were counting on people coming here unfamiliar with my explanations of this and why it is important….at best to make me repeat work for the umpteenth time.

What you are doing is not only stupid, it is egregious.

.....

Social concerns, in other words, the issues that you are too reactionary to grapple with.

At their best, these right wing quests provide valuable feedback on issues important to know and true irrespective of our subjective and relative interests.

The Left absolutely can correspond to nationalism, in fact, it is a natural fit despite your claim. A unionization of the people, national borders and citizenship being the bounds of membership.

The Right, on the other hand, can try to dictate national boundaries but it is inherently unstable because it is not coming of broad warrant and correctabilty.

This serves their ends of fighting off unionization against their elite interests and keeps us organized from doing that as well.

Your reaction follows this course perfectly. That’s why I call you the best friend the Jews ever had.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 08:51 | #

He was too taking a post modern, hermeneutic turn and with that, also encouraging the holding fast to the anti Cartesian notion of emergentism.

There is no “post modern hermeneutic turn”. This is only jargonising for people who cannot create actual concepts in their heads, and are condemned forever to parrot labels. There is probably no cure.

Being an historiographical actor (like Heidegger or Nietzsche) is not the same as being a revolutionary political actor (like Hitler or Lenin or Cromwell), which is not the same as the rising act of detachment from Time & Place (for example from your whole acquired personality - the “you” which you mechanically experience all the time) and the coming to authenticity and presence in the world (for example, of that which is of nature in you). All change for good, however small, partakes of this act, however partial. All change for bad partakes of the opposite: the further estrangement and degradation of the public person.

The respective fields of action for those on the side of good are distinct and are linked only by thin threads (ie, by “water-carriers” in the case of historiography → politics, and by political groups in the case of politics → people). Your basic options, since you cannot be a philosopher working in the fabric of our creative history, are among the levels of lower-order actors: first, a water-carrier (at the top end, a philosopher of the political - the French call these people “public intellectuals”) and lower down the slope, a Third Sector style analyst, and then one of the levels of recipient actor: revolutionary leader, party activist, party supporter.

On this line of effect there are not too many former sociology students who believe that, by fantastic chance, the very things they studied back in the day are what the world needs now. In fact, I would hazard a guess that there is only one.

For clarity also, “emergence” in ethnic nationalism refers to the effect upon the life that we have in common, which I jargonise as the lived-life, of the above-mentioned authenticising act. It is an accretive parallel of that act. Emergence means accretion. Accretion itself, like coherence, should be an important concept of nationalism.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 09:25 | #

There is no “post modern hermeneutic turn”. This is only jargonising for people who cannot create actual concepts in their heads, and are condemned forever to parrot labels. There is probably no cure.

Bullshit.

It only goes to show that you don’t understand the significant place and structure of Heidegger in the correction of Western philosophy.

I’ll come back to the rest later… have some things to do.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 10:03 | #

Bullshit, “Jargonizing” ... a Tanstaafl allegation. Did his Jewish wife put you up to this?

I’ve already explained in many ways the significance of the Post Modern, Hermeneutic Turn, it’s reality and its utility in daily life - as in The Queen’s Jubilee article.

GW: Being an historiographical actor (like Heidegger or Nietzsche) is not the same as being a revolutionary political actor (like Hitler or Lenin or Cromwell), which is not the same as the rising act of detachment from Time & Place (for example from your whole acquired personality - the “you” which you mechanically experience all the time) and the coming to authenticity and presence in the world (for example, of that which is of nature in you). All change for good, however small, partakes of this act, however partial. All change for bad partakes of the opposite: the further estrangement and degradation of the public person.

It is fine and good to focus on emergent qualities; I am not about to advise deviation from that course and obviously neither would Heidegger. He would say hold fast.

But unlike you, he was prepared to recognize the broader context as at least somewhat arbitrary, the thrownness, which requires a hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity into the coherence of human authenticity.

With that he was channeling Nietzsche’s interpretive turn against Modernity and its Cartesian estrangement.

That situates him as pivoting with the Post Modern, hermeneutic turn. Again, this is not against emergence, it is necessary to facilitate it’s maintenance.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 10:12 | #

GW: The respective fields of action for those on the side of good are distinct and are linked only by thin threads (ie, by “water-carriers” in the case of historiography → politics, and by political groups in the case of politics → people). Your basic options, since you cannot be a philosopher working in the fabric our creative history, are among the levels of lower-order actors: first, a water-carrier (at the top end, a philosopher of the political (the French call these people “public intellectuals”) and lower down the slope, a Third Sector style analyst), and then one of the levels of recipient actor: revolutionary leader, party activist, party supporter.

I need go no further than to say that anyone who claim, as you have, that “Aristotle is simply not relevant” has no place talking about, let alone making proclamations about Heidegger, let alone about who is or who is not worthy of taking-on philosophical issues.

Furthermore, I have never known a more philosophically dyslexic person than yourself. Philosophy isn’t for you, GW. I’ll refrain from saying what you should do if you really want to do some good for European peoples.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 10:20 | #

On this line of effect there are not too many former sociology students who believe that, by fantastic chance, the very things they studied back in the day are what the world needs now. In fact, I would hazard a guess that there is only one.

And who is that? It can’t be talking about me because you can’t be that bereft of comprehension as I have told you a hundred times already that I never even took a sociology course. I did explain, correctly, that the group unit of analysis that sociology takes is very relevant to race and anti racism. I also added that it is not the only unit of analysis that should be utilized, nor even that of what academic training that I did take.

GW: For clarity also, “emergence” in ethnic nationalism refers to the effect upon the life that we have in common, which I jargonise as the lived-life, of the above-mentioned authenticising act. It is an accretive parallel of that act. Emergence means accretion. Accretion itself, like coherence, should be an important concept of nationalism.

I haven’t digested your meaning here yet, but it seems like you are trying to be decent for a change, so let me take a step back.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 11:42 | #

The only way I would consider looking upon miscegenation as an empirical purification project is if they are to lose their citizenship with Europeans.

Its effect on the remaining ethny is bound to be an intensifying of self-awareness and understanding, kinship and ethnocentrism. In so much as these are genetically informed it is a purifying thing, ending transmission within the gene pool of some of the weaker tendencies in that respect. It lays the groundwork for the segregation of which you are speaking. That’s the only positive thing one can say about it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 12:07 | #

You still mixing everything up! This:

But unlike you, he was prepared to recognize the broader context as at least somewhat arbitrary, the thrownness, which requires a hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity into the coherence of human authenticity. With that he was channeling Nietzsche’s interpretive turn against Modernity and its Cartesian estrangement.That situates him as pivoting with the Post Modern, hermeneutic turn. Again, this is not against emergence, it is necessary to facilitate it’s maintenance.

... is a total conceptual mess. Look again at the Ontological Transit. Look upon yourself as a lie. Do not detach yourself from the politics you espouse, and then demand change on some vast, confected and non-personal (ie, to you) philosophical stage of the ages. YOU are the first area of conflict, and that is where the turn resides. But it ain’t to postmodernity and it ain’t hermeneutic.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 12:36 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 06:42 | #

The only way I would consider looking upon miscegenation as an empirical purification project is if they are to lose their citizenship with Europeans.

Its effect on the remaining ethny is bound to be an intensifying of self-awareness and understanding, kinship and ethnocentrism. In so much as these are genetically informed it is a purifying thing, ending transmission within the gene pool of some of the weaker tendencies in that respect. It lays the groundwork for the segregation of which you are speaking. That’s the only positive thing one can say about it.

I believe your take on the matter of miscegenation is too passive and speculative.

1) It may create an “awareness"of a bridge between our people that is not so much a problem to transgress in the eyes of many. And 2) I am not convinced that many good, even important qualities are being lost, even if “anti ethnocentric”, liberal genes are hypothesized to be selected against.

However they might be ostracized and lose citizenship with Europeans, that is some punishment and consolation for their betrayal.

Nevertheless, as I suggested, it could be naive denial and self deception as much as “comforting” and “white pilling” to merely take the position that bad genes are being weeded-out.

Furthermore, I really hate it when, say, Noridics take the position that they “don’t care” if Med women are miscegenation because they are “not White anyway.”

The whole classification “Hispanic” bugs me for that reason: an uncaring, irresponsible blender category of Europeans, Amerindians and blacks.

Finally, there is an elitism about this take of accepting miscegenation as selection against inferior genes, which cares not that maybe there was an appropriate White man who is displaced, even if he was functioning in some more basic evolutionary capacity - like defending the border against interlopers!

The Meds are probably in some sense, evolved as a buffer against Africans and Nordics lose that when they throw them and their nations under the bus. Under representation of Meds may be one of the reasons that America has been so naive as to allow what is happening now.

100

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 12:54 | #

Posted by
Guessedworker

on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 13:07 | #

You still mixing everything up! This:

But unlike you, he was prepared to recognize the broader context as at least somewhat arbitrary, the thrownness, which requires a hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity into the coherence of human authenticity. With that he was channeling Nietzsche’s interpretive turn against Modernity and its Cartesian estrangement.That situates him as pivoting with the Post Modern, hermeneutic turn. Again, this is not against emergence, it is necessary to facilitate it’s maintenance.

GW:... is a total conceptual mess.

No it isn’t a mess. It is dead-on accurate.

Look again at the Ontological Transit. Look upon yourself as a lie.

Why should I look upon myself as lie? Where is acknowledgment of a semblance of arbitrariness - most notably for the fact that we can miscegenate, that our races and people are (unfortunately) interrelated, therefore lines between us are at least some arbitrary -“a lie”?

It isn’t a lie, and its remedy, and the correction, that Kant tried but failed to achieve, that Vico saw, that Nietszshe, Heidegger and Gadamer saw, was the hermeneutic turn into systemic coherence.

Do not detach yourself from the politics you espouse, and then demand change on some vast, confected and non-personal (ie, to you) philosophical stage of the ages. YOU are the first area of conflict, and that is where the turn resides. But it ain’t to postmodernity and it ain’t hermeneutic.

This is among your most idiotic statements.

You apply words like “confected” as if it is a true proclamation.

It is not my personal, “mere political” vision either.

On the contrary, the heremeneutic, White Post Modern turn IS a turn away from Modernity’s Cartesian estrangement into a recentralization of Praxis, a Calibration of our relative interests there, and a correct relegation of right wing truth quests as tools of Feedback to assist in the corrective, self regulative system that the unionization of Praxis facilitates by social accountability.

101

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 16:09 | #

Why should I look upon myself as lie?

Because that is the end of enslavement to the product in us, as in all men, of enworldment, and the beginning of that freedom, always existing, never acquired, which is the gift of presence to being; because it is the end of, or the detachment from, illusion or exile or maya and the beginning, nature to Nature, of ensconcement in the real; because it is the precondition of will. It is what all philosophy of the simply, profoundly human, all authentic religion, all human wisdom is telling you, free and clear of jargon and the comforting distance ... the taking of yourself off into the impersonal ... which that jargon accomplishes for you.

In our horizonal locale there is only this turn. All the rest is a game.

102

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 17:51 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 11:09 | #

Why should I look upon myself as lie?

Because that is the end of enslavement to the product in us, as in all men, of enworldment, and the beginning of that freedom, always existing, never acquired, which is the gift of presence to being; because it is the end of, or the detachment from, illusion or exile or maya and the beginning, nature to Nature, of ensconcement in the real; because it is the precondition of will. It is what all philosophy of the simply, profoundly human, all authentic religion, all human wisdom is telling you, free and clear of jargon and the comforting distance ... the taking of yourself off into the impersonal ... which that jargon accomplishes for you.

In our horizonal locale there is only this turn. All the rest is a game.

Well, ok, we are veritable slaves to Jewish power and influence who are largely in cooperation with White, right wing sell outs and liberals who take the license/ licentiousness offered through the disorder of modernity, group boundaries and borders ruptured as as they are, our girls and women pandered to from all angles as such, in defiance of our condition.

But rejection of all else as jargon, all other concerns and ways of thinking about ourselves, and “wisdom” telling me to be free and clear of “jargon” is nothing more than an expression of your overwhelming selfish jealousy in tandem with Hitler worshiping Tanstaafl’s STEM motive to reduce all concerns to “the one thing that breaks the circuit”, which conveniently sweeps aside the guy (me and my work) who recognizes Hitler’s worldview for the catastrophic epistemological blunder that it is.

It’s not going to happen, because I understand the many important ideas that I’ve discussed as being crucial to the interests of European peoples, not unnecessary “jargon” as per the wishes of Hitler worshiping Tanstaafl; along with your lifelong puerile autobiography as “slayer of academic pretense on behalf of the common man” desperately trying to assert itself, to suggest that all all else but your gargantuan, unmerited ego should be “swept aside” as STEM redundant.

In fact, as opposed to your scientistic precision and purity nonsense to “sweep aside all as redundant”, one key means and term of group freedom from oppression is the leftist concept of unionization - in our case, unionization of praxis (I now love making you and Tanstaafl unhappy with this “jargon”) in order to centralize our people and our boundaries with White left ethnonational unionization.

Nor will I concede to this reductionism knowing that it is also backed by the egomania of right wing White females looking to leverage their unjust power in this disorder against what they might call a “beta uprising”, i.e. against fair, non exploitative treatment of their peers; the willingness to make them cannon fodder even, in another inter-European war: anything, but call attention to full systemic correction that would take their blackmailing threat of “alpha hypergamy”, especially the valencing of alien alpha hypergamy against us.

In that sense, freedom from slavery does come around as a concern, but not by the reductionism that you and Tanstaafl would propose and they would encourage you to, cheerleading you on…

103

Posted by Fr. John+ on Thu, 03 Sep 2020 23:48 | #

“Christards don’t want their absurd excuse for a moral order…”

I can say no better retort, that the most apropos one.

GOD DAMN YOU TO HELL.
People like you are just as bad as the most stupid N’word out there.
Worse, because you are a traitor to your people- the Whites of Christendom.

“Each day we are becoming a creature of splendid glory, or one of unthinkable horror.”
C. S. Lewis

“I for my part maintain that to hate the enemies of God is lawful, and that such a hatred pleases the Master. By enemies I mean those who in every way deny the glory of the Master, whether the Jews or those who are manifestly idolaters or those who thought Arius’ teaching make an idol of the creature, and so take up again the Jewish Error. “ - Gregory of Nyssa, Letters, #3.8

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16: “The Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the nations, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end…”

“Live in peace not only with your friends but with your enemies; but only with your personal enemies and not with the enemies of God.”
St. Theodosius of the Kiev Caves (+1074)

St. Philaret of Moscow stated: “Love your personal enemies, hate the enemies of Christ, destroy the enemies of the fatherland.”

“Chrysostomos loudly declares not only heretics, but also those who have communion with them, to be enemies of God.”
St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle to Abbot Theophilus

You are that horror.
Anathema, Anathema, Anathema.

104

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 00:19 | #

lol

105

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 09:10 | #

A good example of what I mean by a game is phenomenology, which consists in otherwise intelligent people attempting to enter the here now merely by “Bracketing”, and without first stilling the mechanics or, if you prefer, habits of the intellect. Also, of course, without giving a moment’s consideration to what it is, function-wise, that studies the substance of phenomena in this supposed state, let alone any consideration of the rest of the multi-centre cognitive structure which operates at vastly different speeds to the intellect and will go on about its business of interpreting the world.

Another game which flows directly from phenomenological study is the pretence that, as one of these otherwise intelligent people, one then has something useful to hand down, priest-like, to the great unwashed (who are either too dense or too wise to be like the priest).

Game-playing aside, assigning a philosopher, say, or Everyman to his own horizonal locale, so to speak, restricts the tendency for a perfectly viable but refined structure of critique to appear in another locale with a less refined structure as jargon if the water-carrier does not perform the trick of language in making consonant both locales.

It follows that water-carrying is not just communication. It is about unification ... making the world one. Not the people, mind.

106

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 11:13 | #

GW: without first stilling the mechanics or, if you prefer, habits of the intellect. Also, of course, without giving a moment’s consideration to what it is, function-wise, which studies the substance of phenomena in this supposed state, let alone…

It is a assumption (proclomation) on your part that the matters of inquiry have not been stilled sufficiently, or that the social constructionist inquirer would necessarily object to establishment of stable reference points. That assumption would serve your wish to chase the red cape characterization and have me, in this case, remain in the role of foil to your autobiography, to say that I somehow wish to play egregious games with any stable reference points that your ontology project may care to establish. With another assumption, that we do not have sufficient “foundations.”

And of course, it is your wish that I have nothing useful or significant to hand down. To do this, all you need to do is ignore dozens of things that I’ve said and their context (which have not been said elsewhere, but what do you know.). Whereas you, of course, of course, are so much smarter than everybody… no need for anyone from Aristotle to William James, just listen to GW (never mind that most of us have met people much smarter and more learned), we should simply play the game his autobiography would relegate for us in various straw men. We are to be his foil.

Thus, if we see Heidegger as occupying a pivotal historical point, this is supposed to be all we are saying about Heidegger. And while we hear GW accuse us of reifiying a language game, we need to hear GW follow every jot and tittle of what he believes Heidegger means (as if Heidegger’s perspective is flawless save for a few tweaks by GW), like the philosophy of life is quite the same as rebuilding a car engine. And that we should not, rather, take to heart what is useful, hold fast to it, be thankful and get on with it. No, we must be thankful for GW’s mind, only. We must wait forever for GW’s conceit, while it buries crucial ideas, while we are being destroyed because they are not broadly appreciated (no thanks to GW - who finds them unflattering to his autobiography as the sole proprietor of important ideas) ...he could not possibly suspend disbelief in the value of ideas from anyone but himself in his Heidegger garage model project.

GW: It follows that water-carrying is not just communication. It is about unification ... making the world one. Not the people, mind.

I’m just a water carrier, that’s what he wants to say in his altercast of me and my communiciological perspective, because he can’t get it through his skull, he can’t get past the transmissions model of communication even though it has been explained to him that is not the unit of analysis of communicology (i.e., it is rather interaction which, by the way, looks at the same ground as other disciplines, perhaps asking slightly different questions) - it can’t get through his intransigent autobiography as the slayer of academic pretense on behalf of his gargantuan ego, in comparison to which, all else is shallowness to be swept aside. Legend in his own synthetic mind. The grand unifying psychology for all.

But then, there must be some use for personal psychology and the books that you once read to fuel it, right? Why not everything and the only thing?

107

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 14:13 | #

Why are you offended? A water-carrier is a high estate, second in the hierarchy of agentive intellects only to the creative thinker. In original thought ... original conceptualisation of what is in relation to Nature, to history ... there is nothing derivative, except in as much as derivation might disarm critics. You are manifestly a derivative thinker, applying extant conceptualisations to the problems of the lived life of European Man. There is nothing offensive in such a judgement. Not one person is a hundred is gifted with the possibility in life to do that.

108

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 14:37 | #

It is a assumption (proclomation) on your part that the matters of inquiry have not been stilled sufficiently, or that the social constructionist inquirer would necessarily object to establishment of stable reference points

When you do not understand, ask. This is literally made-up rubbish from someone who does not know what stillness is and why it matters.

The joke is that your own hermeneutically interpreted turn to white left postmodernity is a plea to still the mechanics now in train.

109

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 14:52 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 09:13 | #

Why are you offended? A water-carrier is a high estate, second in the hierarchy of agentive intellects only to the creative thinker.

Because you are offensive. You think that you are a creative thinker and you are not. Moreover, you are far too bloody ignorant to distinguish my original, creative contributions from the straw men that you set up and the red capes that you chase.

110

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 14:54 | #

GW: In original thought ... original conceptualisation of what is in relation to Nature, to history ... there is nothing derivative, except in as much as derivation might disarm critics.

Oh yeah, your thoughts are pure. What a bunch of shit.

111

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 15:02 | #

GW: You are manifestly a derivative thinker, applying extant conceptualisations to the problems of the lived life of European Man.

You are full of shit. What thoughts I have “derived” should be derived and what “extant” conceptualizations that I choose to utilize, I do it in a way creative to the task at hand, specially crafted for the interests of European peoples, but finally, “only extant conceptualizations”?

Where else, for example, have you heard the concept of “red caping”? You haven’t heard it anywhere else. But it does explain how foolishly manipulable that your are and your absurd purity spiral.

GW: There is nothing offensive in such a judgement. Not one person is a hundred is gifted with the possibility in life to do that.

Re-read the above sentences for the answer.

112

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 15:04 | #

Why are you offended at the description of water-carrier, a category which includes the public intellectual, as explained above.

113

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 15:11 | #

“Red Caping” is a comment on Jewish ethnic activism. If you did not use it in such an absurdly promiscuous fashion, emotionally and without consideration for the very content you claim for it, you might be listened to. But it is all wrapped up with the unappealingly punitive likes of your anti “right-wing” word-weapons, so at odds with your own stated objective of unifying. But is it unity that you want or obedience? Have you ever really thought about the psychology of unity ... about why the left (the real left) has the dictum “No enemy to the left”?

114

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 15:13 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 09:37 | #

DanielS: It is a assumption (proclomation) on your part that the matters of inquiry have not been stilled sufficiently, or that the social constructionist inquirer would necessarily object to establishment of stable reference points

GW: When you do not understand, ask.

Are you fucking kidding me? If I want to ask questions I will do ask someone with far better knowledge than yours. By the way that youv’ve responded to my efforts and having heard your arguments over the years, I know that you don’t know what you are talking about. I will might ask someone who might know, but not some asshole who would say something like this:

GW: This is literally made-up rubbish from someone who does not know what stillness is and why it matters.

The rubbish is yours, we don’t know “stillness” but you, the Tibetan monk, steeped the pop psychology of the human potential movement, you know… lol.

GW: The joke is that your own hermeneutically interpreted turn to white left postmodernity is a plea to still the mechanics now in train.

It is not my own personal interpretation. You won’t see much in the way of hermeneutics discussed prior to Heidegger and Gadamer, but quite a bit afterwards.

I do not “plea”, I describe what these philosophical currents are doing when understood in the best interests of European peoples.

115

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 15:24 | #

I am not burying your “crucial” ideas, Daniel. I am supplying you with a platform for them. The white left, the white postmodern turn, professorial hermeneutic dictates, and so forth are being buried by everybody but me.

116

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 15:30 | #

Here is the news from Tibet. Bracketing does not actually exist. The intellect cannot perform two opposing tasks at once, or two opposing activities on different levels. An entire generation of early 20th century philosophy students, from top to bottom, were wasting their time with it. All of them. To enter the place they sought to enter requires the stilling of the thought-train and all the mechanics that train precipitates elsewhere. The awful truth, for intellectuals, is that there is no intellectual take-away from the individual act of presence-to-being, there is only the act itself, while it persists. But something akin can arise in the common life of the people, and that is worth thinking about.

117

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 15:43 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:11 | #

“Red Caping” is a comment on Jewish ethnic activism.

It is not mere comment, it is concept explanating how it is that our people, markedly yourself, have been duped into a reactionary position and purity sprial.

GW: If you did not use it in such an absurdly promiscuous fashion , emotionally and without consideration for the very content you claim for it,

I do not use it in “an absurdly promiscuous fashion, emotionally and without consideration of the very content I claim for it” - on the contrary, it holds up rigorously as demonstrated in the thread:

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

But it is all wrapped up with the unappealingly punitive likes of your anti “right-wing” word-weapons so at odds with your own stated objective of unifying.,

Is it so wrapped up, poor baby? I’m taking away your red cape and you for you, it was a security blanket.

GW: But is it unity that you want or obedience?

How stupid. I show the way to understand these concepts at their best, and I hope for the best among whom it may concern, knowing that there is cause for optimism in that I make sense cross contextually and time and again in this scheme of things, so to speak. Maybe obedience is your thing, or is it rebellion, like a fool reacting to a red cape.

GW: Have you ever really thought about the psychology of unity

I don’t waste my time with your navel gazing shit.

... GW: about why the left (the real left) has the dictum “No enemy to the left”?

Because it is not “the real left”, nor the only left, asshole, these are Jewish Red Cape lefts of two kinds, the Marxist anti-national left and the Cultural Marxist anti-White Left.

A White Left Ethnonationalism has those lefts as its enemy indeed. And there is good reason to state it as such - White Left Ethnonationalism, as I have explained many times. ..

The sequence: Coherence, Accountability, Agency, Warrant, Correctability, providing social systemic homeostasis, i.e., the sovereignty of an autonomous, self governing system, as applied to the human ecology of European ethnonational interests is another conceptual application that you won’t see elsewhere. And all readily understandable through the ordinary terms and structuring of unionization of the nationals.

118

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 15:56 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:24 | #

I am not burying your “crucial” ideas, Daniel.

Yes you are.

I am supplying you with a platform for them.

Ok, I’ll give you that, but then you attack every last one them and Never, never otherwise, support what I say, consider it with a willing suspension of disbelief and look for the positive reasons, applications and potential elaborations upon what I say.

GW: The white left

I don’t say “the White Left” alone anymore, because it will be used by assholes like yourself to conveniently confuse it with the Jewish red cape, that is why it is unfortunately necessary to spell out the sequence of words, White Left Ethnonationalism, so that there is less room for your misrepresentation.

GW: The white postmodern turn, professorial hermeneutic dictates, and so forth are being buried by everybody but me.

Not quite. I’ve granted that you’ve provided a platform, and I supplied what I understand to be what is theoretically best, thinking that you’d appreciate it. But in terms of how you’ve responded, it’s been me having to shovel out from your bullshit objections for 8 years indeed’ and on the other hand, I have found people understanding what I say.. it takes some time, because the Jewish discourse will kick in where I don’t get support, but I am not discouraged because my worldview makes sense.

119

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:06 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:30 | #

Here is the news from Tibet. Bracketing does not actually exist.

Who the fuck is bracketing? Why would someone studying the interactive unit of analysis think that it does exist absolutely.

Nevertheless, “wise men see lines and therefore they draw them.”

GW: The intellect cannot perform two opposing tasks at once, or two opposing activities on different levels. An entire generation of early 20th century philosophy students, from top to bottom, were wasting their time with it. All of them.

And you are wasting your time on psychology and reaction to red capes by purity spiraling.

GW: To enter the place they sought to enter requires the stilling of the thought-train and all the mechanics that train precipitates elsewhere. The awful truth, for intellectuals, is that there is no intellectual take-away from the individual act of presence-to-being, there is only the act itself, while it persists. But something akin can arise in the common life of the people, and that is worth thinking about.

This statement is vested in the false idea that I do not value the common life of the people and what they have to say, that I think intellectualism is the be all and end all, that its tools are always necessary, and finally, your ultimate wish, that they are NEVER necessary, because it might mean that something besides the farts from your armchair are important to consider.

120

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:07 | #

As you use it, “Red Caping” is a method of insulting individual people - in my case without any inkling of what I think and why, or any attempt to find out. I have explained in the past that accusatory behaviour is self-defeating. If you used the term investigatively it would doubtless have some value, but that is demanding and time-consuming. You are more interested in pointing a Robespieresque accusatory finger, presumably because the act raises you up in your own self-estimation.

... these are Jewish Red Cape lefts of two kinds, the Marxist anti-national left and the Cultural Marxist anti-White Left.

There is also the liberal left and the social democratic left, neither Jewish in origin. The white left, however, is not an existent political entity. Nationalism is not left, just as nationalism is not right. Nationalism is not a massifying politics or an individualising politics. It is the politics of the natural interests of peoples and the politics of the conscious individual actor.

121

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:12 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:07 | #

As you use it, “Red Caping” is a method of insulting individual people

You could not have read ANYTHING of what I’ve said and say that.

122

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:16 | #

It is an egregious strawman of the concept and I am really despising the sadistic way that you make me repeat concepts to get them out from under your strawman burial.

You need to go to a shrink and get help for your narcissistic personality disorder.

You sick, sadistic and a hideous obstruction.

123

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:18 | #

I have explained in the past that accusatory behaviour is self-defeating.

Red Caping is not an accusation; and chasing red capes is not an accusation in your case, it is a very descriptive metaphor of what you are doing in your reaction.

124

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:20 | #

Tools are fine, Daniel; but not malfunctioning ones like Bracketing. I have doubts about hermeneutics too; not because interpretation of texts and wotnot can’t be done but rather because experiential understanding seems to me to be a gift of more than intellect, and is not communicated by dictates from above. Rather, the fruit of such dictate is more often slavishness.

125

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:20 | #

GW: If you used the term investigatively it would doubtless have some value,

You fucking piece of shit!

The posts in which I’ve deployed the concept show it be eminently relevant and useful, thus valuable.

126

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:22 | #

You are making ridiculous accusations about me following the Jewish red cape. You are doing this without a moment’s attempt to investigate. It cheapens your own thinking.

127

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:22 | #

but that is demanding and time-consuming.

It is not demanding and time consuming; your concern is that something might matter but your fucking ego.

GW: You are more interested in pointing a Robespieresque accusatory finger, presumably because the act raises you up in your own self-estimation.

LOL!!!!!!!!!

A little paranoid are ye?

128

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:31 | #

Who the fuck is bracketing?

Everyone who has attempted the phenomenological method.

129

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:35 | #

DanielS ... these are Jewish Red Cape lefts of two kinds, the Marxist anti-national left and the Cultural Marxist anti-White Left.

GW: There is also the liberal left and the social democratic left, neither Jewish in origin.

And neither are they a unionization of the the ethnonation, hence, again the need to distinguish a White Ethnonational Left. Because my position never holds that only Jews are the problem, our right wing sell outs and liberals open the back door.

GW: The white left, however, is not an existent political entity.

Listen fuck-head, how many times do i have to specify White Left Ethnonationalism?

Nationalism is not left

Yes, it is, more naturally than Right, but not in accordance with the Marxist internationalizing Red Cape of the Left which you chase in obedience to your Jewish masters, like a trained monkey.

GW: just as nationalism is not right.

It can be for a time, but it is inherently unstable because it precariously rests on a smaller group, fewer people, even on one person or “god” or other principles beyond nature, or sometimes principles below human nature and their correctability in praxis, but short on social accountability and correctability at any rate.

GW: Nationalism is not a massifying politics or an individualising politics. It is the politics of the natural interests of peoples and the politics of the conscious individual actor.

Some facets of nationalism are natural some require a bit of rule structure to reinforce those patterns. I didn’t say it was massifying or individualizing, while natural interests and the consciousness of individuals who value nationalism would not be in conflict with nationalism as I conceive it.

130

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:47 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:20 | #

Tools are fine, Daniel; but not malfunctioning ones like Bracketing.

Well, I don’t care because I don’t do bracketing. I am not Hussurl or a student of him.

I have doubts about hermeneutics too;

Well, you would. You are skeptical of anything that is not purely from your armchair.

GW: not because interpretation of texts and wotnot can’t be done

The interpretive aspect is not what is most significant, the process of inquiry as it liberates from Caresianism is what matters, whether in liberation from mere facticity and into the coherence of praxis or from detached, otherworldly estrangemenent into engaged coherence in praxis.

GW: but rather because experiential understanding seems to me to be a gift of more than intellect,

My experience of life before understanding hermeneutics and after is why I could never be dissuaded by an idiot.

GW: and is not communicated by dictates from above.

Nobody said it was, it is a circulating process of inquiry.

GW: Rather, the fruit of such dictate is more often slavishness.

On the contrary, it is no dictate, it is the means of liberation from slavishness.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:22 | #

You are making ridiculous accusations about me following the Jewish red cape. You are doing this without a moment’s attempt to investigate. It cheapens your own thinking.

It is not a ridiculous accusation. Chasing after red capes is exactly what your doing. Sadly, that’s what a large part of your autobiography is about.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:31 | #

Who the fuck is bracketing?

Everyone who has attempted the phenomenological method.

Well, that’s their problem. I’m not telling them to do that.

131

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:51 | #

And neither are they a unionization of the the ethnonation, hence, again the need to distinguish a White Ethnonational Left. Because my position never holds that only Jews are the problem, our right wing sell outs and liberals open the back door.

No nationalist claims that the political mainstream is nationalist. We merely claim that the answer to its non-nationalism is its replacement by nationalists.

Your position is that ethnic nationalism in the European racial context is white (which isn’t particular enough outside of North America) and left (which borrows from the notion that the left of liberalism is massifying). One could make an argument for some nationalisms as massifying, but to do so with ethnic (or ethno-) nationalism would, I think, require one to disavow the natural individualism of the European kind. Peoplehood is not like socialism, which does massify; because peoplehood grants connection to all by descent ... by natural character. Socialism imposes a usually economic, reductive reading upon us. That difference seems to me to be key.

132

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:10 | #

GW: Your position is that ethnic nationalism

First of all, I don’t use your term, ethnic nationalism.

GW: in the European racial context is white (which isn’t particular enough outside of North America)

That’s pretty much the reverse of my emphasis. I say that White is the term used to represent European people, and that it is most necessarily the term in the American context and other contexts outside of Europe for obvious reasons: it can be confusing to call Europeans European when they in citizens of the U.S., etc.

Neverthless, as the general pattern has it, “White” is normally taken to represent the European genus. I take it that way.

GW: and left

Listen asshole, I’ve explained this many times, and you make me repeat, I must presume in the hopes that people are coming here with the Jewish misrepresentions that wish for them to retain (and apply to me and my motives and that is why for the time being, I hate your guts and I wish that you would die), because it serves your autobiography and allows, you to keep your security blanket and coloring book.

GW: (which borrows from the notion that the left of liberalism is massifying).

It does not borrow from the idea of massification and absolutely not of liberalism.

I observe rather that unionization and its boundaries are key.

GW: One could make an argument for some nationalisms as massifying, but to do so with ethnic (or ethno-) nationalism would, I think, require one to disavow the natural individualism of the European kind.

Well, if I was trying to “massify” in accordance to your invariable pejorative attributing, or “collectivizing” as Dangerfield calls it, that might might be true, but that is not what I am doing. Refer back to this post, on paradigmatic conservatism (and how dare you ignore it asshole!):

Paradigmatic Shift: A paradigmatic shift of epoch world view is emergent with the implicative force of the pandemic.

From Modernity, International Liberalism and Pandemic to Pervasive Ecology Managed through the Coordination of Ethnonationalism’s Paradigmatic Conservatism.

Paradigmatic Conservatism is an idea put forward by Gregory Bateson, endorsing strong national borders which, in turn, allow for broader individual liberty within the nation. He maintained that the prevailing epoch has stupidly reversed that equation - with borders having been allowed to run wild while individual liberties are pegged.

GW: Peoplehood is not like socialism, which does massify; because peoplehood grants connection to all by descent ... by natural character. Socialism imposes a usually economic, reductive reading upon us. That difference seems to me to be key.

I am not guilty of this error of misjudging human nature because when I talk about the social it has more to do with the people, their natural ties, mutual responsibility and concern as opposed to an economic system.

133

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 21:53 | #

... the process of inquiry as it liberates from Cartesianism is what matters, whether in liberation from mere facticity and into the coherence of praxis or from detached, otherworldly estrangement into engaged coherence in praxis.

This statement has the potential to strike a neutral bystander as somewhat obscure.

I don’t use your term, ethnic nationalism.

You can say what you want, but that train has probably already left the station. The meanings of “ethnic” and “ethno-” nationalism are not being determined by nationalists. In any event it does seem to me that ethnic nationalism, as the universal politics of all peoples of the land, is rightly the base concept, in which all other nationalisms nest. These days if I was to construct an axis for nationalism I’d probably be looking at a telescoping form reaching out to National Socialism and Judaism at the extreme, and maybe more than one telescoping form.

Anyhow, it does make sense that an ethno-nationalist dispensation is a specific model and not merely a different styling; the specific being that in a given territory the default of ethnic nationalism provides for ethnic minorities to be vested with the same power of expression as the majority ethny, but in an ethno-nationalist state only the majority ethny is so empowered. “Ethno-” indicates exclusivity and not any difference in the quality and character of the nationalism itself.

“White” is normally taken to represent the European genus. I take it that way.

But Europe’s peoples have identities which very plainly take precedence.

It does not borrow from the idea of massification and absolutely not of liberalism.

Unless you arranged the seating in the French Revolutionary Assembly it does.

On massification, it is worth bearing in mind that OMOV democracy, for example, is a massifying element. Anything that tends to flatten tends also to massify.

Well, if I was trying to “massify” in accordance to your invariable pejorative attributing ...

And I did not say you were. I said you have borrowed an existing term with centuries of meaning, which you can’t just wish away or re-define. It’s like coming up with a meaning all your own for the word “cat” or “air”, and then commanding cat-lovers everywhere and people who breathe to recognise it. Someone will very likely point out that widely recognised and accepted meanings already exist. There have to be easier ways to make your point.

I am not guilty of this error of misjudging human nature because when I talk about the social it has more to do with the people, their natural ties, mutual responsibility and concern as opposed to an economic system.

But you are borrowing a term which does have that reductive, economic interpretation of human being, and which nationalists are not ever going to buy.

Surely there has to be an alternative to this left-right pickle, whereby you could still register your advocacy of the coherent ethny, for want immediately of a better term, and your critique of reaction?

134

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 05 Sep 2020 00:21 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:53 | #

... the process of inquiry as it liberates from Cartesianism is what matters, whether in liberation from mere facticity and into the coherence of praxis or from detached, otherworldly estrangement into engaged coherence in praxis.

This statement has the potential to strike a neutral bystander as somewhat obscure.

The new and “neutral” bystander is what you seem to be banking on - people who will come here steeped in the Jewish way of (mis)understanding concepts, who have not looked at my prior posts; and will rather get diverted by your obscene strawmanning; issued forth endlessly for the sake of preserving your reactionary autobiography as the “slayer of academic pretense on behalf of ‘pure nature’ as opposed to what those lefties want”, since the Jews told you that’s what “lefties do”, all anti-nature and everything.

DanielS: I don’t use your term, ethnic nationalism.

GW: You can say what you want, but that train has probably already left the station.

I don’t give a shit about the obsolete Jewish train-station. It’s rigged and misdirecting. I’ve got an airline, airships and perfect air traffic control for the radar traffic devices that I have in place, keeping track of danger, enemy misdirection and the proper course for ethnonational ships.

DanielS: The meanings of “ethnic” and “ethno-” nationalism are not being determined by nationalists.

Not true. For a prominent example, Wilmot Robertston, who wrote “The Ethnostate” was a nationalist, viz. ethnonationalist.

GW: In any event it does seem to me that ethnic nationalism, as the universal politics of all peoples of the land, is rightly the base concept, in which all other nationalisms nest. These days if I was to construct an axis for nationalism I’d probably be looking at a telescoping form reaching out to National Socialism and Judaism at the extreme, and maybe more than one telescoping form.

Ethnic nationalism is your word to indicate that you’d like a way to negotiate different groups under one umbrella (in The U.K.), and with it a false assumption/attribution (typical) that ethnonationalism can’t possibly have ways to accommodate different groups as well.

If you feel that “ethnic nationalism” is the way to deal with the four groups of the UK fine, but I am satisfied that these distinctions are not obscured for their importance in mine and other conceptions of ethnonationalism.

I don’t think ethnic nationalism will catch on; at any rate the sound of it doesn’t appeal to me and I don’t plan on using it.

As far as your wish to reach out to Nazis and Jews.

First of all, title “national socialist” - it is neither descriptive of Nazis nor do they have the benign and sensible connotations that the title would arrogate.

I was listening to people like OV, Faust, Tom White, and of course I’ve had the misfortune to listen to several others who are stupid enough - on that level, the epistemological level (the most important level) - to think that we should all get along with Nazis, “its funny” and I’m “too sensitive” and what-not…. sorry, no. Ecce Lux tried to suggest that I was being “too sensitive” and that “he’d been through that” - i.e., he was trying to say that I was the one who was brainwashed about the Nazi regime. Sorry, no.

And this is not to be against Germans or German ethnontionalism either; its against Germans thinking that its cool to go around warring and killing other Europeans. That we are going to get along and groove with Mike Enoch and others when they throw up their stiff arm salutes because its so funny for them to piss on the graves of millions of our ancestors. Sorry, no.

As far as Jews go, there is enough people reaching out to them. It is enough to make it clear that sovereignty is the aim, not killing them. Too much reaching out to them before their tricks and language games are sufficiently understood - for someone so keen on preparation before action, you should know better (For a reason I called you a piece of shit when you spoke dismissively about red caping, because your stupid remark had no resemblance to the clear sense making concept)

GW: Anyhow, it does make sense that an ethno-nationalist dispensation is a specific model and not merely a different styling; the specific being that in a given territory the default of ethnic nationalism provides for ethnic minorities to be vested with the same power of expression as the majority ethny, but in an ethno-nationalist state only the majority ethny is so empowered. “Ethno-” indicates exclusivity and not any difference in the quality and character of the nationalism itself.

You said that already, so I’ll give you the same answer:

Ethnic nationalism is your word to indicate that you’d like a way to negotiate different groups under one umbrella (in The U.K.) and a false assumption/attribution (typical) that ethnonationalism can’t possibly have ways to accommodate different groups as well.

I don’t think ethnic nationalism will catch on; at any rate the sound of it doesn’t appeal to me and I don’t plan on using it.

DanielS: “White” is normally taken to represent the European genus. I take it that way.

GW: But Europe’s peoples have identities which very plainly take precedence.

Hopefully they won’t do that to an extent that causes conflict (that is why I will not reach out to Nazis, they need to know that that is not a gap that can be bridged), but even the more narrowly ethnocentric, who are not quite so absurd, require coordination with other European nations/nationals, whether in Europe or in diaspora; this is what I am interested to do; I am among those Europeans who are ok with all Europeans and realize that we are all under the same gun, who care about the full genus; we try to coordinate European ethnonationalisms (plural) as much as possible

DanielS: It does not borrow from the idea of massification and absolutely not of liberalism.

That’s right, it doesn’t.

GW: Unless you arranged the seating in the French Revolutionary Assembly it does.

I’m talking about a pattern of unionization to wield power against those in elite power against our ethnonations, which means Jewry with right wingers and liberals in tow - not anything remotely like being literal minded about the French revolution.

GW: On massification, it is worth bearing in mind that OMOV democracy, for example, is a massifying element. Anything that tends to flatten tends also to massify.

Dehumanization is an ongoing concern and correctability plays a part in staving that off.

DanielS: Well, if I was trying to “massify” in accordance to your invariable pejorative attributing ...

GW: And I did not say you were.

Then why bring it up?

GW: I said you have borrowed an existing term with centuries of meaning,

It is not correct to say that I have borrowed the term, that’s an insult. I have analysed the underlying pattern (the depth grammar of the term), what Jews have done with the term in order to confuse and mislead Whites (e.g. “Left equals Liberal”, when it means the opposite; it means unionization which conserves that which is within) and why they have got White identity aligned with “The Right"and more and more against “The Left” ... failing that, disorganized by “neither left nor right”... conflicted with “third positionism.”

GW: which you can’t just wish away or re-define. It’s like coming up with a meaning all your own for the word “cat” or “air”, and then commanding cat-lovers everywhere and people that breathe to recognise it. Someone will very likely point out that widely recognised and accepted meanings already exist. There have to be easier ways to make your point.

I didn’t wish it away and I didn’t re-define it. I’ve observed the underlying pattern, the depth grammar, and I know my understanding is accurate because it makes consistent sense cross contextually. Its clear, its easy and its important.

I mean, yes, in reaction, people may like the coloring book that Jews have handed them. Dangerfield had this cohort going on about I.Q. ...well isn’t that right wing criteria good for Ashkenazi, Koreans and sometimes White nations…. get my point, you might have fun with the coloring book, chasing away some of the stupider Marxist red capes, but this is Not representing holistic nationalism as you seek.

DanielS: I am not guilty of this error of misjudging human nature because when I talk about the social it has more to do with the people, their natural ties, mutual responsibility and concern as opposed to an economic system.

That’s right, I am not.

GW: But you are borrowing a term which does have that reductive, economic interpretation of human being, and which nationalists are not ever going to buy.

No. I am engaged in a teaching program that this use of the term, White Left Ethnonationalism, is an unburdening of Jewish red capes of the term, e.g. “dialectic materialism” ... “communism”... our left maintains private property and free enterprise within reason. But that it is important to use the term left for the positive, underlying reasons that Jews don’t want us to use the term in application for our people.

GW: Surely there has to be an alternative to this left-right pickle, whereby you could still register your advocacy of the coherent ethny, for want immediately of a better term, and your critique of reaction?

Not for the foreseeable future. There are reasons - bad reasons for us - why our adversaries don’t want us to use the term in application to our identity; and there are bad reasons why a number of our people want to identify as right or third position and bad reasons why our adversaries want that too or to come to “the neither left nor right” thing.

Further, White Left Ethnonationalism has done a good job of at very least putting on hold indefinitely people who have got some egregious ideas (people like OV), who need to think better of things before any sort of cooperation is possible.

As I’ve said, I’ve got radar tracking device that works perfectly. The airline’s ships and flight paths are perfectly organized in the interests of European ethnonationalism. For people to get used to the name “Leftanza” is merely a matter of marketing and familiarity with what is meant. Aside from providing the use of your website, you have been no help in that understanding. But there is hope. You don’t even have to use the word left personally (and understand that when you do use it perjoratively, unspecified with White Left ethnonationalism, I see you as speaking of the Marxist internationalist/anti nationalist and cultural Marxist anti White left), just please stop fighting me about it: my world view makes sense. It’s ok if people just call themselves nationalists, ethno nationalists or ethnic nationalists but my “radar system” will indicate need for correction where need be.

135

Posted by Norvin on Sat, 05 Sep 2020 06:08 | #

IT’S OKAY TO BE WHITE

136

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Sep 2020 08:09 | #

But, Daniel, regardless of what Jews are doing today, they did not define “left” until Marx was taken up by European leftists. The French Revolution was rather more a product of Voltaire’s thought than some Jew, even Spinoza. Your analysis fails on that point, and also on the point that “left means unionisation” when unity is not the cause of the left anyway. That cause, ultimately, is the unfettered will just as in the case of the right, but achieved by flattening all salience. The workers’ unity is a precondition for force in the struggle of the left for the unfettered will.

Further, in the native European context unity isn’t quite the right word for overcoming the alienations of our people. That word is nationalism, the politics of the blood. You are only muddying the waters. The better way to proceed is the well-worn path of advocating nationalism as neither right nor left but a system in itself with its own internal dynamics.

On the question of ethnic/ethno-, are you seriously predicating your conclusions on Wilmot Robertson? The definitional process now in train started when Robertson had just died, doing so in consequence of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a good and constitutionally grounding process for European peoples’ nationalism. It means that single population states can describe themselves as ethnostates, along with states where the dominant population is constitutionally supreme. In states where there is more than one population, for example, a unified Ireland, the universal model of ethnic nationalism should apply.

You only have to recognise that limitation in your use of the term ethno-. What’s the problem?

137

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 05 Sep 2020 08:53 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:09 | #

But, Daniel, regardless of what Jews are doing today, they did not define “left” until Marx was taken up by European leftists. The French Revolution was rather more a product of Voltaire’s thought than some Jew, even Spinoza.

But Jews have got the issue red caped now and there is an underlying pattern below which is much in our interests to garner as ethnonationalists and I will never be dissuaded by your foolish determination to chase Jewish red capes or react to them into a spiral of “pure naturalism” - its bullocks.

Your analysis fails on that point.

My analysis does not fail. It fails in your fantasy autobiography as “slayer of academic and intellectual pretense” merely because it serves to maintain the illusion that when you chase red cape misrepresentations and sweep aside the ideas of others, no matter how important, that you are necessarily doing good.

GW: and also on the point that “left means unionisation” when unity is not the cause of the left anyway.

I must say, GW, you suck. You really suck.

Listen pinhead: I didn’t say anything about the cause, I said unionization is a consistent and central underlying aspect to the left.

And like all important ideas that don’t come from your armchair, you attack, try to dismiss and bury.

If your really want to do some good, why don’t you kill yourself?

GW: That cause, ultimately, is the unfettered will just as in the case of the right, but achieved by flattening all salience.

You are always talking with this stupid, reactionary idea of pure naturalism and following the Jewish characterology of exaggerations, gross distortions of the the left and working hypotheses as “unnatural”, as if you are an original thinker.

And then you make these proclamations:

GW: The workers’ unity is a precondition for force in the struggle of the left for the unfettered will.

But White Left Ethnonationalism is not about Class divide. Rather the ethnonation is the class, that unionization is the precondition and there is no such thing as unfettered will.

GW: Further, in the native European context unity isn’t quite the right word for overcoming the alienations of our people.

Unification, rather unionization, is “wrong” - to you - only because it serves your conceits for it to be “wrong.”

GW: That word is nationalism, the politics of the blood.

And unionization is not mutually exclusive to ethnonatoinalism (or “ethnic nationalsm”), on the contrary, it fits perfectly.

GW: You are only muddying the waters.

No, I am not muddying waters. You are. I am clearing up the Jewish tangles and reactions that you subscribe to.

GW: The better way to proceed is the well-worn path of advocating nationalism as neither right nor left but a system in itself with its own internal dynamics.

No. Because the well worn path has associated Nationalism and corresponding White identity with the right (or third position yah?) and all its back doors for subversion and manipulation; and has redcaped the left as anti-nationalism, posing its many socially organizational, accountable, compassionate and reinforcing resources in exaggerated, anti White form so as to have Whites associate nationalism with self destructive reactionary, anti social politics instead, rather than ongoing correctivity - social systemic homeostasis…

..and you know what GW? the more I have to repeat myself because of your sick egotism and make sense nevertheless, the more I realize that we’d be better of if you would just kill yourself.

GW: On the question of ethnic/ethno-, are you seriously predicating your conclusions on Wilmot Robertson?

You said that nationalists did not organize by way of ethnonatioalism, and I gave a salient example, asshole. There was no suggestion that I predict conclusions upon his work.

GW: The definitional process now in train started when Robertson had just died, doing so in consequence of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a good and constitutionally grounding process for European peoples’ nationalism. It means that single population states can describe themselves as ethnostates, along with states where the dominant populations is constitutionally supreme. In states where there is more than one population, for example, Ireland, the universal model of ethnic nationalism applies.

You only have to recognise that limitation in your use of the term ethno-. What’s the problem?

There is no problem for me. I use the term ethnonationalism and it doesn’t mean anything egregious or unreasonable (though you are wont to make negative attributions). You use the term ethnic nationalism, have explained why you do that, and I do not see any compelling difference between what you would call “ethnic nationalism” and how I would conceive ethnonationalism to be conducted; i don’t plan on using the (Jewish derived) term, ethnic nationalism, but neither do I plan on fighting with you about your using it.

138

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:29 | #

As I said some months back, you are not unifying your brothers. But you are not dividing them either. You are only isolating yourself, and you have taken the site with you, which is certainly not what I wanted. This you have done by your lapses into obscurantism and by the liberties you take with your aggression.

Well, I am not your enemy. I am the only person who cares enough about you - and this site - to try to coax you out of your self-made laager of private meanings and tortured prose. Of course, for this kindness I am accorded the due quantity of insult and, as any observer can all too clearly see, unconscious projection. Editorially, you do an excellent job here, Daniel, and some of your work is important. Some of it - the personal history - is beautifully written. I have not been slow to tell you this. But the wall of the laager has to come down and you have to stumble out into the light minus all this divisiveness. What can you do about that?

139

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 05 Sep 2020 10:08 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Sep 2020 10:29 | #

As I said some months back, you are not unifying your brothers.

I am providing the conceptual framework that would unify them, you are part of the conceptual reaction that prevents it.

But you are not dividing them either. You are only isolating yourself, and you have taken the site with you, which is certainly not what I wanted.

No, you, the Christards and the Hitler heads, whether true believers or at the behest of Jews and other right wingers caught up in the box have isolated me at the behest of Jewish and narrow, reactionary interests.

GW: This you have done by your lapses into obscurantism and by the liberties you take with your aggression.

I don’t lapse into obscurantism (obscurantism is your thing) and I am agressive when people are trying to destroy me and important ideas for no good reason, won’t stop, will not be persuaded. This isn’t liberty. This is finding someone who can’t be reasoned with.

GW: Well, I am not your enemy. I am the only person who cares enough about you - and this site - to try to coax you out of your self-made laager of private meanings and tortured prose.

Isn’t it so nice of you to pronounce that I have private meanings (which is impossible) and endure my prose (which do not proclaim you sole purveyor of important meanings).

GW: Of course, for this kindness I am accorded the due quantity of insult and, as any observer can all too clearly see, unconscious projection.

Afraid not. The kindness of my solid efforts have been sadistically and endlessly treated by you with strawmen, that you toss up like your own private skeet shooting range.

GW: Editorially, you do an excellent job here, Daniel, and some of your work is important. Some of it - the personal history - is beautifully written. I have not been slow to tell you this. But the wall of the laager has to come down and you have to stumble out into the light minus all this divisiveness. What can you do about that?

It will be shown and it will be known that I am not the divisive one and that not only my personal history, but many of my articles are very important - VERY - and people will know the difference of that fact as opposed to your shocking dismissiveness which only serves your vanity.

Here is another example of an important idea that you would try to dismiss and bury.

You don’t see this statement in other places:

1: Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is not innocent, it is prejudice against prejudice, prejudice against the social/racial classification of peoples and discrimination accordingly, even where perfectly reasonable and necessary; as such, it is hurting and it is killing people.

Instead you would bemoan for years about my use of the word Cartesian (which makes perfect sense) and call in Bowery to try to forbid me from using it as somehow “demoralizing our people” (those in belabored STEM reaction, anyway).

Computer nerd Tanstaafl would lend a hand, adding that anti racism is a Jewish construct, as if I would disagree and as if that disproves its being Cartesian.

Do you want me to keep listing important (non personal) ideas that I’ve put across that you would bury if you could, because I can keep going….

140

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Sep 2020 05:38 | #

2: Euro DNA Nations

141

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Sep 2020 16:10 | #

John Locke’s anti-classification and implications inferred thereof.

From academia I did gain the nubs (only) of insight into

John Locke’s anti-classification concept and his heavy influence on Thomas Jefferson’s writing of the American Constitution.

John Locke’s resentment of the English Aristocratic class lent to his conception that social classifications were “non empirical fictions of the mind” which should thus give way to individual civil rights, since everyone has the same sensory impressions and should therefore be seen as having an equally valid position to begin and be granted an equal opportunity….

What GW is not giving me anything like the credit that I deserve for, is the focus and inferences I’ve made of this for the sake of White/European interests.

First, let me say that I understand why he might be prone to underestimate the significance (or not tend to care enough about its significance).

GW actually shares this grievance with Locke, against the English upper class - actually, a Norman imposition as such - such that he is, to this day, aggravated by the outcome of the 1066 Battle of Hastings which saddled England with this class imposition.

I don’t disagree with Locke nor GW in objecting to this birth right class division of the English nation.

This disagreement sparked the legitimate classical liberalism of undoing that particular social classification discrimination, at least seeing “the upper classes” as being somewhat accountable to the “lower” classes.

[One can see from there how it became perverted as a sign of “upper classness” to be above racial and ethnonational prejudice and a “sign of lower classes” to be prejudiced against non-native British once the classificatory division was red caped, transformed to an international (Marxist/Culturlal Marxist) matter, not merely an inter-England class divide.]

The problem is, first of all, that it may be all too easily assumed, incorrectly, that when I criticize Locke’s notion, that I am defending the British class system, when in fact, when I speak of “the class”, I have always meant ethnonationalism, the nation, i.e., native English nationals undivided.

Secondly, where I have emphasized this fact, taking the position of White Left Ethnonationalism to oppose elite separation and removal from accountability for any of their betrayal of the common interests, I am brushed with the red cape of liberalism as if deploying anti-National/anti-White concepts, no matter how many times I explain the difference, that this concept is actually the best remedy (no matter how many times I run it past GW, anyway).

Yes, we want to liberalize (open) the boundary between the Norman class and the English nation but that does Not mean that we want to open the boundary union of the English nation; that liberalization is a function of the Marxist red cape - which proposed a “union” of the workers of the world to take control, universally, of all means of production and to realize the withering away for the state.

I have never advocated anything like that. I have always advocated the genus and species of Europeans.

Furthermore, as I speak in White Post Modern terminology, saliently, hermeneutic process to correct the modernist, Lockeatine rupture of social classifcatory bounds, to get that right and correct the (((red caping))) of Post Modernity, I am confronted with intransigent resistance; it is being insisted that I am not uncovering profound differences from these red capes for application appropriate, natural and germane to European interests.

This is wrong.

These are negative assumptions falsely attributed to me, and I have made inferences regarding Locke’s rupturing, (modernist) notions that are very important for European interests, irrespective of how much actual originality people may want to recognize.

3. Locke’s rupture of social classifcatory bounds on behalf of individual civil rights, (((weaponization))) thereof, and implications - the disorder of modernity and the increase of the puerile female one up position as they are pandered to from all angles as group classificatory boundaries broken down.

It would be short sighted for an Englishman to ignore the America context, as the implications of the Lockeatine concept being written into the American Constitution and then, this modernist concept of “civil individual rights” (((weaponized))) to liberalize ethnonational boundaries on behalf of the international Marxist and Cultural Marxist agenda, has sent waves back to England, Europe and the world.

These inferences and several elaborations upon them are rather original to me, and very important, aside from me personally and that is why I take great exception to GW suggesting that my personal stories are about the best of what I have to offer.

The Lockeatine disruption of social classification, particularly as (((weaponized))) with “Civil Rights” (anti-White discrimination/pro-Black affirmative action rights) and “anti-racism” is pivotal to the disorder of modernity (black metabolism, biopower and the momentary and episodic advantages it can have within the disorder of modernity - particularly as moment and episode are over valued - is another thing that you won’t see too much of elsewhere besides my efforts to date).

....along with several inferences from there.

And let me emphasize further

4. That the idea of the female one up position increasing with the disorder of modernity as she is pandered to from many different angles is a particularly original inference on my part and significant, whether one wants to credit me with originality or would prefer to believe that I am simply repeating what I was told in classrooms.

Inferences: they are bumped up to a powerful gate keeping position and pandered to, their base female drive to incite genetic competition is exacerbated and in line with that, their tendency to only let more liberal men (who are more fast and loose with group bounds and borders) into power, because it maintains their powerful position (at least in the near term) in which they can play men off of one another.

5. The idea that unionization consistently and cross contextually underlies the concept of the left and that it is the logical opposite of liberalism, because the union conserves what is within, while liberalism is a matter of opening boundaries and borders.

Having philosophically analyzed the problem, this (unionization for the sake of accountability of elite and rank and file) is where philosophical activism for Whites would begin.

It is a logical and natural inference from there to see how it is that Whites have confused (((been encouraged to confuse))) liberalism with The left; and that is because they are chasing the red cape of internationalist Marxist and anti-White Cultural Marxist Left, its absurd anti-White distortions and transgressions of borders as “The Left”, which would seek to liberalize (open) the borders and bounds of White identity until it is finished.

The only recourse appears to be a right wing purity spiral into pure nature or principles and religion beyond nature, as social accountability and compassion, even to their own group of people, has become so repulsive in the association [and now 6. characterology of the left, to call attention to another of my more original ideas] to the leftist concept of social organization. While White Left Ethnonationalism, in unionizing our borders and bounds indeed, would hold to account rank and file members, potential scab interlopers, right wing elite and liberal betrayers - i.e., right wingers and liberals who tend to betray us for flattery of their pure “objectivity” beyond our relative group interests.

Who said working hypotheses are unnatural/counter nature? (((who))) fucking said?

And this unionization, which closes the borders, takes priority over addressing problems of gender relations as it provides means to hold the genders to account.

E.g., our puerile females, who have been pandered-to exponentially in their increased one up position within the disorder of modernity, would not be able to simply participate, as if religiously sanctified to do so, in our involuntary contract (enslavement) to serve their mulatto children, should they elect to breed out. White Post Modernity holds the potential for ostracism as loss of citizenship is structured.

142

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 08 Sep 2020 04:33 | #

First, a note of clarification..

I’ve fixed the paragraph which began with “The only recourse appears to be a right wing purity spiral” ....the writing was confusing.

This is better:

The only recourse appears to be a right wing purity spiral into pure nature or principles and religion beyond nature, as social accountability and compassion, even to their own group of people, has become so repulsive in the association [and now 6. characterology of the left, to call attention to another of my more original ideas] to the leftist concept of social organization. While White Left Ethnonationalism, in unionizing our borders and bounds indeed, would hold to account rank and file members, potential scab interlopers, right wing elite and liberal betrayers - i.e., right wingers and liberals who tend to betray us for flattery of their pure “objectivity” beyond our relative group interests.

143

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 08 Sep 2020 05:17 | #

I’ve made several additional inferences along with my idea of the increased one up position of females within the disorder of modernity, but to trace its connection to another of my more original ideas, cluster of ideas, actually, I need to look backward at the initial provocation of feminism within the historical horizon of my life; i.e. in adopting Heidegger’s advice to place my life in historical perspective: the first thing that came into high relief was my annoyance with feminism, when from my earliest recollections as a child in the 60s, it seemed to me that in so many ways girls/women were at an advantage. I fitted this into an explanatory framework of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

7. The agitation and infuriating conflict in the comparative conceit of the feminists high grumbles (for actualization) compared to the low grumbles (for basic human needs) of the implicitly male hippie motive in anti-Vietnam War protest..

8. This suggested reworking Maslow’s hierarchy of self actualization to reincorporate traditional aspects of its European origin in Aristotle (Self Actualization being a teleology of the self), while retaining Modernist aspects of innovation and achievement by the Post Modern re contexting (into an optimizing and circulating affair rather then a lineal and maximizing quest, which devalued the ordinary or the shared concern) of its fundamental place in socialization to keep the human potential movement from doing with the weaponized civil rights movement was doing, i.e., destroying group bounds and yielding a reflexive effect of social aberration by rampant individualism and selfishness.

....

To be continued…there is more, much more of my original input, the significance of which goes well beyond entertainment of my personal stories.

144

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 08 Sep 2020 16:07 | #

9. I’ve suggested different constituents as topoi to look upon Actualization, (no longer Maslow’s hierarchy, exactly) and a new form - optimization and circulating within a central context of socialization, not individuation, to correct the epistemic errors of Maslow and the human potential movement which lent themselves to systemic runway and social aberration for lack of balance and social systemic structure.

The constituents that I propose (and demonstrate) as useful topoi as to fill out the optimizing circularity of needs: 1) MidtDasein/Socialization, 2) Being/Dasein, 3) Routine/Auto/biography/Close Relationship/Sacrament 4) Actualization.

Now, people don’t have to subscribe to these topoi, but there are all kinds of reasons that I can site as to why they are highly germane to European interests and managing genetic/systemic actualization.

10. A White Post Modern which also has its way of directing analysis of this form of actualization and its constituents, like the many differences of White post modernity, is also among my more original contributions….

11. This reveals the language game that Feminists Betty Friedan was playing through Maslow, as inspired by feminist de Beauvoir and later feminist, Carol Gilligan’s proposal for a different moral perspective, also derived of de Beauvoir.

I traced Friedan and Gilligan’s point of departure to specific sentences in de Beavoir, both attacking aspects of traditional morality, Aristotlean optima in Friedan’s case and Kantian principled morality, in Gilligan’s case. This is an original and important observation my part.

Friedan, a student of Maslow, held that women needed self actualiztion to overcome the “neurosis” of the housekeer’s constraint. Gilligan, also derived of de Beauvoir, held that women just needed their different perspective represented more at the table of political actualization. De Beauvior and Friedan were markedly ignoring the fact that while men tended to occupy the top of the hierarchy tradtionally, that greater sacrifices were expected (not only there because for traditional positions reserved, or a Maslowian differentiation of fulfillment but also sublimation of deprivation), sacrifices expected of them on basic levels and consequently, men also disproportionately occupied the bottom of society.

12. This uncovers and locates the hippie movement/war protest as a male movement by contrast in the hierarchy of needs, with the low grumbles of basic needs unfulfilled.

The Hippie movement suggests that a certain intrinsic value ought to be assigned to White males by dint of their genetic survival (not that they should be effeminate or absolved from greater responsibility than females in legitimate requirements of war and other defense against foreign aggressors).

And this issue, of intrinsic valuation of White men (or not), is at the heart of the matter to this day.

With the greater sacrifices of males on lower levels being ignored, and them being treated by feminists as if they are only privileged, and traditional women not registering the change in societal compensation for these sacrifices, the situation has been ripe for misunderstanding, conflict and hatred between the genders; while some potential ways to work out fair relations are shown in this modelling…

to be continued….

145

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 09 Sep 2020 05:21 | #

13. The Post Modern Turn/Post Modernity in application for Whites.

I show where modernity/the enlightenment goes wrong and how Vico, Nietszche and Heidegger set about to correct its estrangement from accountability and the relative interests of Praxis (social group) as central world view.

I also discuss resources developed, when properly understood and applied, to remedy this situation: hermeneutics, emergentism, social constructionism.

14. Red Caping: a wonderful concept that I’ve devised to make sense of many, many things that our adversaries are doing with terms and concepts to disorganize and misdirect White people.

Red Caping: The astute in concern of White interests will observe and understand that Jewish interests are generating and marketing misdirection of concepts that would be essential to White group defense, and Whites continue to fall for it.

The basic strategy of Jewish group antagonism is to take a good idea, necessary to group defense, advocacy, homeostasis, and deploy it in the interest of non-Whites or anti-Whites; then exaggerate or reverse these advocacy concepts to the point of utter misrepresentation, absurdity, to where they are perceived as alien and repulsive to the common sensibilities of Whites, causing them to react even against the concept underlying this red caping and against thus, the very concepts that Whites need to understand and organize their group defense.

I then run through many clear examples of red caping - including of our moral order, with Christianity - and the functional result.

15. ....Language as semiotic currency, Ordinary Language Philosophy, pointing to Depth Grammar (cross contextual patterns). Thus, the left corresponds with social group advocacy, unionization most formally [it does not correspond mostly with equality /non equality, that is a red cape for the right wingers to chase and make themselves look bad, being “against equality” and by making false comparisons.]

A very central, misdirecting red cape of White interests at this time has been altercast us against “the left” and to equate “the left” with it’s opposite, liberalism (which makes sense when talking about an internationalist, anti White left, but not a White, ethnonational left, because that would be unionizing (conserving the interests of Whites)...Further, it’s been…

16. It’s been a full marketing campaign to pit White identity against “the left” [because it serves Jewish interests given the intersectionality against their elite, right wing positioning following the 2008 financial bail out, blow back from Operation Clean Break and the gross distortions of their Cultural Marxist advocacy] ... to counter this intersectionality they’ve marketed a singular, villainous characterology of “the left”: “It is liberal, unnatural, seeks “equality” [commensurability/incommensurabilty is a better way to think about niche fit in a group paradigm, as it avoids false comparisons and the conflicts it can generate in disrespect] and is basically destructive and repulsive to everything White. Glossed over, all the while, is the idea of a White Left Ethnonationalism, because its unionization would put Whites on course for autonomy and the means to challenge (at least defend ourselves against) elite powers-that-be who are destroying us - Jewry, its elite White right wing sell outs and Liberals, taking the license and opening gates along with Jewry.

I show how the hermeneutic, White post modern turn is devised to rectify that.

....to be continued. There is much more still in the way of original insight….

146

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 09 Sep 2020 18:22 | #

17. Coinages:

Pervasive ecology, Universal maturity, Mulatto supremacism, black hyper-assertiveness, cultural controlled opposition

18. Usage specific to ethnonationalism: White Post Modernity and Correctivity

Marginals functioning as important empirical sentinels of group boundaries inasmuch as they are just within group bounds, while the red caping of Jewry pretends that marginals are those who are outside or antagonistic to group bounds but “should be included.”

19. Sex as Sacrament vs Sex as Celebration (and other stories told about sex). Hypothesis, that the tension between human dignity and yielding to animal drive, particularly the tension between dignity and dominance and submission makes “sex sexy” and does not necessarily hinder the option of monogamy. That an option for state/group sanctified monogamy is important to uphold incentive and morale, loyalty, to stave off cynicism; to take away claims of the Abrahamic religions, that only they can offer this sort of thing.

20. Original concept:

The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement:

There is no apparent way out, as one proves that the abuse of didactic incitement is justified no matter what recourse is taken:

1. One is a Wimp if they do nothing in response:

The abuse is justified as one proves their own ineffectiveness

2. A Pig if they respond, fighting back directly in their self interest:

One justifies the abuse as they reveal their primitive self-interest and lack of restraint.

3. A Dupe if they try to reason and bargain with the inciter:

One justifies the abuse in this case and they risk the hideous result of sharing the best they have with the person(s) treating them the worst (in an attempt to reason with them by sharing resource, perhaps precious resource).

Forms of having the “10 taken” in a prisoner’s dilemma scenario come into play.

4. A Permanent Puerile Initiate.

The instigator(s)/others can always treat the abuse as a “lesson.”…and one may be left with little choice but to treat the didactic incitement as an experience not that bad at worst or even a necessary lesson, thereby justifying the abuse in this case also.

..hence, the charmed loop of “didactic incitement.”

147

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 05:03 | #

21. Platform

It has occurred to me that when GW accuses “social constructionism” of being “weak, gloomy and artificial” that he is using terms that critics apply to “Critical Race Theory”, which I have not partaken of and knowing rather social constructionism proper, that is why that opinion made (and still makes) no sense what so ever; i.e., he is probably confusing social constructionism with “Critical Race Theory.”

There is nothing weak or gloomy about social constructionism proper and it is only as “artificial” as your working hypotheses might be.

Indeed, one of the very best things that I do - putting academic terms and concepts in the form that serves European interests - does not mean that it will be readily appreciated in the cursory glance of the superficial observer; that that will be enough to cause them to realize that I am showing them the way out of the traps set for them; they have been repulsed by the red caping of these matters for decades and are liable to believe that I am serving up more of the same.

Nevertheless, it is one of the excellent features of this platform - which is best grounded for the advocacy of European peoples.

I am not denying that the current unpopularity of MR has no fault in myself. While GW can make a good sounding podcast without much preparation and editing, I cannot. The only thing that I can say in my defense in that regard is that I am willing to take the time to do that, whereas others might not be able to find the time.

If people might be put off because they think that some people are smarter than me in some ways, that is not a perfect excuse; as I do not exclude input and participation of people who may be sharper than me in some ways. In fact, as a social constructionist, I welcome intelligent and corrective input.

But what else makes this platform excellent while risking its popularity? Well, you might know already: Having suffered fools enough and MR having taken the modernist route of subjecting issues to an ongoing bombardment of critique, even from absurd world views of Christianity, Hitler/Nazism, those who would naively/disingenuously wish to include Jews into our advocacy group, scientism and nut conspiracy theory, we have taken measure to provide relief from these wrong turns; a sane platform instead, which does explain why these perspectives do not serve us and will only be entertained by invitation if there is a specific purpose.

Right though this platform is, it’s rejection of perspectives historically popular is going to increase the backing of anybody who is antagonistic to me and my efforts, as they will have Christians, Nazis sympathizers, Jewish divide an conquer perspective, the scientistic reactionary and other popular nonsense (like conspiracy theories) backing them in their antagonism to this, what is actually the best platform.

We will have Jews against it simply because it is the best platform and they will be encouraging the naivete of Whites who are captivated by these misdirecting camps.

Those who take the populist stance and succeed in gaining a larger audience by accommodating these camps, e.g. Christianity, do have pragmatic arguments on their side, but are re-including elements which have brought us to ruin to begin with and the means for our adversaries to subvert and destroy us.

While, I cannot say that I have superlative interpersonal skills; it is the honest position of a social constructionist to welcome others to pick up the slack, to correct, to creatively infuse content with an even more accurate understanding of it’s salutary function.

This modicum of good will is necessary to compensate for honest mistakes and oversights.

As neither am I batting 1,0000 in podcasts and articles. Some of the podcasts that I’ve participated in suck; but I believe that I’ve shown where I can look after the prep and editing, they can turn out pretty good.

As far as written posts go, I look at ones like this A Narrative of The Intersection of Individuation and Gender Differentiation and this Story of Intersection Individuation & Gender Differentiation (another old version, probably better) and - cringe - I can understand why people would see this as absurd.

I was eager to get on line these old articles of mine, precisely so that I could re-tool them, take from them what might be useful. At the time of the writing in the early to mid 90s I really could not even talk about race (unless I wanted to say bad things about White people) and thus strained through the proxy of gender relations. As I languished on the sidelines of academia, I tried to equip and fit these statements with as much C.M.M. as possible and tortured as many details as possible with current theoretical concerns.

The result is a baroque absurdity and an indignation, especially if one treats it as antagonists might, especially the STEM type, who are only - ONLY - looking for the one thing that justifies their dismissing everything.

Well, this is nearly the opposite of what we do as explorers of theory best suited for praxis.

While I do have several very good and important articles, I will look upon an article like that as a bit more than compost or fodder, as there are some concrete bits beyond the granular that are near ready to go..

But for the most part, it is stuff, some of it not all that far off the mark while its underlying form is not all that far off the mark either.

While it does not capture the best of the White Post Modern world view that I have put across in other articles, I am likely to draw upon bits and pieces here and there as they become useful. However, what I will not take lying down is the STEM thing of having fine efforts and content set aside because someone has found something that they can quibble with, maybe even stuff that isn’t very good - like these two articles, generally - bad even, and they want to fix that on me as definitive and summation.

148

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 02:04 | #

Another original insight of mine

22. A centralized world view through the relative interests of Praxis* (group interests and their systemic homeostasis) should form the default calibration (corresponding with Left ethnonationalism/unionization) while objective inquiries into matters which are true irrespective of our subjective and relative interests, should be looked upon as an invaluable part in corrective feedback onto the calibration of group systemic homeostasis.

In the day to day, we don’t walk around in Objectivity, detached of interest. We are normally engaged in Relative and Subjective interests, first, though only the Relative is non-Cartesian.

* And Praxis is an excellent term to reclaim from (Marxist co-option) for its Aristotelian origins, for it’s meaning - the relative and interactive social group outlook - to be re-centralized (the calibration of world view) as the key project of (White) Post Modernity. Together with Aristotle’s calming advice, that attendance to Praxis requires a feel and a practical judgment, that it is necessarily of a different epistemological means (phronesis/practical judgment) than hard sciences - while those of us suffering kosher rhetorical abuse of praxis will be prone to a singular and unpractical quest for unassailable scientific warrant. Praxis also has non-Cartesian, interactive connotations with “axiality” in its overall position and a process of turning to a myriad of particular concerns among group interests where the Cartesian concerns of subjective and objective pursuit have been satisfied.

149

Posted by Alastair Ross on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:44 | #

GW, please investigate DS’s successful Doctorate ( ? ) and its sympathetic supervisor (s).

Your are an English Chartered Accountant who has done a Yeoman’s job of forensically auditing this Robert Maxwell of morbid mysticism.

150

Posted by Alastair Ross on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:08 | #

GW , please read Sir Walter Scott’s ‘History of the French Revolution’ in which he identifies the Semitic hand. Strange though , I can’t find that book on my Kindle search.

Same problem with Solzhenytsin’s ” Three Hundred Together”.

151

Posted by Facts and Instinct on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 12:37 | #

Facts/ not facts and instinctive/ learned reaction do not disprove social constructionism:

Woman gets eaten by alligator

Girl Eaten by a Crocodile While Taking Picture

152

Posted by 200 years and the revolutionary red cape on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:30 | #

In answer to Alistair Ross.

1: However misguided and bad The French Revolution was (assuredly a great deal), the nobility apparently did not see itself as particularly responsible, but rather internationally beyond the interests of the native nationals.

But crucially for WN purposes, the French revolution was red caped by Marx, not in a direction in concern of native national interests, but rather for the “international proletariat”...

The Marxist international, national union busters has been red caped as “THE Left” by Jewish marketing and conflated with the vast anti-White distortions of the Cultural Marxist White Union busters to conflate THE left, conveniently to divert White activism against its intersectionality with Jewish interests (e.g. Zionism and diaspora elitism and liberalism) and deflect from Jewish culpability, their central part in its promotion for goyim, by contrast with their proposed solution of paleoconservatism - i.e., Christianity and scientism.

A White ethnonational left is not in perpetual “revolutionary” mode; we are not in revolutionary mode where the interests of our union - a union of our people, its native national boundaries and interests - are secured by those (ours) in power. If they are not, i.e., if our interests are not served, then we would seek revolutionary transformation so that the union, the borders and boundaries of our European peoples are secured. This is a big difference between a White ethnonational left and the Marxist, internationalist left and its relation to power - they are in apparent perpetual revolutionary mode until all nation state boundaries are destroyed, the state withers away to make way for the utopian worker’s proletarian rule. By stark contrast, we are not against power per se where it serves ethnonational borders and members; we are, rather, drawing the hard line on ethnonational boundaries, not on class divisions among ethnonational members where they are accountable for the ethnonationalist union and it is secured; with that established, we are no longer in revolutionary, transformative mode, but are, rather, elaborative and self corrective.

As for the problem with Solzhenytsin’s ” Three Hundred Together”....

You might try searching for 200 Years Together instead.

153

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 20:28 | #

The ontological transit does not “disprove” the fact of unconscious personality formation. On the contrary, it provides the scheme by which authenticity retrieves agency from artifice.

You are trying to “correct” that which you must transcend. By correcting it you only move around the furniture in the room. An example of moving the furniture around is fascism’s reification of the reborn hero. This happens in the personality. Our task as ethnic nationalists is to work consciously in the human real, for conscious work can only be such.

154

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 21:41 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:28 | #

The ontological transit does not “disprove” the fact of unconscious personality formation. On the contrary, it provides the scheme by which authenticity retrieves agency from artifice.

I have not discussed “unconscious personality formation”, but if you were to try to say that “the transit disproves” social constructionism, it doesn’t.

GW: You are trying to “correct” that which you must transcend.

No, you are trying to “sweep aside ideas” that are important and useful, because they are useful and important and demonstrate that the only thing that matters is not you and the farts from your armchair - and that is why you say that “I must transcend these things”, because they reveal that you are not all important.

To the extent that your transit scheme might help keep people on track with their emergent nature that is fine.

To the extent that you are putting up the straw man/ red cape of social constructionism, trying to say that the transit or emergenism is mutually exclusive to social constructionism, i.e., misrepresenting social constructionism with the red cape as strictly artifice, strictly solipsistic fantasy, only telling fiction stories, “confection”, all these self serving things that you say, it is a disservice as it only chases and reconstructs the red cape misrepresentation of social constructionsim.

Can there be artifice in social constructionism? Yes, but there is also the means for correction of misguiding artifice in it and its hermeneutic tool; in fact, authenticity, a human life freed from adherence to mere facticity, the arbitrary animal reaction and rigid, insect like adherence is not possible without it. That is to say, there is inauthenticity to human life and consciousness without hermeneutics and social constructionism, stuck in the arbitrary rigidity of Cartesian anxiety, such as yours.

And perhaps even worse, it even fails within your own focus on emergentism, failing to observe the quality of emergentism, as it is reductionist. You need to overcome your Cartesian anxiety.

GW: By correcting it you only move around the furniture in the room. An example of moving the furniture around is fascism’s reification of the reborn hero. This happens in the personality. Our task as ethnic nationalists is to work consciously in the human real, for conscious work can only be such.

That is a projection, GW. You are the one who is re-arranging furniture (putting up straw men in your Cartesian anxiety). I am so glad that unlike you, I realized not to waste so much time with psychology. But maybe you were trying to self-help your narcissistic personality disorder. Speak for yourself when prescribing a task - “our task” - this statement of yours is just more gas lighting to try to pretend that I haven’t brought anything, or nothing significant and that I should wait to follow the lead of your stinking farts. You have some nerve, but all it ever shows is that you are too self absorbed to be bothered to know the difference; or even to realize that to be recognized for making a sound contribution does not require looking upon the contributions of others as mutually exclusive, and certainly does not require gas lighting/straw manning those contributions.

155

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:00 | #

Social constructionism is shallow and worldy in its insight and clumsy and haphazard in its operation. It isn’t particularly intelligent to note that the human personality is acquired unconsciously from Time and Place. It is, I suppose, slightly intelligent to note that the function from moment to moment of that entity is mechanical. It is more intelligent to note that the mechanism is an overlay, if you will, on the working in us of the natural identity (which itself is still not the fundamental truth or essence of us, but no matter for now). It is more intelligent still to note that studying the result of mechanicity from the result of mechanicity does not lead to freedom from mechanicity; for freedom is an original estate in two parts. The real name for the negative first part is detachment and unconcealment, and for the positive second part affirmation and appropriation. Social constructionism knows nothing of this. But standard ontology does.

Nationalism in its basic ethnic form, free from filters, is concerned with the turn from absence and mechanicity to presence and consciousness as the basis on which all that is good can be known and enacted.

I don’t know if social constructionism is any use as a tool for ethnic nationalists. It may be too deliberative and thought-based to have much if any meaning for the mass of our people. The human power of attention probably has more general agency, and has been proven in the past.

156

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:20 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 17 Sep 2020 03:00 | #

Social constructionism is shallow and worldy in its insight and clumsy and haphazard in its operation.

Social Constructionism is only as shallow and worldly in its insight and clumsy and haphazard as the operator - as it will be for you, a shallow businessman, a reactionary STEM nerd, a quintessential boomer - a mentality selfish and horrifically destructive to subsequent generations- nevertheless self served in narcissistic egomania; with little ability for philosophical thought but all determination to obstruct correction to the socially irresponsible disaster that his opportunistic generation helped to usher-in, aid and abet…with their pop psychology, human potential fads, money making endeavors, ecology be damned, human and otherwise….

It isn’t particularly intelligent to note that the human personality is acquired unconsciously from Time and Place.

Right, it isn’t particularly intelligent. It’s about your speed. Go for it.

GW: It is, I suppose, slightly intelligent to note that the function from moment to moment of that entity is mechanical. It is more intelligent to note that the mechanism is an overlay, if you will, on the working in us of the natural identity (which itself is still not the fundamental truth or essence of us, but no matter for now).

There is no conflict with your investigation of this natural identity - it’s transit as you say - and social constructionism; in fact, social constructionism facilitates it.

GW: It is more intelligent still to note that studying the result of mechanicity from the result of mechanicity does not lead to freedom from mechanicity; for freedom is an original estate in two parts. The real name for the first part is detachment and unconcealment, and for the second part affirmation and appropriation. Social constructionism knows nothing of this. But standard ontology does.

Both Social Constructionism and hermeneutics know of this, because they claim the same turf as other disciplines. In fact, they are required for this freedom of which you speak.

It occurs to me why you took issue with the word correctivity in your last remark (as if correctivity is mutually exclusive to having biological interests basically in line for the most part), because it is an excellent idea (which you don’t see other people talking about with regard to ethnonationalism and its homeostasis; and so it perhaps devalues your special sage status.. nevertheless, you’ve got some unique takes as well…

GW: Nationalism in its basic ethnic form, free from filters, is concerned with the turn from absence and mechanicity to presence and consciousness as the basis on which all that is good can be known and enacted.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you are the only person absurd enough to define nationalism that way.

157

Posted by 23. Naïve Species / Invasive Species on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 03:54 | #

23. Naïve Species / Invasive Species

The analogy and application of Naïve Species / Invasive Species as applied to the plight of Europeans, markedly Nordics in their lack of response to imposed migration and replacement by foreigners is another idea that I generated independently.

Though Greg Johnson, Luke Ford and Morgoth later spoke in terms of this idea, and I cannot claim that they could not have come to the idea themselves, I did come to it before they did and it is a good idea (and they may have lifted it from me):

Naivete of Native Species Evolved in Isolation

When I posted this article GW took strong issue with me in Skype conversation, because I jump from one example and one metaphor to another. He said that “people are going to stop reading.”

While that may be true, I was writing the way that I did deliberately, in order to be provocative and to cover some analogies which are more closely related than one might think at first blush, while important to get out there as soon as possible.

In fact, getting this complaint from GW was the first time that I lost my temper with GW, because he was missing the important point:

Which was to bring up the important analogy of Naïve Species vs Invasive Species.

As a site and devoted to commentary, I should expect that to be the matter seized upon for discussion, not my unconventional writing style.

And it wasn’t only Naïve Species vs Invasive Species that I brought up in this article, but another original application of mine, viz. of

24. Clerk Maxwell’s “demons”, Augustinian devils (natural challenges) vs. Manichean devils (man made challenges, tricksters, more capable of changing in order to overcome your self/group interest).

This is a very effective application on my part to make sense of patterned differences between Middle Easterners - especially Jews (wage war by deception, because the natural challenge of shelter and resource is not so much the issue in their circumstance as competition from adjacent tribes) - versus Europeans, especially Northerners in their evolved penchant for naïve STEM concerns that had been requisite to their survival as pitted more against nature than other people.

158

Posted by Nature doesn't give a fig on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:11 | #

Though if you’ll eat the fig and disseminate its seeds through excreta, some symbiosis might evolve.

In other words, “Nature” in its pure sense, doesn’t give a fig about the survival or death of you or your people. People might, but you’d have to construct a bit more complex a story with them to sort out other possible natural avenues and re-directions, extending editing effort to hold together the avenue that maintains racial loyalty as the natural means to survival, as an expression of the most or best of “human nature” (while asserting that other options aren’t as humanly natural or somewhat falsely, not natural at all).

Some symbiotic creatures might (like certain dog breeds), might “care” about our survival as well, but again, those are re-directed elements of their emergent evolution, as would be any organism evolved for symbiosis with humans.

159

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 08:35 | #

Daniel,

I have asked you in my own discursive, unconfrontational way to show some class and realise, finally, that this site is my property. I do not expect to have to carry on fighting with you over material posted here, including material which is personal to your uni module with Shotter. You can make a project of social constructionism if you like, in the same way I did of ontology, complete with link on the side-bar. You can make another project of hermeneutics, if you wish or you can lump it into the one about social constructionism. You can make a project of postmodernity too, and another one about your version of left and right. All that minority concern you can retain as a project or projects. But it is NOT ethnic nationalism, and I will not tolerate it as, to all intents and purposes, the ideology of this site. It has proved wholly negative for us. There must be another direction.

Listen to what I am telling you. Don’t fight back. Do as I ask. If you need my help to create links on the side-bar, I will extend it.

On the question of Nature you appear to be conflating the naturalist’s panoramic, savage view of life on earth with the specific organism’s interest in survival and continuity, and further you are sinning against intellectual discipline by giving Nature a personality which does or does not “care”. Nationalism is naturalistic (not natural - see the difference?) because it expresses Nature’s singular struggle for continuity (ie, the consonants of Hedegger’s sorge, Salter’s EGI). If this isn’t clear return to this piece:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/out_of_foundation_and_into_the_mind_body_problem_part_one

... which sets it all out.

160

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 11:59 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 03:35 | #

Daniel,

I have asked you in my own discursive, unconfrontational way to show some class and realise, finally, that this site is my property. I do not expect to have to carry on fighting with you over material posted here, including material which is personal to your uni module with Shotter.

How is it “non-confrontational” and “showing class” to set about to strawman and reduce what I am saying to “a personal model with Shotter”?

The comment that I posted this morning makes a clear, non-personal and important point, which is based in the history of sound European thinking, traceable to Aristotle at least and will not be humiliated as if a gimmick of some mere and trivial academic niche so that you can believe you’ve satisfied some grandiose grand unified theory of nature, or whatever, by denying it.

GW: You can make a project of social constructionism if you like, in the same way I did of ontology, complete with link on the side-bar. You can make another project of hermeneutics, if you wish or you can lump it into the one about social constructionism.

Deal.

GW: You can make a project of postmodernity too, and another one about your version of left and right.

Good.

GW: All that minority concern you can retain as a project or projects.

It is not a minority concern.

GW: But it is NOT ethnic nationalism, and I will not tolerate it as, to all intents and purposes, the ideology of this site.

These matters are indeed central and crucial to ethnonationalism, I will maintain that truth, while I can from now on represent it as an alternative platform of this site, whose main worldview is GW’s ethnic nationalism based in ontology.

GW: It has proved wholly negative for us. There must be another direction.

No it hasn’t proven negative, on the contrary it has shown the positive, viable direction.

Just because you can’t see the fact that the enemies of ethnonatioalism are trying to steer nationalist thought from this direction and into say, a stigmatic, anti social, Nazi scientisic/idealogical backwater, is not proof, even though Hitler worshippers such as Al Ross would encourage you to believe that.

GW: Listen to what I am telling you. Don’t fight back. Do as I ask. If you need my help to create links on the side-bar, I will extend it.

I have already acknowledged and granted your request to no longer say that the views that I represent are the official view of MR.

GW: On the question of Nature you appear to be conflating the naturalist’s panoramic, savage view of life on earth with the specific organism’s interest in survival and continuity.

I am making no such conflation. The distinction is so clear, plain and important that it is unfortunate that I have to make it, while you continue to ignore it, that humans are not creatures whose inborn nature alone can raise them into adulthood with a sure natural trajectory to maintain their individual and species form without any social interaction to reinforce the value of that form, while other natural organisms might do so; as opposed to a human baby which is socialized to complete mature form (or to stave off re-direction) of its emergent qualities - yes, we have emergent nature, and it is important to understand, I do not stand in the way, on the contrary; but it is ensconced in a social world which can be supportive (and needs to be, if it is to succeed) or antagonistic.

GW: and further you are sinning against intellectual discipline by giving Nature a personality which does or does not “care”.

Sinning, LOL. I am explicitly NOT giving nature a personality and the capacity to “care” in this sentence.

GW: Nationalism is naturalistic (not natural - see the difference?)

Ok, “naturalistic” but it isn’t and entirely straight natural direction.

GW: because it expresses Nature’s singular struggle for continuity

Survival and Selection are components of natural selection; with that, systemic homeostasis of form and survival are indeed what species and their individual members are compelled to in health, which I come back to repeatedly; but natural selection also has a component of variation to select from, and this can operate against the continuity of (and be used against the continuity of) traditional and inherited nationalist forms, that we, as nationalists, would like to see and find most in harmony with our human nature.

You had asked me to take the site in the direction that I see fit.

I could not have anticipated your personality being as it is and should not have had to presume that you cannot be persuaded with even the most obvious supporting examples; but instead take invariable recourse to strawmen (utter misrepresentations of what I say).

So, while you are handing down edicts that the view of Western philosophy, the best of it, anyway, cannot be said to represent MR, I will ask you to refrain from strawmanning with suggestions that it is at odds with nationalism, as it is developed exactly to protect and foster ethnonationalism; please refrain from this egregious strawmanning that you sadistically indulge in, repeatedly gaslighting, in the example here saying that my platform is “entirely negative” (the only thing “entire” about that statement is that it is an entire lie) at the behest of your Nazi worshipping supporters in your campaign against me, markedly Al Ross, who continues to egg you on against me for his unabashed worship of Hitler. Because on the contrary, my view is entirely positive, healthy, corrective for national interests, national unionization being the means to facilitate ethnonationalism, whereby its social accountability, coherence, agency and warrant is maintained, knowledge generated; standing by private property and free enterprise, as it recognizes that a balance of that and public property is conducive of positive participation in systemic maintenance; in accord with Heidegger’s post modern, hermeneutic turn; and is always concerned to be consonant with nature (I coined the term pervasive ecology and view human ecology as central, the union of the ethnonation a fundamental means of its protection and maintenance); it is in accordance with Salter’s EGI theory and nationalism for all peoples; and it can easily gain popular support among nationalists with proper support and backing - not as misrepresented by your strawmen and resentful vendettas against red capes, which never needed to be interposed as representing what I say, misrepresentations which you insisted upon repeatedly, anyway.

161

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:58 | #

Daniel,

We are finishing with making your minority opinions the majority opinion of my site.

Therefore, would you kindly advise how many project links on the side bar you want me to set up, so the balance can begin to be re-struck.

162

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 25 Sep 2020 22:35 | #

My opinions are not minority opinions (they are unsupported majority opinions unarticulated elsewhere in the mainstream as yet; blocked by marketing and dupes not yet understanding red cape games being played against them)* but you are welcome to add project links on the side bar:

White Post Modernity

White Social Constructionism

White Hermeneutics (adding “White” to the Hermeneutic title already there)

White Left Ethnonationalism

Other Terms/Concepts advanced by DanielS

.......

P.S. I wonder if this tantrum was caused by Dutton’s failure to disprove social constructionism, its significance and importance to White interests.

........

P.P.S.

Before making me the heavy, as having “taken over the site” with my “opinions”...

You did ask me to take the direction of the site, seeing my perspective on White interests from both an American experience and Europe as appropriate.

The site is on far more solid ground given my perspective and efforts. It’s a shame that you don’t appreciate that and do not go with it as you might. The platform that I’ve set does not exclude close and rigorous readings that you like to give, but apparently you are too rigid in your reaction to allow for working hypotheses (no matter how demonstrably solid) of group interests and their means of homeostasis.

True, you wanted me to literally take ownership of the site financially, and I wasn’t ready to do that, so I cannot object to you dialing back your offer in the name of your site, even though I may have gone on to assume ownership if I could have continued to steer it clear of Nazism and corresponding right wing folly….

* I do not represent minority opinion, but rather, entirety opinion - full group - for a holistic perspective of the group to include all perspectives, ranging from those in the majority and mainstream to those marginalized, where these varying perspectives might be valuable in group maintenance.

In other words, your trying to characterize mine as representing “minority” concerns is yet another strawman. I ask you again to please refrain from this nonsense.

163

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 26 Sep 2020 07:54 | #

I will make those changes tomorrow (Sunday). It is the first step in re-forming the site. Others will follow.

164

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 26 Sep 2020 14:08 | #

You said that already.

165

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Sep 2020 08:07 | #

And how is that “social”? It isn’t; not for long.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments