Along with White Leftism, The White Class and other useful theoretical tools that Jews abuse and obfuscate as they direct White identity into the foibles of the Right.

This discussion will have a fringe benefit of provoking and flushing-out those who are not truly concerned with our people.

Social Constructionism is a European, anti-Cartesian discipline: When conducted properly, Not Jewish

This essay is to be something of a summing-up and clarification:

“You alone are uncontingent my friend. I would counsel epistemic humility” 
- DanielA

Say what?

Thus, in background to this essay:

There are two essays that I have here on Majority Rights and on other sites as well, one about Kantian morality and one about a concept of The White Left/Class. It is somewhat problematic that the Kant piece follows well after the White Left piece here at MR. As they were originally written, the Kant one was supposed to go first. It was only posted here later, spuriously, in my first, frustrated attempt to quell the Christian attacks on Whites. The issue probably should not be problematic, but since people seem inclined to misunderstand (the Kant piece even finishes by saying that he failed; and from there segues to the topic of The White Left piece –  and though Dr. Lister liked that one he nevertheless thought that perhaps I was promoting Kant rather than suggesting it as a step, when he saw the Kant piece), if the essays were in proper order here it may have made it a little harder to misunderstand that I am not promoting Kant, or the empirical philosophers, but moving a historical discussion of what there is to do about reconciling Cartesian duality. By Cartesian duality, I mean the wish to separate thinking from interaction, including social interaction: I thought that (definition) was clear too, but apparently some people did not realize what I meant for several months.

Hume, Locke and Berkeley would represent the empirical side of the Cartesian quest for foundational truth, taking it from a transcendent direction and into a physical one – a pursuit on which Majority Rights has recently been falsely accused of being hopelessly stuck. I concluded the Kant piece by saying that he tried and failed to rescue the world from empiricism.

We have been rescued, however, as the social constructionist and hermeneutic way unfolded.

While empiricism did provide a first liberation indeed, from superstition, custom, habit, tradition and inauthentic religious imposition, such as that from Judaism and Christianity, the hermeneutic turn provided a second liberation, from mere facticity (and into narrative structure and its potential for coherence).

Our relation to the truth becomes interactive and social in concern when the Cartesian quest is acknowledged to be undone, following a rough line from Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, to Vico’s anti-Cartesianism, to non-Euclidean geometry, the failure of the Vienna School of Logical Positivism to establish a language free of metaphor, to Gödel, Heisenberg and cross-cultural studies.

With these understandings, we make our way from a mechanistic, rigid, impervious, lineal pursuit of detached and static foundational truth to a notion of inquiry in relation to truth as organic, interactively engaged, reflexively reacting and social in concern, ultimately. Inquiry is recognized as lived in an ongoing communicative process.

It must be held close to the heart that the whole point of social constructionism and hermeneutics is to provide a remedy to Cartesianism, therefore, it is realist, not idealist.

A valid starting point of this view is Vico, since he was the first prominent opponent of Cartesianism, and favored a humanly engaged understanding of inquiry instead. His critique was more or less confirmed, refined and extended by Gödel and Heisenberg.

We might say that Gödel solved (or rather denied) the ideal, theoretical side of the foundational quest, while Heisenberg resolved (or rather denied) immutable empirical foundation.

On the Gödelian side, the frames of analysis are forever open-ended: as a theory of any complexity cannot be both complete and unambiguous. On the Heisenbergian side, inquiry is forever reflexively engaged, interactively reacting or responding; in his uncertainty principle, the objects of inquiry altered upon inquiry itself. It is facile to divide them perfectly, Gödel corresponding to theory, language, speculation and the ideal, while Heisenberg to the empirical and real. However, we are not after that rigorous an application here; rather, we are merely trying to establish for WN that social constructionism and hermeneutics are not Jewish and these things did not begin with Franz Boas.

The Jewish co-option, abuse and perversion of these ideas began with him and with the Frankfurt school. However, there is a way of testing and immediately verifying whether true social constructionist and hermeneutic inquiry is being applied or the Jewish perversion: It is an idealist perversion if, before the term social construct, you have to insert the word “mere” (either explicitly or implicitly) in order to make sense of what the false social constructionist is saying.

Vico’s whole point was anti-Cartesian. Thus, if we have to insert the word “mere”, that means a merely theoretical, ideological imposition, not something real, apprehendable and verifiable within the world; thus belies social constructionism’s entire point - to undo and integrate Cartesian duality.

In recognizing that Kant was still Cartesian, Heidegger sought to reconcile the duality by secularizing the explicit hermeneutic process of predecessors, such as Dilthy; and applied what he called the hermeneutic circle to philosophical inquiry.

Hermeneutics and Social Constructionism take knowledge pursuit into praxis and poiesis.

From the three ways of knowing, Theoria, Praxis and Poiesis and their means, episteme, prhonesis and techne:

*Aristotle’s version had theoria corresponding with episteme - the pure theory of knowledge; but some practical means to theoria must necessarily be taken other than pure reason; thus, by default, the most rational, “purest means” taken by Western practice in pursuit of theoria, and coming to dominate its custom and tradition of knowledge pursuit, has been technology - ramifications and issues of technology as the means of knowledge were thereupon problematized by the anti-Cartesian, hermeneutic discipline, which began to look at other means, in praxis and poesis.

Theoria can be looked upon as corresponding to the transcendent (Cartesian), perfect foundational form of knowledge, techne* (technology) its means of achievement.

Praxis corresponds with practical involvement in the social world, which, necessarily being incomplete, transient and imperfect, has as its means of navigation, phronesis (practical judgement).

Poiesis corresponds with historical perspective, with technique (techne), narrative and language as its means of achievement.

Heideggers’ prescription for reconciling the problematic Cartesian divide, its rigid and rupturing means (technology) of pursuit, would be to find remedy through being in the world of phronesis and poiesis - with a particular emphasis on the meandering ways of poetry, as closer to thinking and engagement of knowledge than scientific method.

In her departure from her hermeneutic mentor, Heidegger, we discussed the problematic applications of Arendt, who sought to emphasize Kantian aesthetic judgment brought to bear from private to public, as the means to reconcile Cartisian divide and technological rupture.

While another of Heidegger’s students, Gadamer, (over)emphasized praxis and the integration of alien perspectives.

Gadamer criticized the Enlightenment’s prejudice against prejudice - advice in all likelihood taken to heart by Jewish academics, but discouraged for gentiles, who may be pointed in a more disorganizing direction.

For them, it seems, Gadamer offered the emphasis that “our understanding is not fixed but rather is changing and always indicating new perspectives. The most important thing is to unfold the nature of individual understanding. ..being alien to a particular tradition is a condition of our understanding” ...therefore, we (as Whites) were not supposed to integrate our individuality with our prejudices, but in fact “needed new perspectives” ….with sleight of hand, the former outsider becomes imposed as the classification’s new “marginal”; while of course, exclusive prejudice is good for Jews.

The Vienna School of Logical Positivism had taken-up Wittgenstein’s claim and tried to prove his Tractatus Logico Philosophicus “unassailable”, but found it could not establish language as sheerly positive and rather that some metaphor was unavoidable. The logical inference is that the relation of knower to known necessarily required some form of social agreement and convention (sequential, “narrative”, historical), which favored Heidegger’s hermeneutic approach; his anti-Cartesian (Midt-Dasein), there-being amidst the class of people, thrown amidst the historical form of these folk and the wisdom of their language to make sense of the animate and inanimate world.

In sum: Vico’s project, as the first prominent opposition of Cartesianism, was more or less confirmed and refined by Gödel and Heisenberg. Its inferences were taken by Heidegger into Hermenteutics. The logical conclusion to be drawn is social constructionist orientation and hermeneutic method (but a process governed of our own people, for obvious reasons).

In establishing that hermeneutics and social constructionism are not Jewish, did not begin with Franz Boas, we may attend to more rigorous and advantageous application.

This process is indeed free to move from broader, narrative and conceptual orientation, to narrowly focused inquiry and verification, (microscopic, even) as need be; but for hermeneutic inquiry to be fully relevant and relative to our interests, it is social constructionist in orientation (if a tree falls in the woods and there are no people there to hear it, does it make a noise? The WN answer is: it may as well not make a noise if there are no European people alive to discuss it). Although it is possible to abuse social constructionism and hermeneutic method, as Jews and their water carriers have abundantly shown, its outlook and method also provide distinct advantages.

But first, what are the disadvantages of taking race as social construct and hermeneutic method as opposed to pursuing incontestable scientific warrant?

The most important sacrifice is the inability to claim absolute warrant of immutability as a discreet species, such that we cannot even breed with other races – therefore, neither we nor the objective facts can permit of it. Factually, however, that is not true: we can breed with other races. Nevertheless, social constructionism proper does not say that life did not evolve, or that there are not a myriad of facts which might differentiate us from other races. But then, who claims that we are significantly and importantly different anyway? We do. That is, our claim is a social construct. But we base this on facts, don’t we? Yes, we do, in overwhelming consensus, where we also make judgments as to how those facts count for us.

Do you see this D.N.A.? This is what we are calling European.

You can disagree (somewhere else).

That brings us to the fact that with acknowledgement of a degree of intermutability, which we cannot deny anyway, there also comes advantages: advantages such that by doing so (acknowledging contingency) we engage our agency and accountability through verifiable choice.

To begin, “the difference which makes a difference”, of course, is the agentive response that biological creatures develop in reflexive response to information - news of difference -  a capability which is not inherent in inanimate objects, forces and impacts (an iron law-likeness, an inanimateness, a “physics envy”, of which the right is enamored).

Yet, in our bio-social world, we need not be beholden to scientistic metaphors, metaphors of mere biological urges, nor merely subject to metaphors of unaccountable forces and impacts, e.g., misapplied physics metaphors such as “immigration flows” - deterministic facts to which we must simply acquiesce*. Upon our biological perception of difference, as Bateson observed, humans have an added quality of being able to learn to learn. We need not deny our mammalian news of difference and social concern to turn back concern to matters of relationship.

Rather, the agency and accountability afforded in this slight contingency and joint agreement of difference underscores the importance of its acknowledgement and that is why I have taken to referring to our race as The White Class instead of the White race. It takes us away from the scientistic, and hopefully not to GW’s chagrin, a bit more into the social and political.

In this social constructionist hermeneutic process we may invoke orientation as broad as need be, and as microscopic in verification of factuality as need be.

By conceding the thin queer margin of the arbitrary contingent (which we are satisfied is futile to contest anyway), and thereby asserting of our systemic classification, we are able to establish, thus ensconce and protect accountability and systemic human ecology - with agency regarding protracted processes of our evolution, buffering its susceptibilities along with the vulnerable and particular developments of our life-span.

With differences characterized more as qualitative difference than quantitative superiority, we form more symbiotic relations within and without the class – people are not chagrined by quantification’s proneness to obnoxious, false comparisons and the reciprocally destructive competition over equality and non-equality that tends to ensue, but are instead attending to different, qualitative functions and steps; yet secure that they are held as a member of the class, provided they are loyal and not otherwise pernicious.

Nevertheless, as we take this human, anthropomorphic, viz. Eurocentric position, we are fully able to acknowledge and assign understanding and rigor to facts which supersede fanciful interpretation; and are totally inclined to do so as facts are relevant and important as they count for us. More, we have fuller means to inquire of the facts, or of the utility of imagination, for that matter, as we take a social constructionist, hermeneutic approach, whereas we do not always have (or acknowledge) our means of free inquiry, when we take a more deterministic, objectivist view.

There is evolution, no doubt, brute facts, oh yes, but we are able to agree in social consensus and verification as to how these facts come to count for us.

The utility of classification, a White union, in organizing this consensus and verification:

Principia mathemetica is in line with the incompleteness observed by other philosophers and scientists that we have noted. Setting-out to solve the liar’s paradox (I am a Cretan, all Cretans are liars), it was proposed in principia mathemetica that a class cannot be a member of itself: with that, Alfred North Whitehead observed that we cannot continually investigate everything; which corresponds importantly for our purposes to the fact that we cannot always make exceptions for individual exceptions to the pattern, but must allow for our prejudices of pattern and discriminate on their basis: “even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis; one must take some things for granted and proceed from a given state of partial knowledge.” Thus, we ought to take for granted that we have close enough understanding of who we are advocating, and suspend empirical skepticism long enough to establish ourselves as an operationally verifiable classification (with subcategories, as we have maintained).

The White race is well organized as The White Class, White “Leftist” in orientation, taking the ordinary language form of leftism – a union, in this case a union of Whites, which unites the entire race, by race, not economic class; rather, it crucially functions to hold those who are doing better accountable, as the treason based on the pseudo objectivism of our elites is one of our greatest problems. Our people are systematically considered, basic incentive for ordinary and lower members to remain loyal to the union is provided, while they are also held accountable as such, as well. Jews and other non-Europeans are recognized as being outside the union - non-members, scabs if they interlope in a particular way, enemies if they impose interloping as policy.

The Jews’ intelligentsia do not want us to be White Leftists. It is clear that is why they always refer to us and get us to identify as the “far right” with their “journalese.” They encourage disorganization and betrayal through a lack of accountability that way (into objectivist reductio ad absurdem), as they do by inducing the argument that “the left/right paradigm is phoney or meaningless” - as if a White Class cannot make perfect sense; with the union of our people, based essentially on our people, not on economic class and pseudo objective, therefore non-accountable facts. Heirarchy would look more like a qualitatively merited part of the full process of stewardship. Those of us who are in fact doing objectively better are held accountable not to betray us; we are not denied the right to private property nor public. Those who are more marginalized are accountable as well. Scabery and interlopers are accounted for and kept to a minimum.

The Jews and disingenuous White elitists want us to be rightists or to say that “the left/right dichotomy is phoney” because they do not want us organized, accountable and agentive, as the White leftist, social constructionist and hermeneutic classification of Whites would afford.

How to keep the matter of accountability from becoming tyrannical and Orwellian is an interesting problem. I believe Bowery’s right of exclusion or expulsion, the insistent violation of which is on penalty of being designated a non-human, is solid. But as far as those who might transgress our interests and then return, how do you know? Do you follow prospective mudsharks on their African safaris? I am not sure of the best way to handle that. I imagine that GW would suggest making our leadership appealing enough so that such disrespect would not emerge a good option. Again, it is an interesting and important question. The answers may be easier or harder than one might anticipate.

Anyway, coming back to the matter of race as a classification, where and why I latched on to that, I endeavored to explain in Theory of White Separatism. I based it largely in making sense of what ordinary people are doing with the word “racism.” I believe GW is correct in his observation that coercion is the operative word when looking at what Jews are doing with the word; but if you look at what ordinary people are doing with the word “racism” in both their more normal and absurd examples, such as, “to discriminate against homosexuals is ‘racist” (a conversation about race), the common denominator is the claim that you should not classify people and discriminate on the basis of those classifications (seems to hearken back to Locke’s empirical prejudice against classifications, doesn’t it? This is not likely to be a coincidence, but rather the Saul Alinsky’s of the world making us “live up to our own rules” of rights). They are not merely saying, as some right-wingers recently claim, that you hate people and want to dominate them. That is the Marxist use. That is not the ordinary use. Rather, taking the ordinary language approach together with turning Locke on his head (in his prejudice on behalf of individual rights against discriminatory classifications/unions of people), Whitehead and Russell’s discussion of classification, along with some studies of the problems involved in racial classification, prohibitions, affirmative action and paradoxes thereof, I latched onto classification as the best way to treat the White race. As it played perfectly with an organizing scheme against elitist exploitation, lowly and scab betrayal, and rather provided accountability of human ecology, it simply made too much sense to back off. They probably will continue to try to say race is a mere social construct, a sheer excuse to enforce White power and privilege, but we will assert our social constructionist motive for what it is in truth, not supremacist, but separatist, necessary to human ecology and accountability – a socially constructed leftist class, where our people are the center of concern, not objective facts, other worldly ideals or non-White groups imposed on Whites by Jewish mandated, hyperbolic liberalism, which they have encouraged the Right to mislabel as “leftism.” Its certainly not White Leftism.

This essay has been mostly a summing-up and clarification of positions previously stated. I saw fit to do so given recent criticisms of “The Left” and flouting of social constructionism at The Political Cesspool, by Duke and The White Voice, along with charges to the reverse extreme here at MR, that we are Humean. Hence, I was prompted to clarify these matters.

The thoroughgoing usefulness of looking at race this way, as a classification, leftist, socially constructed, in defiance of the Marxist abuse of the notion, and to turn Locke on his head, saying that yes, classifications are real, also had me recently miffed with Thorn’s friend Paul Gottfried and The Gay Science of Counter-Currents.

These could be cases of bad “intellectualism”, that is intellectualism not conceived essentially for the practical ends of our people, but rather to absolve from guilt or in disingenuous obfuscation of useful concepts in order to secure position.

Greg Johnson says: “There is nothing distinctly Lockean about the American Constitution, and nothing particularly Constitutional about modern Lockean America”

Of course, that is not true. The central most, and most pivotal idea of The American Constitution is individual rights, a deeply Lockeatine notion.

Through his review of Paul Gottfried’s “Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement of America” Greg Johnson does a disservice to White Nationalism, demonstrating that he is capable of placing vanity, position, erudition and pedigree (i.e, elitism) over perfectly serviceable ideas, those that a leader prioritizing the best interests of European peoples would acknowledge and share in elaborating.

One such idea that Greg Johnson pushes-aside is that the American Constitution is imbued with Lockeatine empricism - centrally, the notion of a-historical individual rights as opposed to pragmatic social classifications: the processual developments of human ecology and accountability thereof.

What good is setting this highly serviceable idea aside to propose that The Constitution is not Lockeatine because it originally held blacks to be 3/5 persons and AmerIndians to be radically other? It does no good but to buy-into Paul Gottfried’s bookish smoke screens (apparently to take the heat off of Jews), and the continued self deceptions of those nostalgic for objectivism, American “traditionalism”, and academic snobbery. As this article was published at The Occidental Observer, Johnson is probably catering somewhat to these predilections of MacDonald. Indispensable as his respectable presentation is and his credible scholarship on Jews are, his predilections are a bit stodgy, more rigid than they have to be - with Johnson nevertheless at his service.

“Straussians like to posture as critics of postmodernism and political correctness, but in practice there is little difference. They merely sacrifice objective scholarship and intellectual freedom to a different political agenda. As with other academic movements, the pursuit of truth runs a distant third to individual advancement within the clique and the collective advancement of its political agenda.”

This argument of Johnson’s, surprisingly, seems to fall into the old right-wing trap of looking at what Jews are doing, their abuse of concepts of social group advocacy, and reacting as if the thing to do is to conclude that we should therefore do the logical opposite, as group advocacy is apparently “the Jewish way” of doing things while “rights and objectivism” are the Aryan way.

Led down the garden path once again, the Jews have us right where they want us, portending unaccountability, disorganized, disorganizing and arguing on tenuous, elitist grounds; which makes us look bad when systemic qualities and concerns rub-up against the tangents they, and our right isolate.

In fact, the Jews are looking at themselves as a group and therefore conceiving of ways to defend themselves from philosophy and scientism destructive to them as a group. Therefore, if we are going to defend ourselves as group, as we should, we are going to be doing some things with similar premises as the Jews, i.e. with concern for the relative interests of our group - not sheer and transcendently objective concerns to promote some ideal form because that’s supposed to be the noble, “Aryan way.”

Jews are taking Locke’s prejudice - against social classifications as “mere empirical illusions” - and doing the Alinsky on Whites, making them “live up to their rules” when promoting the idea that race and other classifications are “mere” social constructs.

In articulating the historical manifestations of Jewish group strategy the right is either unwilling to divorce Jewish abuses from an otherwise valid concern for the relative interests of a group, or to free themselves of the security blankets of Christian tradition and Lockeatine empiricism by way of the constitution and objectivism, which in the end form two edges and the sword’s point of modernist liberalism, masked as western tradition.

Just because the logical consequences of The U.S. Constitution had not been followed through does not mean that the logical consequences were not sufficiently evident to reject, let alone requiring to be followed through: It wasn’t a large step to carry these principles through to say that blacks were “fully human” not just 3/5.

Staying on the topic of the utility of classification in defiance of Locke’s prejudice against them, Trotsky’s and other Marxist’s perversion of classification as supremacist when practiced by Whites: When Matt Heimbach says, “yes, I am a racist” that is a solidly grounded, defiant approach as opposed to Duke’s finger wagging denunciation of racism, playing into the continued liberal stigmatization of classification. Another right-winger made a criticism of Heimbach in that occasion, saying that Heimbach should have made an argument to the effect of “well, if Attorney General, Erik Holder can discriminate on behalf of his people, then we certainly can on behalf of ours.” As if we don’t recognize the system as rotten to the core; as if we should acquiesce and tarry along with the Marxist coercion of classification and rights.

As those at The White Network have noted as well, Duke and MacDonald’s criticisms of Israel’s group ethnocentrism, against Israel’s “racism” and discriminatory practices, only serve in fact to discredit the process of normalizing discrimination based on social classification, which of course, we need to do for ourselves, albeit in a far more reasonable way than the Jews do.

How can we normalize these things when we are being critical of illiberal, racist, group based relative interests which stop short of universal objectivism?

It doesn’t matter that soccer moms (with an “esoteric motive” to normalize mudsharkery) currently trade in the definition of racism as aberrant, and wish to maintain its definition as such; and if Duke gets pats on the back by pandering to them.

Obviously Duke is following advice to denounce such racism and promote universal rights. As he might (in “His New Paradigm for Human Diversity: Not Duke’s, Not New and Not executed properly).

“Rights for everybody” should not be our concern. That we might see fit to leave them alone, sure. But we need our advocates to be precoccupied with our own people, not lamenting the decline of the black American family and their righteous Garveyism. If they are Garveyites, great, let them be Garveyites, but to kiss theirs, or Dieudonne’s ass for the “quenelle”, is weak, and many of the soccer moms you pander to will take the opportunity to flush the White beta males who would be their appropriate match. As I have said, Gilod Atzmon’s liberalism is transparent, not what we need to endorse.

Rights have been one of our ways of talking, a text, a classificatory and processual rupturing technology which is not necessarily going to do us any good, a disservice to our true nature, in fact; nor will the notion necessarily be accorded us by those in power, like the soccer moms with a hankering to normalize liberalism, or by other cultures, who do not use that text. Nor should we insist upon imposing this dubious, universalistic, non-developmental text. We should in fact do better for ourselves, and for others extend the silver rule.

But we said that Duke was good in organizing, understanding and standing up to Jewish influence – we need people with that focus, which he does with a flair – even if nobody accuses him of being perfect, nor expects him to be.

Still, he bothered me a bit when arrogating ecologist’s terms of “his new paradigm” and misapplying them. And again when he was so quick to pander to the right wing and conspiracy crowd that race as social construct is “the globalists way” of talking.

Of course, the opposite is true, crass empiricism and objectivism is the globalists way of talking.

Lets be clear: Duke cites examples such as Europeans being lactose tolerant, Africans needing more time in the sun than Europeans in order to absorb vitamin D; scientists having to devise special pharmaceuticals for the different races to prove that race is not a social construct. It does nothing of the kind.

If race is not a social construct, then why do we need Duke to tell us that it is not?

At this point, there is virtually no good reason to deny that race is a social construct and to the contrary, many good reasons, advantages to look at it as such.

Let me repeat, social constructionism is realist, not idealist. To counter-argue against what are likely to be Jewish inspired distortions of the erstwhile project of social constructionism, which rather make idealist arguments to the effect that race is a mere construct, is to fall into the foolish position that we should not do something simply because that is what Jews do - or not do it because it is believed that the Jewish way of misrepresenting, perverting or distorting its implementation is corollary. That is to not only to deny us agency, accountability and more, it is to deny reality.

Though Social Constructionism may entertain broader and more speculative possibilities (and it may be misrepresented by Jews) it cannot be mere flight of fancy if it is true to its non-Cartesian mandate. It is rather, forever subject to social and physical verification as it may bear upon reality.

Social Constructionism and Hermeneutics take us from Cartesian inquiry as lineal and imperviously fixed, to an ongoing interactive and reconstructive process which permits the engaged movement of narrative and theory to marshal broader, protracted and more speculative orientation on historical concern, to operational verifiability and warranted assertability.

Race is a taxonomic classification of people, a social construct which is real and more than valid, it is necessary to maintain accountability and human ecology.

 

 

Note: Much of the abuse of social constructionism may be explained in that It serves the less noble purposes of the university, such as its being in the big business of selling talk, particularly Jewish agendas

The question of “why would you want to preserve rain forests?” as an analogy, seems to resonate in gaining sympathy from liberals and fence sitters as to why European peoples should (be able to) preserve themselves.