“There is no such thing as society”

In that act of being mistaken, anyway - let’s leave a way out for people understandably reacting to the Jewish misrepresentation of the terms, “left” and “post modernity”.

Internal Relation and Emergence

You don’t have to take a position which places your people (praxis) as the central gauge. You can go on like a right wing fool for Jews and place a “quest for truth, facts and universal foundations” (and “inequality” even?) above all - even wreck your own people in that “noble quest;” but you’d be an unnecessary fool, a dupe for Jews and Jewish thinking in so doing. You don’t have to put our people at the center - but you can, as factual verification and reality checking are available in an instant if you are not dealing with reality; whereas the principles upholding our people took many centuries to create and are much more precious and difficult to reconstruct, if ever they can be. It isn’t necessary to place facts at the center - people are born of facts and if afforded correct principles, proper agency and accountability, our people will come to continually adjust their interests with the facts. Hence, the right’s whole arbitrary-making quest for facts and episodic verification at the expense of principled interest in our people is the height of folly.

Chasing mere facts and perfect verification away from “faith” in our people will tend to take them into runaway, beyond our people’s systemic interests - as opposed to taking the White post modern turn into its facilitation of the preservation and reconstruction of our people - where the facts are ensconced in the sufficiently deep emergent reality of our people’s systemic history to afford re-framing at their authentic place in relation to our human ecological system.

Right and Altright reactionary fan club - scavenging the wreckage of continued reaction.

The right, “alternative right”, those in their orbit, lay in wait as vultures for things like GW’s latest surprise: as I stepped aside from a discussion of British politics, he applied the theoretical wrecking ball again to “THE left” and “post modernity” at their behest (he isn’t so lame as to have to do it for himself); ill-prepared for the surprise in that context, I put up a threadbare defense against what I’ve come to see as a part of GW’s autobiography - “champion of the right, universal foundational unifier against the left’s class divisiveness.”

GW - working class hero who sees their classification as a critical problem of imposed nationalist division.

If you are coming here, like myself, chances are that you appreciate GW’s ability - you delight as he wields a scalpel on behalf of White/ethno-national sovereignty, more often a wrecking ball to the pretenses of academia and scholarship that are working against it.

We value this, want him to continue, want him to be satisfied with his part and his contributions. 

What follows here is going to show little appreciation for that, which is abundant and shows forth in spontaneity for the surfeit of his intelligence - often yielding indispensable flourishes and insights that I myself cherish. This piece is rather an ungrateful piece in that regard, given that he has stood by me as I set about chartering a new platform for Majorityrights; and I sent scurrying many who had deep appreciation and respect for him as well; but it is neither for myself nor “his own good” that I proceed not feeling particularly guilty about that - nor is the matter of face saving a pressing matter for either of us - the sake is proper theoretical grounds, which is always my central motivation. Still this will appear rather like a hit piece - as it takes aim, focuses on the clumsier props of GW’s worldview, philosophical underpinnings and aspirations - not on better sides and ideas, which will emerge cybernetically in balance of fact.

If you are coming here, you probably appreciate and identify with GW’s rogue path: as a completely disaffected outsider to the academic fray, he early on rejected the nonsense coming out of there, particularly from fields dealing with social issues. And you delight along with him as he continues to apply the wrecking ball to their cherished liberal ruses under cover of “The left”, their wish to open important borders and boundaries, to bring down individual merit, to drag others down into primitive individual and group failure - instinctively, you sense him taking down liberal bullies who are smug enough to insulate themselves from the consequences of the unsupportable concepts of social “justice” that they wield against those native White populations least responsible for others problems, most likely to suffer from liberalism and least likely to gain from the applications known as “The Left” - applications which can recognize just about any collective unionization of interests except one kind - White. Certainly a (((coincidence))).

Most people who’ve come here, myself included, have also experienced mystification over GW’s not being satisfied with that. You have been at least temporarily mystified as he evades into the arbitrary recesses ever available by the empirical philosophy that underpins modernity; and as he continually applies its wrecking ball, secure in the faith that it will leave in its wake only that which is fine and good; a wrecking ball summarily dismissing scholarship, conceptual tools and principles that others set forth to guide social action.

I have been stunned as he sends the wrecking ball my way as well, summarily dismissing even carefully culled and profoundly warranted philosophical ideas, eminently useful conceptual tools and important rhetorical positions that I have geared to his same White ethno-nationalist interests; while his modernist philosophy willy-nilly casts me into the role of the “lefty academic” foil in key moments.

I am no longer mystified by this.

A reactionary position is mostly retreating (evading) and attacking - whatever looks like an enemy or Trojan horse - but for its instability, it is susceptible to chase after the red cape.

An early contentious streak in the autobiography over-reinforced by circumstance, ability and admirers.

GW is wonderful, we love GW, but like the rest of us, he is not perfect. There is a residual strain of contentiousness in his autobiography that stems from his early disaffection and precocious disregard of liberal prescriptions coming from academia. It’s a part of his autobiography that he takes a great deal of pride-in. It is also socially confirmed enough so that he continues to chase its red cape known as “THE left;” and keeps applying the modernist wrecking ball to any concepts the tiniest bit speculative in circumscribing social interests; or adopting any terms also used by liberal “left” academics - even if used in different ways, he will understand it in THE left way that he is familiar with - and summarily dismiss it as such or apply the wrecking ball.

Unlike most people disaffected of liberal academia, he is not of the working class sort content to shake his fist at academic pomposity, to find solace in a beer and the pragmatism of his working class buddies, allowing the union misrepresentatives to negotiate his interest with their fellow liberals of academic background; nor is he content to join in with the White collar and middle class who typically denounce the worst of academic socialists as unrealistic, while they go along with the liberal anti racism of the academe, signaling their one-upness to the lower classes by denouncing as backward superstition whatever defensively racist discrimination they might even require.

He does share a few things in common with the typical middle class perspective however. Naturally, he has a bias toward viewing his success in positivist terms, as having come about from his gray matter and personal initiative, not because he derived any benefit from artificially imposed social bounds against competition and to circumscribe cooperation. 

Though he can relate to the working class “xenophobia”, he maintains that their maintenance of who they are among a collective “we” (i.e., particular native European nationals) and their choice of whom to intermarry with (same particular native European national) is something that should and can emerge naturally from their genetics - an identity that will emerge naturally, provided they do not have liberal, Fabian and Marxist ideas imposed upon them; the last thing GW wants is to impose another artifice upon them, one which he believes could divide them against their upwardly mobile English brethren, and in turn, divide the middle class even more against them. I.e., the “left” and “right” is normally taken as an economic divider and unifier of class, not a racial nationalist one as I am proposing. The middle class, as much as any, might be reluctant to ‘get it’ and not identify with a “White left,” in which case we would be back to the divisive issue, not the uniting issue that both GW and I seek - we may not agree on terminology but we do agree on native nationalism.

Thatcherite obectivism a means for personal advancement and foundational unification of nationalism.

In fact, GW is a native nationalist, deeply offended by the class system which has long hampered English unity. Thus, he is not content to disavow the worst of liberal and Marxist academics, writing-them-off as the idiots that they are, while leaving the working class to the fate that liberalism will bring to them, and, if left unabated, to all of us eventually. Like a few, more ambitious among us, he set about to get things right, to open a platform for White nationalists, even before it was quite the immanent practical necessity that it is now.

He aspires to identify the ontological connection between all English classes which, if unfettered by artificial constructs, would have them acting as native nationalists in loyal unanimity to their interests.

In that regard, Margaret Thatcher represented to him a liberating moment from the incredibly burdensome artifices of liberal, Fabian and Marxist Left union delimitations and by contrast an opportunity to unite as nationalists on natural positivist grounds.

Normal first reaction that doesn’t take Post Modern turn as it fails to see liberalism flying under left colors.

Indeed, most anybody of this ambition, myself included, who cares about our race and its ethnonational species, starts out in reaction to the absurd, contradictory and destructive liberal rhetoric coming out of academia and reaches to grab hold white knuckle to foundational truths, particularly scientific fact, which cannot be bamboozled by the rhetoric of liberal sophistry (which we later come to recognize as more often than not, Jewish in original motive). And we do grab hold white knuckle - that is to say, scientistically, in rigid over and misapplication of hardish science to the social realm, as we cannot trust the social realm, its rhetorical caprice if not deception - its ongoing disordering effects that apparently threaten to rupture social order anew with every agentive individual. Coming from a non-Jewish, Christian cultural perspective, where our bias starts, if not Jesus, we first liken ourselves to Plato and then modern scientists seeking to gird and found our place and our people’s place, whereas “they” are Pharisees and sophists, wielding the sheer rhetoric that we are going to debunk with our pure, native ability and motives. In a word, we are going to do science against their dishonest bias against us - they are indeed being deceptive and biased on behalf of unfair people; we see it as our objective to establish universal foundational truth that will be unassailable to this sophistry.

That is the normal first reaction of a White person who cares about themself and our people - it was mine and it was GW’s - a nascent White nationalist in response not only to the anti-White discourse coming out of the university, but in response to the very frame of the discourse - that is to say, taking on the frame [Jewish and liberal social stuff and lies versus White science and truth] - against accusations of privilege, racism and exploitation, we sought pure innocence in truth beyond social tumult and disingenuous rhetorical re framing. We (understandably) acted with absolute revulsion to anything like social concern and accountability - why should we be accountable to ever more alien imposition? - itself neither offering nor asking for an account sufficient to maintain our EGI - and where our people are eerily unconcerned or antagonistic to our people as well, we are only more compelled to take on the task ourselves - to pursue pure warrant. Our first reaction to the liberal chimera called “THE left” is: “I” noble servant of postulates - theorems - axioms - upon universal foundational truth.”

Beyond our people’s relative social interests even, we must save ourselves from the lies of “The left” (never minding that their first lie is that they represent our left) and found our moral/ontological basis where Jews, other tribalists and our selfish liberals, who only care about themselves, can never again manipulate it. We hold white knuckle, rigidly, in reaction to Jewish sophistry.

History will show that our people who pursued and secured sovereignty, health and well being found a philosophy advanced of that - competent and able to secure their social interests. They’d taken the White Post Modern turn from this reactionary position.

For reasons unfolding here, including reasons of his personal autobiography, GW has yet to appreciate and take the post modern turn.

Personal ability and interpersonal circumstances have facilitated his carrying-on in a typical first philosophical position of an amateur outsider in regard to academia - the epistemological blunder of “they are just sophists who provide nothing but nonsense while ‘I’ and my pure thoughts in relation to ‘theory’ am going to set the world aright” - an epistemological error in the relation of knower to known that is born in reaction and puerile hubris, carried on by being strong, smart enough to persist long after most people would shrink back from the signs of its limitations; going further uncorrected as it has been endorsed by “no enemies to the right” (a dubious principle, if there ever was one); it has grown into a surprisingly big and audacious ego wielded as a wrecking ball against “post modern philosophy.” We are supposed to rest assured on his faith that in the aftermath of wreckage, that the emergent qualities of his mind are all that is required besides the occasional foil to play off of in order to clarify and carry the modernist program forward to unshakeable, universal, foundational truth - unassailable to any social reconstruction. Never mind that we are already willing to agree upon most of the fundamental rules that he would seek - our agency is not necessary if it is going to suggest anything like planned social construction of systemic defense. No, that’s all impure stuff to be cast aside; and by contrast of true Platonic form, if you are freed from that ignorance and come to know the good he will secure, you will do that good.

He is not satisfied to simply negotiate, reason-things-out and reach an understanding among his people, he is not even particularly concerned that it won’t be a damn bit of good if people can’t understand his philosophical yield - he wants to secure that good on ontological foundations beyond praxis - beyond the capacity for manipulation. Most sophomores abandon this, their freshmen objective, as not only obsolete philosophy, but in fact, come to recognize it as destructive philosophy - a destruction which GW continues, with tremendous faith, without need of Aristotelian compass, that tremendous confidence to persevere where Wittgenstein failed.

The boomer generation - libertarianism and egocentrism.

The likes of Bowery and GW will be slower, if ever, to make the turn in direction, not because they are stupid, of course, quite to the contrary, but because they have the mental horsepower necessary to keep patching and operating the antiquated and obsolete technology that is modernity; and stem predilection both motivates them and enables them to do that; they are more self sufficient, less immediately reliant on the social (why carry others weight?); more confirmed by females by being reliable as such (concentrating on how to do things, not stepping on the toes of females by asking questions of social control - as long as you are at one end of the competition you are OK - liberal or the right wing end); confirmed by non academic workers in their more pragmatic concerns; and confirmed by right wingers in their penchant for anti-social theory beyond social manipulation - exactly, they are also slow to take the turn, of course, because they have an understandable lack of trust in liberal-social narratives; this unwillingness to suspend disbelief may be increased inasmuch as they have benefited as baby boomers, less harried for their identity in the parts of their life-span experienced prior to the culture of critique and in their personal initiatives after its reprieve - in Bowery’s case, with aspects of the objectivism behind Ron Paul’s libertarian “revolution”; and in GW’s case, during the Thatcher years (Thatcher’s initial backers having discovered her reading Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, who obliviously carried forward upon the Tractatus) - years of brief, partial liberation from liberal-left union fetters - “there is no such thing as society” - in either case, a false friend facilitated as false opposition - viz., an expression of steered objectivism derived of Austrian schools beginning with Wittgenstein.

The title is a projection of objectivism. Subtitle: look who else is reading it.

What is confirmed to me - in a roundabout way, when GW dons his powdered wig, grabs a quill pen, does his best John Locke or whatever voice serves, and says oh, “that’s just Aristotle and his rhetoric,” “all of the good ideas are coming from the right”, “based in nature, none of this praxis stuff”, says that he “never loses an argument against academics”, etc., then continually re-applies radical skepticism of the empiricists and their forerunners - is that he is showing an ego driven and confirmed desire to carry-on the “pure” modernist project; viz., in his ontology project and his destruction of everything in its path, even treating Aristotle and William James as utter morons, GW is revealing a vain desire to do something all alone, like a combination of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosphicus and Heidegger’s Being & Time: “The world is everything that is the case” meets “the worldhood of the world” - without the post modern implications of the latter. All that is required is the emergent qualities of his mind to set the world’s ontology aright - it will be “unassailable” by liberal, social, “left” rhetoric.

His reaction, confirmation and penchant for empirical verification against Jewish rhetoric has apparently caused him to disregard the post modern turn that was occuring also in Heidegger’s philosphy, albeit in Heidegger’s case, in that somewhat rigid, German way (which I find endearing).

GW appreciates Heidegger, so why does he not move forward from 1927 and why does he retreat to 1921 and the Tractatus? That he consders “OF being” the better starting point than Heidegger’s “There Being” provides a clue to ego centrism and Cartesian anxiiety - he not only proposes the reconstruction of the Cartesian starting point, “Of being”, but proposes it as an exclusive position, not even taking hermeneutc turns with Heidegger’s non-Cartesan starting point, “There being.”

“Unassailably” proclaiming that “The world is everything that is the case”

Whereas Wittgenstein himself was forced to yield-to, if not recognize the necessity of, the post modern turn - so much so that he was embarrassed by his effort at a complete ontology in The Tractatus Logico Philosophicus - having proclaimed its logic “unassailable” at once upon completion, he later repudiated it, even took to referring to its author as if a different person.

The Motivation for Post Modernity

Part of the craze for “post modernity” is that people (correctly) sense that modernity is destroying their differences, their traditions, their ways of life, their people and their very lives. And yet they frequently found traditional societies destructive as well. Therefore they were happy to have not only backing of cross cultural studies, vouching that different ways of life are valid, but also some confirmation from the very foundational math and science which modernity pursued to an apex that finally turned back on itself.

Kurt Gödel had demonstrated that a theory of any complexity could not be both complete and unambiguous.

Neils Bohr had priorly announced that there is no instrument fine enough to resolve the wave/particle distinction.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle elaborating from that was subtler still - that the observer is engaged in interaction and has reflexive effects upon that which he observes.

Confirmation of Aritstotle’s Praxis and suggestion that it should be the radical basis of assessment, not pure objective facts.

These findings confirmed Aristotle’s premises as set forth in Nichomachean Ethics - on the nature of Praxis - people are in reflexive relation, mostly requiring a degree of practical judgement as they are less predictable than the theoretical causality which the hard sciences pursue. It also would suggest placing praxis more in the center than theory - i.e., a socially based perspective where people are the arbiter, as opposed to “I think therefore I am” in relation to mere, indisputable facts and non-interactive third person behavioral units; a pursuit even outstripping the subject ultimately in favor of fixed theoretical facts - the Cartesian relation (pursued non-relation, as it were) of knower to known.

Vico was first to take the hermeneutic turn against Descartes, to bring ideas into historical context, the relation of knower to known into the social world of praxis

A relation knower to known other than the Cartesian model is required by modernity’s recognized failures and impervious destruction.

Those who care about people, who see the destruction of Descarte’s “relation” of knower to known, understand the wisdom of Aristotle, and realize that Vico -  Descartes’ first major critic - was in fact, proposing the taking of theoria into praxis: i.e., correctly placing people and praxis at the center of his world view. He was setting forth the historical, hermeneutic world view, the post modern world view. And, in turn, those who understand Heidegger will see that he was following in that same direction, which may be called “existential” and which is centered in praxis - the social world.

The White Post Modern turn is, of course, the best and most moral perspective for advocating people - Whites especially - Jews don’t want that and so they fool the uneducated masses and most of the educated masses as well by reinterpreting the terms by which people - viz., White people, might understand this - and they get them to react against didactic misrepresentation. That is, they are getting them to react in aversion to what is good and healthy in racial advocacy by having made it didactic in misrepresentation - e.g., the highly sensible Post Modern is presented as “dada” (whereas I have secured its sensible form in White Post Modernity).

Bowery and GW were impelled on, for the didacticism of the (((liberal-left - contradiction of terms))) and for the (((misrepresentation))) that was this false opposition and its false promise to liberate us from The left, among other reasons. Objectivism, the neoliberalism and libertarianism of the Austrian school of economics, Thatcherism, is merely a false opposition that (((they))) set up against “(((The Left))).” It is a product of late modernity, derived of the Vienna School of Logical Positivism, which in turn was derived of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

Again, that was Wittgenstein’s attempt to set-out a comprehensive and “unassailable” ontology - “The world is everything that is the case.” He would later say that the Tractatus was “not a very good book”, lest he be mistaken for one not recognizing that those who had taken the post modern turn had left this philosophical quest behind. Nevertheless, the Austrian school of logical positivism founded upon the Tractatus lived on through his cousin Hayek (who Thatcher was discovered dutifully reading); it was then taken up by von Mises et. al, who would conveniently and explicitly adopt this no-account modernist program against any one of subsequent generations who was the least bit reflective, who had any social complaints about how they and their people had been left without social capital after this generation of egocentric locusts devoured all social capital in their path. Waiting generations of right wing reactionaries, ensconced in their well protected Internet bubbles, were ready to look up to these libertarians for their lack of social concern, conveniently blaming the socially conscientious of prior generations for the problems - “The Left”, where not “hippies”, were the ones asleep at the wheel and leading us over a cliff, “but not the objectivists” and not (((The YKW))).

One-up intransigence of boomers meets generation Internet bubble for a right-wing cocktail, silencing socially conscientious voices between.

Because of GW’s unwillingness to trust anybody but himself, he takes recourse in the one aspect of the post modern turn where his first person account of all the world’s foundations might be claimed - emergentism. He has a problem, however, when I say that the world still interacts.  He has to take recourse to the absurdly arbitrary claim that “life doesn’t interact.”

Emergentism, in fact, is one of the key contributing factors to the post modern turn - it challenges the reductionism and fixedness of the modernist ontology project in an important sense - the emergent whole being greater than the sum of its parts means that significant referents are changeable in complex systems, thus qualifying Bowery’s criticism - “there is either a referent or there is not” - as this charge must yield to the fact that facts can be re-framed as they emerge physically, as they are designated by individuals and as they emerge in social consensus. And yes, what emerges still interacts in a myriad of ways.

Gen Xer’s were a bit late for the ride

“There is no such thing as society”

Their lack of faith in the social narratives as they are applied by YKW is understandable, the faith they show in the guiding principle of modernity to leave only what is fine and true in the wake of their wrecking ball is not. There comes a time to suspend disbelief. To draw a hypothetical boundary around our people is as good a time and place as any. “Wise men see lines and they draw them” - William Blake. And its not so hypothetical.

Perhaps because their boomer generation was early in line and they were intelligent enough to position themselves by means of objectivism for a deck chair on the higher end of a sinking Titanic, they can take some solace in writing-off those who might be going under first, if it does go down, as hazards of nature, having not acted “naturally” in EGI - Bowery in particular, being motivated by an affinity for the individuality of northern Europeans, abandoned ship (MR, anyway) when Dr. Lister and I began raising criticisms of “individualism über alles” and raising social concerns against that.

In fact, for this reason, Bowery issued an ultimatum (“either him or Lister”) which defaulted to Graham’s more social side, upon which Bowery expressed his “revulsion” for Majorityrights.

Despite the fact that GW still leans in an objectivist and libertarian direction, he does try to prevent the sinking altogether - because he is a nationalist and not a classist as he conceives classism to be, in its traditional, Marxist economic and Norman aristocratic terms.

  GW, the English tax-payer

But here also begins his reluctance to agree to a concept of the union, the social class, the White Nationalist Left, as it were, being one and the same with native Nationalism, while liberals and traitors of any economic level would be considered enemies to the native Nationalist Union. His reluctance, intransigence to that concept, is rooted deeper, in his personal psychology, his autobiography and its position in reaction to a rigged discourse.

Because he has the intelligence and confirmation to carry on with the contentious streak of his early days, because of his bias and stance against the pervasiveness of the culture of critique, GW finds himself unable to trust anybody but himself and his brain. He clings white knuckle to the reaction, “This is what the Jews have said that these terms mean, most people believe them, my right wing friends believe them, so it must be true - that is what these terms mean and we have to do the opposite. There can be no other.” That is to chase their red cape and to attack in the wrong direction - not always, even a broken clock is right twice a day and GW is right much more than that despite his conscious misconception - but mostly attacking against the sensitive underbelly of our own (would-be) social system.

They say Post Modernity means “dada” so we have to go back more determinedly than ever to modernity and smash what would be the means to save ourselves with an understanding that traditions and inherited forms can be too precious to subject to sheer experiment and that there are such things, of course, as modern advance which we can gauge and integrate with our homeostasis, unlike some Amish adherence to mere tradition.

The (((YKW))) have cleverly set up red capes, such as “The Left” and more..

Don’t worry, GW survives having chased the red cape of “The left.” But will he take the White Post Modern turn? Maybe not. His generation are in too egocentric a position in regard to the worldhood of the world

They say “The Left” means liberalism therefore we must smash the left and anything like an organizing, unionizing, syndicalizing principle for Whites - just as the Jews would have us react to their red cape.

They say hermeneutics and social constructionism means that you can make up your gender and race in any which way, if it exists at all, therefore that is what these things mean. And not that these concepts are anti-Cartesian tools of engagement between the conceptual breadth necessary to not do violence to historical systems and empirical verification - so as not to be overly speculative (and, e.g., hoodwinked by Jewish nonsense).

In truth underlying, The Left always corresponds with unionization - members and non-members - which is the opposite of liberalism; but they say the left is liberalism so that must be true.

No matter that there is no mention of a White left, a left the union of which is based on White people’s interests, as members, while Jews and other non Whites would be non-members. “The Left” is the enemy. Why? because adding a prefix, Jewish left, red left, Marxist left, Fabian Left, even the inherently contradictory, “liberal left”, is too much to ask of one who is smarter than Aristotle.

Because that is “not pure theory enough”, we have to get maneuvered and squeezed above praxis, beyond accountability to social justice and ecology, human or otherwise, into the anti social theoretical nonsense of the right - rather than looking at the right for what it is for those with wisdom: a moment of verification to be gauged against its utility in praxis. The right is but a moment of utility and then it is taken into the social - the left.

I would humbly request that prefixes to “The Left” be added to specify what kind of left is being accused of harming us; so that there is room for a White left, a position which recognizes the need for White social unionization against potential unaccountable betrayal by elites, on objectivist or other grounds; an organized accountability that will also serve to defend-against and punish rank and file for liberal betrayal; or to reward them for loyalty and good work by contrast.

You don’t have to call yourself or these people the White Left or the White Class - although I would recommend it.

I no longer have a great deal of hope that GW will take that recommendation because of his autobiographical position as someone outside of the university, criticizing anti-White academia, not having witnessed first hand what it is doing with terms and concepts, he will probably continue to treat these Jewish tricks as found objects - “The Left”, “post modernity”...construing anyone who tries to explain these things in White interests as a liberal, if not Jew emissary.

True, it is not so much “The White Left” moniker that I want as a way to distinguish this, a better theoretical praxis, from the right, Altright, their theoretical blindness, perfidy, susceptibility to infiltration, instability, reaction, manipulation and foolish destruction.

But what he cannot see is how that term, “The White Left,” does a good part of the work of sending away exactly those who should be put off. It is easier for me to see that in a wide survey of the White right, the Alternative Right and White racial advocates broadly.

Our project has everything that theirs has and more, without the susceptibility to its perfidies. Surely people will see this - but no, not where objectivism blinds the day.

I did not realize what was happening. That I am going to be treated as the public foil, the “lefty academic” who is to be debunked if he tries any of that social stuff.

The Transmission Model of Communication versus the Interactive Model.

The transmission model of communication upon which right wing thinking is based is the Cartesian model. The pure man, Descartes, is supposed to be in communication with pure thoughts and somehow, who knows how, that is supposed to be purely, non-interactively, lineally transmitted from him to you [on tabula rasa or operating on what will deterministically come forth in emergence, depending upon which side of Descartes you are on]. It doesn’t have to be Descartes, it can be Hitler before the sports stadium saying he dindonuthin’, it can be Moses issuing THE commandments from the mountain, Jesus issuing the insane Golden Rule, can be some scientistic nerd before a lecture hall. But stupidly, the right favors this model. It likes it both for positive reasons of its adoration of these authority figures and because it wants more than anything to knock others down. Either way, it is a puerile position, passive aggressive toward authority.

The right is using the same perspective, disposition and premises that a disgruntled teenager disaffected of academics and scholarship might - its reaction can only retreat or destroy - it expects “pure knowledge” and that’s why it doesn’t participate here, despite the fact that hey! the Internet was invented! We can interact, unlike the (((authorities))) of the transmission model that you like to complain about - TV, movies, radio, written material, preachers, politicians and academics bellowing before and brainwashing an audience which can’t even talk back - you can participate but you won’t. Why? Because you are stupid fucking right wingers with an obsolete philosophy, based on the Cartesian model. You expect me and what I say to be perfect and pure; if there is the least error, the least acknowledgment of indebtedness to what is social -  even, “please report typos”  - you will not lend a hand to correct it. You don’t want this ship to float because you are ego maniacs and Cartesian gibberish serves too well to obfuscate that fact. By contrast, we can construct our knowledge together - something that I intend to happen here. I have no desire to pretend to be a singular authority not in need of feedback and help in our struggle.

I’m being a bit mean as I really despise the personal psychological perspective, the egregious harm it’s done in denying the social and its necessary critique, observing that to be where problems derive, not in the head (usually a convenient, disingenuous attribution; but in the minority of cases, where there are organic problems and deficiencies, acting as if the problem being in the head is not even more a social matter of how it is to count and what to do), knowing that the group unit of analysis that I’m using is eminently better, more appropriate to the task of racial advocacy; thus I cruelly hoist a petard to personal psychology and seek help for our beloved friends stuck in a puerile contentious streak, be they Boomer or Generation Internet Bubble, and for GW, where he cannot help but apply the wrecking ball to social academia and scholarship, can’t for a moment suspend disbelief in some of its better ideas - not even for the best of Aristotle. GW should be satisfied to contribute as he does brilliantly in many instances and not dismiss everything with a whiff of university sociology, in highschool form, fist raised at pompous scholarship while promising the world is everything that is the case, there can be no other.

“Ho, ho, social constructionism, ho, ho, hermeneutics - nonsense! The right has the ideas now!” (not).

What social constructionism is honestly saying by contrast is that there are some things which can literally be socially constructed and other things, facts, which can be socially constructed in terms of how they count - by contrast to the arbitrary upshot of Cartesianism on both ends, it is very important for the matter of accountability, coherence, agency and warrant to sustain and advance our human ecology - requisites to save and advance our people.

It is a wonderful possibility and why it is such a shame that near 100% of our struggle has fallen for the Jewish trick of arguing against their didactic misrepresentation, their red caping of social constructionism and hermeneutics.

One does not have to place people, our people, at the center of concern, one can continue to play the objectivist game - to have faith that a tree falling in the woods makes a noise even if there are no people there to hear it - but so what if our people are not there to hear it? It may as well not make a noise. It doesn’t for us. And that’s the point.

Isn’t it better to have faith in the classification and value of our people? - To place our praxis as the central arbiter? Faith (as usefully defined in praxis, not the pure category that GW would ascribe to it) as confidence in something that works sometimes and reveals what is good and fine sometimes, as worthwhile in the long run, but not always - as in the case of our people.

....

It is a shame to take the position that there is nothing of intellectual value coming from anywhere else save perhaps a few bits and pieces of what can be salvaged and retooled through one’s personal gray matter, all the while ignoring the hermeneutic direction that Heidegger was taking in order to undo the Cartesian relation of knower to known, to re-engage knower to known in praxis, as opposed to the detachment of theoria.

But such, I guess, is the problem with a STEM biased brain, with horse power enough to imperviously plow through arguments about the social, perhaps for sheer predilection for science, not knowing when it shouldn’t do that. And for lack of trust (I know that when I do it, that that is the reason - inability to trust others with theoretical matters), but nevertheless, GW sometimes does not stop applying the wrecking ball, even to conceptual tools which are wholly conducive to his interests. However, ignoring and driving a truck over an argument does not mean that he has won the argument, as he might claim; though it does show a great faith.

This faith has wreaked havoc with careful plans at times. An empirical bent and pursuit of foundational truth will have none of this rhetoric business, that’s for mental midgets like Aristotle - contentiousness is taken as a way to provoke and jostle its contrivance, get to true foundations and spontaneous expression. But denial of rhetoric for its alleged arbitrariness does not necessarily put one on more solid grounds, in fact it can have arbitrary upshot; and just because something is spontaneous does not mean that it is good.

Bad advice from old friends on the right - Carolyn is original?

Witness the havoc it wreaked with my plans for “Jan The White Uniter” - socially important, anchoring rhetoric for our side was turned asunder by GW in his bravery to go were the devil dare not tread - in swashbuckling display to his right wing friends. I organized the discussion with “Jan the White Uniter” explicitly for the fact that all too much of the right was enamored of Hitler, and here was a guy good enough to put Hitler behind - what does GW do? Near the end of the show, after so many arguments were made to put Hitler behind, GW chimes-in and says, “now, let’s ask how it was that Hitler was such a great inspiration! We need to get into the philosophy of that” - me stammering, my rhetoric in shambles, Carolyn Yeager “couldn’t stop giggling.”

..but King wasn’t brought here for that. He’s not a philosopher, though he was very eloquent and well positioned to wean people off of Hitler daddy. Me flustered. Why not edit that out? Because spontaneity is so good? That’s what I mean by showing off to the “no enemies on the right.” - Carolyn “couldn’t stop giggling.” Oh good. And that’s what I mean about the arbitrary tendencies and upshot of empirical foundational pursuit - its capacity to disrupt important upholding principles - which I wanted to set in place with John to put the struggle on solid cooperative footing and take it away from this divisive right wing Hitler rapture.

A preliminary distinction is not being acknowledge in what Kant set out to do by establishing principles in order to save us from Locke’s arbitrary-making empiricism.

In White Post Modernity, this anchoring in principles is done with hermeneutic method - “narrative” colloquially.

Generation Internet Bubble has been facilitated in circulating and buffering right wing nonsense of the Boomer generation, where convenient, using it to divert blame to previous generations of Whites.

...as in Generation Identitaire

I have also come to understand more that ours is a new movement, only recently available to broad participation, with the Internet providing an alternative to Jewish media hegemony.

There is a downside to that as it has allowed people to plug-themselves-in to become instant “experts” and “expert debunkers” on top of dubious epistemological premises. It short-circuits protracted experiential input from broader social perspectives - such as corrective social homeostasis from generations in-between - which can be requisite to sufficient understanding of ours and other social systems.

As such, it facilitates a reciprocally reconstructing inter-generational feedback loop between Boomers and Generation Internet Bubble as they block the social homeostasis of generation in-between. And the right wingers have a negative stasis of their own - abstract, anti-social reaction - they delight in their inhumane destruction; it is their revenge. They care not that they often misdirect it because it is not gauged in praxis.

That is, they are not required to go through the humbling experience that would compel them to accept being one-down at times, to understand that not EVERYTHING and ALL social ideas coming out of academia are nonsense, that the disordering effect of modernity and Jewish machinations thereupon have necessitated new performance requirements, requirements under the withering Jewish attack on our race that has us now more than ever needing to think sociologically about social issues. Nevertheless, our movement is full of right wing bulls chasing after (((red capes))) in their bubble, perpetually reconstructing right wing nonsense. Thus, they find it difficult to participate in necessary refinement of social ideas.

GW can gain the affection not only of lower classes, the chuckling approval of his friends to the right, and the same girls who used to coo at him as a teenager and a young man when he publicly humiliated academics - the reward to his personal psychology may be just too much to resist - he sends his wrecking ball against all scholarship, doesn’t matter - it could be the best parts of Aristotle or Heidegger, he won’t suspend disbelief, not for a moment -  they are “the left” after all, not only have his friends on the right told him so, but the Jews have told him so as well. It is these lefties who are the ones responsible for having brought so much water on board the ship to begin with - the liberal left (never mind that that is a contradiction of terms). He can gain strokes and the satisfaction of publicly humiliating them all while denying the vulnerability to enemy attacks to the ship that the rationally blind (socially blind), objectivist philosophy that he subscribes-to has created.

Never mind, reactionaries will egg him on, especially those who do not like me because they want Jesus, they want Hitler, they want scientism, they want Jews. Me and my White Left  and White Post Modernity become not the unifyer of native nationalism and the means of its negotiation and coordination with other peoples, as I correctly conceive these ideas to be, but rather, I become the “lefty academic” foil, sometimes emerging as the bobo doll in podcasts and in essays where I dare to show how the left functions as a nifty organizing principle, to speak of social things and race as if it is real and to organize concepts against the right and its anti-social, speculative nonsense. I need 25 seconds to say to Dr. Christian Lindtner that “I consider American hippie Dasein to be an authentic motive, but the 68er academics are completely different, inauthentic to Whites, an affectation and his criticisms of them completely valid” - I can’t finish 25 seconds without inducing GW’s frustration because GW doesn’t anticipate that I am going to say something other than that of the “lefty foil” of his empiricism’s arbitrary, albeit not fully deliberate, altercast. But it was an important point - the motive to midtdasein is central to our struggle - hippies ensconced that motive. Marxists, such as the 68ers, did their best to co-opt it to other (((causes))) - anti racist civil rights, liberal Jewish feminism, Marcusian “Free love” etc.

Marcuse and the 68ers, free love, polymorphous perversion, ‘liberating tolerance’ - these were cultural Marxist impositions, affectations on the authentic motive of the hippies - midtdasein

A new generation of right-wing reactionaries accept the Jewish media’s designation of what “The Left” and “post modernity” is, and ok, since I’m on the topic again, what “hippies” were about. Cathy Princess uses the term, “the hippy left”, and her talk show colleagues swallow the complete dada definition of post modernity; Lana (who Bowery describes as sigma gama something or other) has frequently blamed “hippie-dippies” as insufficient men; as if there was nothing authentically European and masculine about the hippies..“women like confidence, that’s basically what you need to know” (no wonder they like n*****s so much to the expense of normal, sensible White men, particularly as modernity and Jews have done away with protective boundaries and borders - i.e., leftist unionization). She read David Duke and announces that “Hitler tried to take back German lands in Poland that were annexed by The Soviet Union” - stop there! (1:14:25) She knows all there is to know, make her a star of the “alt-right”! Yes, lets accept the reactionary positions of subsequent generations who find it convenient to go along with Jewish and right wing attribution of what hippies were all about and ignore midtdasein (crucial barometer of intrinsic being, helping to determine appropriately when and how to go to war and when not to). The boomer generation can join a new generation of traditionally inclined males and especially females who do not want to be bothered either with the concept of intrinsic White male being, preferring to blame and cast aside those socially minded inbetweeners who are hearkening for its midtdasein - instead they plug right into the Internet bubble of a younger generation of right wing assholes, who had plugged themselves into virtual bubbles of those who know “the truth” about WWII - instant know-it-alls with an “awesome”, “edgy” “fashy aesthetic” - just everybody knows that Hitler didn’t do nothing - David Duke said so, William Pierce said so, must be true! If people don’t want you promoting that nasty ideology, they must be trying to hide the truth (?).

White modernity (Rockefeller, front) naively gets eaten by mono culture (background), which does not recognize other ways, perhaps not even their humanity as in the case of the cannibals who ate Rockefeller. White Post Modernity can avail itself of the best aspects of traditional ethnocentrism and modernity without the naivete or hubris of either.

And so Bowery and GW, in being egged-on by “no enemies to the right”,  and put off by the so called “Left” are unfortunately leaning rightward, whether encouraged by the Jesus people, the Hitler heads, or the “nice Jews” who tell you Nazi Germany wasn’t so bad, (i.e., they are so nice that they want Europeans to keep killing each other) or for their own penchant for scientism, to keep applying the modernist wrecking ball. They are supported in a reactionary position - i.e., they are basically reacting to Jewish rhetoric, doing the opposite of what that rhetoric is suggesting (which is often exactly what the Jews want you to do). And an epistemological blunder it is: it is to apply or over apply, in Aristotle’s terms, Theoria to Praxis. It is an epistemological blunder because we are under attack as a race, as a group of people. Thus, ours is primarily a social concern. Personal psychology is more like a Jewish tool to distract us from the social war being waged. The central tool, really, is rhetoric. Science is ancillary. That doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as truth, that facts should be denied, that we do not value science and pursue it as a very important means of inquiry; but it is an acknowledgement that how those truths and facts are organized and come to count requires artistry and practical judgment in social negotiation. Bowery says that using words in negotiation is evil - sure. All the while, I guess that he’d be denying the very capacity for us to articulate and unionize our defense - just as the Jews would have it.

Actions are a form of communication, thus in our communicological view, a kind of language and argument, which, like Bowery’s “Sortocracy,” require words, despite his idea that use of words is somehow evil (an evil that he partakes in).

Stem predilection, stem confirmation and stem reward. Capitalist business enterprise favors stem people. And socially minded people can step on the toes of girls, who, along with business people in turn, reward STEM while STEM is oblivious to the social world.

Stem predilection. So there is another thing about GW and Bowery STEMism. We are getting bad advice from people with stem predilections to begin with. By contrast to their penchant for more STEM approach, we need rather for people to fight on the sociological grounds that Jews are waging war against us. It is very bad advice to angrily write that off as “oh, the Jewish way of doing things.” Ignoring hermeneutic breadth to myopically focus on empirical, “natural depth” for “Isness” can create a negative, ostensible oughtness - like Roosh saying girls are evolved to like being raped by the murderer of their husband as opposed to me saying that these puerile girls are in an animal state uncompleted by the cultural guidance of our more sublimated ways and depending upon defense of its “speculative borders” - we are born incomplete and remain so. Our social world completes us and can do so in different ways. But in the more extreme example of truncation, Hitler brushed aside Aristotle’s distinction of human nature in praxis, found “true human nature”, or so he thought, in constant war, will to power and subjugation. No, that is not the truth. We are born incomplete and we are capable of different and cooperative ways in praxis, and ever so shall remain in terms of the biological system from which we derive and depend - its maintenance thus, requires hermeneutics.

“The right’ and its grounding in nature” is not on the better path, it is on the path of scientistic foolishness. In striving to be above or below praxis as the arbiter it is not gauged properly and it is subject to destructive runway. ..you get the arbitrary results of empiricism, brushing aside important scholarship, or perhaps worse, the insane runway of WWII.

Carolyn Yeager “couldn’t stop giggling”.

Oh, good. She is very original, if following Hitler and his world view verbatim can be said to be original.

“No enemies to the right?”

Ah yes, but it isn’t really faith, a confirmation known since high school days, humiliating wimpy academic nerds who say there is such a thing as society, who threaten the dinosaur disorder that validates negro-like confidence and the social unconsciousness that follows the law of the jungle. Girls like confidence and what IS is good through and through, none of this OUGHT business. Right?

The trick is how to have GW continue to be happy to contribute his brilliance (and that he has) to our ethnonationalist causes as opposed to liberal internationalism and not entrench further into reaction or silence for this hit piece that I have launched against his clumsier props. Perhaps he might understand that when the wrecking ball hits something solid it will bound back his way - and maybe knock over some artifice in his scaffolding, some of the right wing artifices that he has errantly relied upon.