Yes, The White Race IS ..A Social Construct (Contrary To Jewish And Right-Wing Denial)

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 06 February 2014 19:42.

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.

JVico
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.

vicopic

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.

 

 



Comments:


1

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:50 | #

I’m putting this up before retiring for the evening; that is, I expect to catch a few mistakes in the morning, but it should be fairly ok. But to be sure, I’ll start off with a comment of prayer:

For me or Daniel to view Our sacred People as Our god is no better or worse than some desert-dwelling goat-herders to view some dude named Jesus as theirs. That we don’t eat our god or drink his blood (or “worship” him) makes us far less weird than you lot.

It even goes beyond that Jon. For our religion is true, his is utterly false, a Jewish affectation tyrannically imposed upon our people, as Thorn would yoke us, if he could. But as we continue to pursue and arrive at the authentic nature of our religiosity, its engagement with the truth will have us prevail for aeons after Thorn’s fake religion has rightfully been destroyed by the rigors of truth.

I have some notes from a recent Political Cesspool and White Voice, to add to the comments later, particularly in lieu of other relevant discussion..


2

Posted by Arya on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 23:37 | #

There is nothing wrong with being concerned about your people, just stop using cultural philosophies and symbols that have nothing to do with you.

Only Indians are Aryas—your people have nothing to do with mine, so pick a european name and symbol to identify yourselves with. I feel nothing but contempt when I hear ‘white power’ from people who then call themselves ‘Aryans’. First its Arya, and its plural is Aryas, not aryans, second, you are a mleccha, be proud of whatever it is that your mleccha people are about.


3

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Feb 2014 00:35 | #

Posted by Arya on February 06, 2014, 11:37 PM | #

There is nothing wrong with being concerned about your people, just stop using cultural philosophies and symbols that have nothing to do with you.


Only Indians are Aryas—your people have nothing to do with mine, so pick a european name and symbol to identify yourselves with. I feel nothing but contempt when I hear ‘white power’ from people who then call themselves ‘Aryans’. First its Arya, and its plural is Aryas, not aryans, second, you are a mleccha, be proud of whatever it is that your mleccha people are about.


mlecch? You don’t tell us what to call ourselves.

I am an indigenous European and that is how I identify.

On the rare occasion that I have used the word Aryan, it has been 1) to piss Jews off and 2) with an understanding that it essentially means, “noble.”

But I’ll tell you what, as far as I am concerned, you can have it. 

European, provided it designates “of native European descent”, works fine for me.

“White” is a secondary choice, which (to me, anyway) means the same thing (indigenous European), and would be used in order to avoid confusion in certain contexts: for example, in America it would be a bit confusing to call yourself “European.”


P.S., Anybody familiar with me knows that I do not identify with the swastika either, never have: I certainly don’t need it!


4

Posted by sk on Fri, 07 Feb 2014 09:22 | #

Jew are a social construct.  http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2014/02/06/jews-are-a-social-construct/


5

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:17 | #

Sk: LOL, And it’s true, Jews are a social construct.


..an anecdote on Whitaker, his analysis of “The Greatest Generation” was spot on, viz. being trained to believe “you can’t fight city hall”... my father would literally say that! That kind of passivity was flabbergasting!

 

 


6

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:47 | #

Add this sentence to your pamphlet: “The Nazis did not commit genocide because Jews are not a race.”

Yup. That’s a keeper. H/T to sk

WHO/WHAT IS A JEW?


7

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 07 Feb 2014 13:21 | #

Arya@2

Your statements are totally incorrect. I’m not going to Wiki this (nor do I trust Wiki all that much on “sensitive” topics), but I happen to know from general reading that the Aryans were an ancient white people (perhaps the original whites in their modern form, for all we know), who millennia ago invaded the Indian sub-continent, and, despite their best efforts at maintaining blood purity via stringent castes, gradually amalgamated with the natives, and hence racially disappeared as far as their subcontinental presence goes. The Aryans do live on in us, the whites of Northern European racial stock.

Most modern Indians have only traces of Aryan in them anymore, unlike modern Europeans.


8

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Feb 2014 04:40 | #

Ok, after having had opportunity for a good rest, coming back to the text with a cold eye, I’ve shored-it-up of typos. Most paragraphs had a few, which would be minor to those of good will, but nevertheless disconcerting. Of course, some very small changes make a considerable difference to intelligibility and even to meaning in some cases, for those who might quibble.

For example, in the following sentence, leaving the “s” of the end of “choice”, changes the meaning from one where we are constantly choosing to value our authentic capabilities (as the absurd version of social constructionism might choose to assert) as opposed to doing so in a more general sense:

“With differences acknowledged as qualitative choice”...


It might have been good if this essay had a few more days as the leading essay at MR, as I believe it is worth attention. On the other hand, it is good to have a fig leaf from Neil’s latest post for a couple reasons. First, for the typos that I have noted. Not altogether important perhaps but again, disconcerting. Secondly, because I have made a hamburger of ideas so that they may be understandable. My motives for making a hamburger are good, as the hour is late.

Nevertheless, hamburgers are neither MR’s nor the preferred European fare, which might be a more complex or particulate dish, incisive focus on particulars and a longer digestion.

Thus, to provide some modesty for my fat American hamburger, I do not mind Neil’s post up there.

Even so, it is the finest ground meat, medium rare, with Swiss, bacon and mayo. Quite good now.

The hour is late.



9

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:24 | #

/.................

I believe that the “White apathy” meme is as much a Jewish prescription (in order to intimidate) as it is a description. Thorn’s Jewish friends Gottfried and Alana Mercer use that one as well.

Prior to the internet, “nobody agrees with you” used to be the Jewish psych-out meme.

I see that Leon has inserted a little elitism - deliberately or not, a turn-off to organization, to go along with prescribed apathy…whereupon White Zion looms the only option, where we share cordial relations and nukes with Jews..

Thorn cares to emphasize a correspondence to Nazi “holocaust” denial as a social construction….

But it seems rather that those who endorse Hitler and the pure good of the Nazis are as far removed from reality as anyone.

If you are truly an advocate of Whites, Europeans, and not just over the top Germans, perhaps making exceptions for their former Axis allies, then you make one of a few inferences plain in your advocacy:

It seems totally obvious that normal WN might say, it is clear that we cannot go by the icon of Hitler and the swastika as that is no minor quibble which we set aside for the sake of our commonality, but a corollary for a predisposition to violent conflict with other Europeans and cataclsymic death toll among them. Of course Hitler is ok with non-Whites, because millions of Whites were being destroyed.

However, where Hitler was thinking of issues similar to WN, sometimes well, we might take notice where he did better or worse. But to say we should emulate him because the results were so good??? 

Hitler did not speak on behalf of all Whites or with concern for them all: thus, when a Christopher John Bozo acts as if full approval of Hitler should be a litmus test of true WN loyalty, he is merely showing pathetic lack of judgment. The same would hold true of his overseer. While perhaps only having a mild case of Downs Syndrome, he might heed advice given to the god Himmler: If I looked like him, I would not talk so much about racial superiority.

Once again, I believe that William Pierce presented too satisfied a vision of Hitler, which was not tested in reality sufficiently by American consumers of the time; that seems to account in large part for why there is still too much of this entirely uncalled for Hitler idolatry among WN. No normal WN’s is against Germans, German nationalism, the consideration of certain good economic policies of NS, but they are against their catastrophic epistemic blunders indeed - it is, and should be obvious, to anybody, not the thing to do to promote swastikas as emblematic, nor wheel Hitler out as a hero to Whites, especially not all Whites. He was a man of his times, who was looking after Germans to an extent. But lets not make ourselves rightful objects of disdain by absurdly insisting upon carrying forward a narrowly circumscribed, catastrophically failed platform - one which is impossible to ignore as corresponding to the deaths of millions of Europeans, millions of whom rightfully defended their lives against his indifference to it. Sure, Hitler was great…after all, tens of millions of White people were being killed. No wonder he resonates with black nationalists. Ugh. You can like most else about Hitler-heads, but it is impossible not to hold in contempt those in the moment and inasmuch as they insist upon Hitler or fascimile thereof, let alone unwavering loyalty to a world view so catastrophic for its epistemic blunders.

......................./


10

Posted by Daniel Antinora on Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:05 | #

Daniel,

It be things like this: This discussion will have a fringe benefit of provoking and flushing-out those who are not truly concerned with our people. that are so grating. Who are you to sift thru the people and determine what is wheat and chaff? Do you understand how incredibly arrogant it is to assume for yourself this responsibility or arrogate for yourself the right? You alone don’t get to determine who is or is not “truly” concerned with our people.

I don’t like your approach. This the same way I feel about a lot of folks’ approaches in our circles but I certainly wouldn’t begin to say that you aren’t genuine without trying to produce some serious evidence against you (e.g., evidence of collaboration with antifas where you sell information or something).

“You alone are uncontingent my friend. I would counsel epistemic humility” 
- ‘Classic Sparkle’.

Please change that to my name. Classic Sparkle didn’t say that. Classic sparkle doesn’t talk that way.

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.

Most people just mean mind/body dualism when they bring up the subject so I can see why they would be confused.

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.

I myself think it is impossible to be both “empirical” and “idealistic”. Or how we must cease to be transcendental when we strive to become empirical-it is required by a naturalistic metaphysic. I’m not charging you with being hopelessly stuck anywhere. I’m just saying I think you are fundamentally confused and attempting to square the circle.

I agree. Kant failed. All he did was drive the wedge even further between subject and object and between minds.

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.

Well I obviously disagree. Empiricism was a rejection of the self-attesting Lord of the universe and it ends in skepticism because it is incoherent. It also unmoored European society and laid waste to all of our institutions, and enthroned in place of our nominally Christo-fascist kings, Jewish swindlers called “central bankers”.

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.

And Greg Johnson is criticized for allegedly attempting to recruit Aristotle for a nationalist project? Daniel here is recruiting the entire Western canon! His roving eye is boundless in scope! Everything culminates here at this point in time with this essay!

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.

Truth that grows and moves around and changes and can’t ever be nailed down. Truth that is “intersubjective”. Truth that isn’t anything like the Truth we used to seek. A very French and very postmodern version of Truth as far as I’m concerned that will also end in skepticism.

Anyway… Just stating it doesn’t make it so. That’s why books on ontology and epistemology and whatnot are usually pretty large. Tome-ish even. That’s also why I never even pick up that horribly thick copy of Being and Time except for laughs.

Ok… So race is a social construct but-and here’s the kicker-a valid one. Ok Daniel. I’ll acknowledge your point. I still don’t see a problem with denying that and believing that it is a completely “empirical” reality a la Duke. I don’t see how those holding to that belief are any less reasonable and intelligent than you. I don’t think you’ve “settled” the issue once for all.

I mean society is a social construct right? I mean everything is a social construct and is up for grabs and “classification” right? Now, classification is in the eye of the beholder and we compare things however we like. Clouds and watermelon are both 97% water so they belong somewhere together in our ontologic taxonomy and can possibly be moved around at any time depending upon prevailing consensus.

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.”

Some of us are far right. Some of us are far left. Some of us are centrists. Some of us are a mixtures of the three. Concern for the race and family of nations that make up the race is something separate from politics. But yes. Jews use that “far right” thing as a lever.

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

Because of power. Because the people that create and enforce the “race is just a social construct” social construct have power. Power enough to blind people to reality. The same power that priests and shamans allegedly used to keep the masses in the dark.

Not everybody observes reality equally but still there is an objective reality out there. European philosophers just haven’t been able to “get” to it because they are in rebellion against the God that solves our philosophical quandaries.

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.

Stating it doesn’t make it so. There are plenty of good reasons to look at it either way.

Let me repeat, social constructionism is realist, not idealist.

Seems more like “consensus conceptualism” to me. Or even worse… Nominalism. Both of which would be “idealistic” and “realistic” to some extent. It isn’t “realist” in any Platonic sense that I’m aware of. But maybe I’m misreading you. Or maybe you are using realism in a non-standard way. But I can’t see how social constructionism can even be moderately, every-day-realistic when you blatantly state that race is entirely a social construct.

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. 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.

On socially constructed “facts”. Not Facts.

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.

I’d have to reread all of the major parties in the debate but I’d say that you’ve grossly oversimplified the debate itself.

Blacks were fully acknowledged to be fully human by almost all parties if I remember correctly. The issue was simply proportionality and representation. It was an organic compromise that acknowledged the weight of sheer numbers in the governing process. I’m not sure if it was or was not fully Lockean in that respect but I don’t the emancipation of, and extension of citizenship to, blacks was necessarily a direct consequence of this method of census or an extension of its logic.

Sure, Hitler was great…after all, tens of millions of White people were being killed.

Right and who’s to blame for that is often the subject under discussion.

Regardless, appreciating Hitler’s speeches and essays and what he and various National Socialists attempted to do (ditto for Stalin and what he actually did) isn’t a blanket endorsement of 10 million deaths (or any death or devastation). Equating the two is silly. You should stop doing it. Appreciation isn’t worship or turning off the brain.


Nice essay Daniel. I appreciate your contribution to the cause. Yet still I disagree. (And I’m not even jewish!)

 


11

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:51 | #

..................................

Daniel,

It be things like this: This discussion will have a fringe benefit of provoking and flushing-out those who are not truly concerned with our people. that are so grating. Who are you to sift thru the people and determine what is wheat and chaff? Do you understand how incredibly arrogant it is to assume for yourself this responsibility or arrogate for yourself the right? You alone don’t get to determine who is or is not “truly” concerned with our people.

I think its basically true that people who put ideas, or Jesus, or Hitler, or objective facts, or one kind of person, etc, will be averse to a Euro-people centered perspective. That’s what I meant and I believe it holds true. While I can understand being averse to that, as there are enough crappy White people, it is a test that is objective enough as one passes through these ideas, not my subjective estimation and arbiter.


I’m just saying I think you are fundamentally confused and attempting to square the circle.

I am not confused.


And Greg Johnson is criticized for allegedly attempting to recruit Aristotle for a nationalist project?

I’m not recruiting the said figures, rather I am passing on the line that is taken to have gone into the social constuctionist and hermeneutic project.

One may go in other directions with some of these things, I suppose.


Truth that grows and moves around and changes and can’t ever be nailed down. Truth that is “intersubjective”. Truth that isn’t anything like the Truth we used to seek. A very French and very postmodern version of Truth as far as I’m concerned that will also end in skepticism.

No, of course not. Facts, consensus, useful, enjoyable and inspirational ideas can coalesce into very stable - and verifiable - patterns. One can be skeptical if they want, but they don’t need to be..


I mean society is a social construct right? I mean everything is a social construct and is up for grabs and “classification” right? Now, classification is in the eye of the beholder and we compare things however we like. Clouds and watermelon are both 97% water so they belong somewhere together in our ontologic taxonomy and can possibly be moved around at any time depending upon prevailing consensus.

Your willful misunderstanding was apparent even without the absurd example tacked-on. No, you cannot assert just any classification, and consensus is integral, as are brute facts which you might only hope to ignore.

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

Because of power. Because the people that create and enforce the “race is just a social construct” social construct have power. Power enough to blind people to reality. The same power that priests and shamans allegedly used to keep the masses in the dark.

I can concede you’ve got a point there. I hope you see mine.

But I can’t see how social constructionism can even be moderately, every-day-realistic when you blatantly state that race is entirely a social construct.

Because you are misunderstanding, as most people do, what is meant by social constuctionism.

Replace the word “entirely” with “mere” as per the experiment I prescribe to test genuine social constructionism.

Regardless, appreciating Hitler’s speeches and essays and what he and various National Socialists attempted to do (ditto for Stalin and what he actually did) isn’t a blanket endorsement of 10 million deaths (or any death or devastation). Equating the two is silly. You should stop doing it. Appreciation isn’t worship or turning off the brain.

Being disrespectful enough to hold him up as a hero of our people is turning off the brain. It is only a modicum of respect to relegate him to history as a figure who does not serve WN now (maybe German nationalism or imperialism, but not WN); and it is the epitome of disrespect to not premise discussion of him under the basic rubric that his program was part and parcel of the huge destruction of our people, not all of whose lives were important to him; and as a corollary, render him forever divisive and most legitimately repugnant to by many (probably most) of us who oppose his being held in reverence.


Nice essay Daniel. I appreciate your contribution to the cause. Yet still I disagree. (And I’m not even jewish!)

Thanks.

............................................


12

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:57 | #

etc, will

etc, above all, will


13

Posted by Daniel Antinora on Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:09 | #

I think its basically true that people who put ideas, or Jesus, or Hitler, or objective facts, or one kind of person, etc, will be averse to a Euro-people centered perspective.

I’ll concede that not starting with putting our people first (over others-not necessarily God, gods, etc.) makes it less likely that one will end up there. So yes, it suffices on its own when when starts there. But, for someone like me, it is part of my broader system and ethics.

While I can understand being averse to that, as there are enough crappy White people, it is a test that is objective enough as one passes through these ideas, not my subjective estimation and arbiter.

Well… In my book… The crappy folks are ours too and they need to be elevated. Noblesse oblige plays a very important role for me (giving and receiving it depending upon the person and context).

Well, I don’t believe it is a totally adequate test. Total centrality of this particular facet (ethnonationalism to be broad) of “ideology” in one’s system isn’t necessary in my book to determine whether one is friend or foe.

I’m not recruiting the said figures, rather I am passing on the line that is taken to have gone into the social constuctionist and hermeneutic project.

One may go in other directions with some of these things, I suppose.

Exactly. You are basically asserting (not completely without argument-I mean asserting in the broad sense) that European thought is culminating here. That it has reached a bit of a terminus with social constructionism and your other pet philosophies.

One can be skeptical if they want, but they don’t need to be..

I think philosophical rigor would demand it in this particular case. That was my point. But some might contend that I’m just logic chopping.

I am not confused.

Ok. Bad choice of word. Just drop off that bit.

Your willful misunderstanding was apparent even without the absurd example tacked-on. No, you cannot assert just any classification, and consensus is integral, as are brute facts which you might only hope to ignore.

I’m not asserting just any. I’m making the assertion that, percentage of water in a body should be the basis of the classification schema. All I’m saying is that classification is in the eye of the beholder. We do agree that it is in fact an absurd way to classify things but I cannot see how you can object to it under your rules.

I understand that you would counsel “reasonable” classification systems. I’m just pointing out that they are arbitrary at bottom (like so many turtles stacked atop one another). After all, wouldn’t you concede that ability to reproduce is a reasonable metric for determining if something living belongs to a certain classification?

It all boils back down to power to enforce. Which you allude to later own with James’ idea about social ostracism.

I can concede you’ve got a point there. I hope you see mine.

I do. And I agree with you. “truth” in society-meaning the “facts” by which we make decisions on, the “currency” we trade with, the vocabulary we leverage to convey meaning, is on some “real” level not empirical-and is most certainly socially constructed. I agree wholeheadedly and without reservation (with some minor qualifications maybe). So yes, facts aren’t “private” in the way that some people might assert.

Being disrespectful enough to hold him up as a hero of our people is turning off the brain.

I don’t know if I would hold him up as a hero but I’m reading a book that “naturalizes” him (it is called Hitler’s Revolution by Richard Tedor) that inclines me to view him that way. I’d like someone truly critical of Hitler to review it because I don’t know enough except to trust his translations and sources. To me, Hitler seemed like a driven man with some bright ideas surrounded by a PEOPLE with the same energy and ideas. Anybody that adopts a motto like Kraft durch Freude can’t be all bad. And the more of the speeches and propaganda I read the more I agree with those people. They aren’t my people exactly and their solutions aren’t going to be my solutions but the adumbration of a program is there.

When I think of the Nazis I think of more than just Hitler. I think of Feder and currency reform; of the distribution of property as widely as possible in society; of the breaking down of class barriers (see the wikipedia entry on Strength thru Joy); of military discipline; of taking the lead on human health issues; of animal welfare (the righteous man regards the life of his animal); of clean and organic food. And I understand that you think of unnecessary death and destruction and I understand why but men-even wise men-often disagree.

Despite all this bluster, the Germans were just men and Hitler was just a man.

My sympathies, however (and it is no secret), lie with the German people in that war. I think the British (and by that I mean the proto-multinational corporations) were just pissed off about an upstart threatening their empire and its profits. Do I also appreciate the British Empire (and by that I mean the second sons-the real British folk-that went out and conquered the world)? A resounding and emphatic “Yes!” to that. But I try to have a measured view of both. The British Empire wasn’t perfect either. I think a lot for instance about this:

A story for which Napier is often noted involved Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati by British authorities. This was the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. As first recounted by his brother William, he replied:

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

Was this the same thing as bringing democracy to Iraq?

I just don’t know Daniel. Is there a White Man’s Burden? I can’t help but be roused by Kipling in that regard.

I think your view of some of our views on Hitler is wrong and you are risking alienating friends and allies by framing it the way you are framing it now.

 

 


14

Posted by Daniel Antinora on Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:43 | #

I’ll concede that not starting with putting our people first (over others-not necessarily God, gods, etc.) makes it less likely that one will end up there

That Should Just Say (Over God, gods, The Good, Etc)


15

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 08 Feb 2014 14:06 | #

/.............
We do agree that it is in fact an absurd way to classify things but I cannot see how you can object to it under your rules.

Consensus and facts constrain the possible range of classifications allowed.

I understand that you would counsel “reasonable” classification systems. I’m just pointing out that they are arbitrary at bottom (like so many turtles stacked atop one another).


I’ve said this several places and many times: they are contingent. That is one of the main points.

Please refrain from straw men


After all, wouldn’t you concede that ability to reproduce is a reasonable metric for determining if something living belongs to a certain classification?

Of course all humans are classifiable as one genus on the grounds that they can reproduce with one another. That genus is true, but it is ecologically and morally insufficient to not protect our species.


When I think of the Nazis I think of more than just Hitler.

Well of course, but that is not the point.


My sympathies, however (and it is no secret), lie with the German people


Of course there is nothing wrong with liking and advocating Germans.

You say the Allies were not perfect either, fine, Ok. But its all history, and a very destructive history: The present day Germans don’t want guilt trips laid on them and neither do I. The sons of the Allies may not appreciate any more guilt trips laid on them either.  My god, nobody here had anything to do with this!

I don’t want to be looked upon as an adversary of Germans. I am not. I don’t think they should feel guilty for history and neither do I. But no, I don’t like Hitler. Just because he had some ideas doesn’t mean that discussion of him should be preceded by a call for his resurrection and redemption as if he was the only way and anyone in the way be damned.

It is disingenuous to conflate being against Hitler with being against his monetary policy, Germans and all details of NS. Clearly the Nazis believed they were doing the right thing; they and Hitler had some brilliant ideas or they would not have gotten that far. I liken him to Caesar, you might appreciate some things that he did, but was it worth destruction of the Gauls? Was that necessary to accept?

And the destruction that Hitler brought about was not necessary either. The Nazis will argue, sometimes like Jews with their pilpul, that everything was everybody else’s fault.  But none of it is anybody’s fault now: it’s history. War is a Jew Harvest.

One of the biggest problems with this stuff is that it is too easy. I did not have to go two pages into Mein Kempf to start saying, ok…there you go… only the Germans matter, the only thing that matters are excuses for war and to take land…bringing back the day of Friedrich the Great faggot.

Hitler was not the only one who was wise to the Jews and to have had NS type ideas. To be against him is more than valid, it is normal if you care about WN concordance. To say he should not be denounced because he was on the side of so many WN hearts, is well on to lines wrongly drawn.

It is like saying being against Christianity is to be against morality. The reverse is more true. Christianity is insufficient to morality.

As with Nazism, when coming to WN, I would scarcely have thought Christianity necessary to discuss. I always prided myself on not trying to provoke, trip-up or humiliate Christians: I know what it is like, and I know that they are trying to do the right thing - to invoke a social moral order. The one they are trying doesn’t work for me and I part ways without provocation. I don’t go to Christian places and mock them. Unfortunately, I see the need to defend myself and others who do not want Christianity, when they come here to mock.  If Hitler had drawn better lines maybe those evil Rothschildes would not have won. Lets draw better lines this time and win. Germans are not our adversaries, they are our allies.


16

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:08 | #

Adding:

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.


17

Posted by Daniel Antinora on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:52 | #

Consensus and facts constrain the possible range of classifications allowed.

For a desert dwelling people (or our own people should water become scarce), the percentage of water in a body might become very important and we might obtain consensus that that is a great way to classify things.

My point with all this quibbling about it is that the entire classification table (and all the rest of socially constructed reality) is open to revision at any time because, as you admit, it is all contingent. Except here we aren’t really talking about contingency (as in non-necessary) since we agree (I think) that the actual reality, das ding an sich, or even the phenomenal realm (more broadly), and objects (generally) are ‘necessary’ in the sense that they won’t change into their opposites or disappear at any given moment. We agree that the world is ‘given’ as it is. So we really don’t mean contingent. What we mean is arbitrary and uncertain because consensus and facts (which are also based on consensus) can change. We mean factuality itself is in the eye(s) of its beholders.

There can be no such thing as ‘facts’ based on this understanding. There can certainly be no such thing as brute fact in this system because ‘fact’ must be interpreted and we must come to a consensus about it for it to qualify as such. Brute facts are therefore mute facts; they cannot exist except as unconceptualized datum, ‘out there’, in the universe. That is a surefire road to skepticism in my book.

In my system there are no “brute facts”. All facts are pre-interpreted and all the data of the universe related in the mind of the Christian God. We are truly contingent then but escape the charge of arbitrary.

Of course all humans are classifiable as one genus on the grounds that they can reproduce with one another. That genus is true, but it is ecologically and morally insufficient to not protect our species.

Agreed. But the socially constructed reality that prevails insists that the fact that we can all sire offspring together is sufficient to protect our one race; i.e. that human race. So, unfortunately, they are in the right and we are in the wrong.

Or we are in the right but then ‘facts’ wouldn’t be socially constructed since we are a tiny minority. Or ‘facts’ are what different social groups are capable of forcing upon other social groups. In which case it comes down to power. In which case I say whatever one can do to get power is all that matters and there is no such thing as fact at all; just force.

You say the Allies were not perfect either

Not even close to perfect and their ideas were worse than the ideas of the National Socialists and they are, unfortunately, the only “respectable” ideas now that we are at the end of history. I also believe their behavior was far worse doing the war (generally-not individual soldiers, airmen, and submariners-but their leaders)

I don’t want to be looked upon as an adversary of Germans. I am not.

And I certainly don’t believe you are. We are talking about the perception some of us get that you are an adversary of those of us that take a Revisionist approach to WWII.

Just because he had some ideas doesn’t mean that discussion of him should be preceded by a call for his resurrection and redemption as if he was the only way and anyone in the way be damned.

Nobody is doing that.

That brand of NS was ‘not for export’.

It is disingenuous to conflate being against Hitler with being against his monetary policy, Germans and all details of NS.

In my estimation there was nothing else. He was essentially the spear tip of an economic revolution.

What could you possibly be against?

The “Death Camps”? They didn’t exist. Aggressive foreign policy? What I’ve read indicates that he was not the aggressor in most cases. Lebensraum? It was a simple attempt at reclaiming the massive number of ethnic Germans that weren’t in the Reich proper. Destruction? We were far more destructive (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, The Russians).

I can’t find anything to be against. A bit of German chauvinism? Ok fine. Perhaps. I don’t blame them for that after what happened after The Great War.

War is a Jew Harvest.

And it has been for hundreds of years. Hopefully, if it ever comes to it again, we’ll all be fighting side by side against the war profiteers and putting an end to their lucrative scheme.

To be against him is more than valid, it is normal if you care about WN concordance.

Well. WN didn’t even exist them. I’m not going to retroject the nascent WN consciousness and moral system back onto him or anyone else. There was, to be sure, some proto-WN’s and people with budding racial consciousness but it wasn’t the norm. This was the heyday of petty nationalism after all.

To say he should not be denounced because he was on the side of so many WN hearts, is well on to lines wrongly drawn

Ok. If that is your opinion it is. I’m saying he shouldn’t be denounced because he was pretty much right about everything and had he won the war we might have had a multi-polar world where the tentacles of Goldman Sachs weren’t spread out over the entire globe; where the IMF wasn’t playing King-Midas-in-reverse, wrecking havoc in the third world and generating resentment and hatred of whites.

Perhaps the ambitions and culture-poisoning powers of the United States would have been limited to Central American banana republics. Imagine a world without hideously homogenizing multinational “corporations” like Starbucks and McDonalds! 

It is like saying being against Christianity is to be against morality. The reverse is more true. Christianity is insufficient to morality.

I’m not saying that. I’m saying that there is room for men to disagree about the issue. I would say that Christianity and morality are two separate things but I’d rather not get into that.

I don’t go to Christian places and mock them. Unfortunately, I see the need to defend myself and others who do not want Christianity, when they come here to mock.

Ok. Defend yourself. Defend your ideas. I’m just saying we can all defend ourselves here in an open court without anger, malice, name calling (except in actual jest), etc. We can all look good while we are defending ourselves.

As iron sharpens iron…


18

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:54 | #

...///
Goddammit DanielA!

You dump a whole lot of crap after putting false words into my mouth!.

NO! (to what you have dumped here)


Consensus and facts constrain the possible range of classifications allowed.

Yes and..

First of all, consensus is just ONE goddamn thing among others that would constrain the range of possibilities.

“For a desert dwelling people (or our own people should water become scarce), the percentage of water in a body might become very important and we might obtain consensus that that is a great way to classify things.”

Therefore, that would be a fact constraining classification.

“My point with all this quibbling about it is that the entire classification table (and all the rest of socially constructed reality) is open to revision at any time because, as you admit, it is all contingent.”

NO! I “admitted” of no such thing! What is wrong with you with!?! to say “all contingent” is the same as to say “mere”  construct.

There is no reason to move onto the rest of your slop until this disingenuous slop which you began with is cleared away.

DON’T PUT WORDS LIKE “ANY” AND “ALL” INTO MY MOUTH SAYING THAT I “ADMITTED TO THEM”. THOSE ARE STRAW MEN. (Dishonest misrepresentation).


You admit that all this is quibbling, not honest inquiry. I suppose it is meant to tie up an divert from the authentic case.
.....///


P.S., this strategy of bullshitting by dumping a load of straw men seems common to Christians. Matt Parrott was into that too. That is why I began to look askance at him.


19

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:59 | #

Next thing (bs)


“We mean factuality itself is in the eye(s) of its beholders.”


No, “WE” do not mean that.


20

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:02 | #

“There can be no such thing as ‘facts’ based on this understanding.”

And that is not the understanding proposed.


21

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:09 | #

“There can certainly be no such thing as brute fact in this system because ‘fact’ must be interpreted and we must come to a consensus about it for it to qualify as such. Brute facts are therefore mute facts; they cannot exist except as unconceptualized datum, ‘out there’, in the universe. That is a surefire road to skepticism in my book.”

That’s a dirt poor argument. Worthy of a Christian.

You can come damn close to brute facts (as good as) in this scheme.

I suppose the Jewish road might be the one of skepticism (a non sequiter) and the Christian road would be to follow them.

For intelligent people, however, skepticism does not follow at all.


22

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:20 | #

In my estimation there was nothing else. He was essentially the spear tip of an economic revolution.

What could you possibly be against?

There are a huge list of things to be against! For one, he was all about Germans and anyone in the way of his plans, which were fraught with excuses for war against other European, be damned.


A great deal of might makes right in his view; a will to power view, which you foolishly latch onto in your “skepticism” (Hitler worship).


23

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:36 | #

The “Death Camps”? They didn’t exist. Aggressive foreign policy? What I’ve read indicates that he was not the aggressor in most cases. Lebensraum? It was a simple attempt at reclaiming the massive number of ethnic Germans that weren’t in the Reich proper. Destruction? We were far more destructive (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, The Russians).

I can’t find anything to be against. A bit of German chauvinism? Ok fine. Perhaps. I don’t blame them for that after what happened after The Great War.


That’s the problem with these Hitler as god people. There is so much wrong with Hitler that, where do you even begin? To begin, your premises are false.

You perhaps turned a blind eye to this post.
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/nazism_as_overstated_premise_of_white_nationalism_and_a_false_either_or

War is a Jew Harvest.

And it has been for hundreds of years. Hopefully, if it ever comes to it again, we’ll all be fighting side by side against the war profiteers and putting an end to their lucrative scheme.

Well, at least we can agree on that much.


Ok. If that is your opinion it is. I’m saying he shouldn’t be denounced because he was pretty much right about everything and had he won the war we might have

He wasn’t right about everything; he was way too much about a militaristic approach and enmity among Europeans. He was not the only one nor the only European national who had NS type ideas and wise to the Jew.


“we might have had a multi-polar world where the tentacles of Goldman Sachs weren’t spread out over the entire globe; where the IMF wasn’t playing King-Midas-in-reverse, wrecking havoc in the third world and generating resentment and hatred of whites.

Perhaps the ambitions and culture-poisoning powers of the United States would have been limited to Central American banana republics. Imagine a world without hideously homogenizing multinational “corporations” like Starbucks and McDonalds!”

Its all hindsight man.

If Hitler had been a more cooperative sort, instead of his romantic German chauvinism, we’d all have been a whole lot better off, a whole lot less destroyed, and whole lot further on the road to what we wish.

 


24

Posted by Daniel Antinora on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:39 | #

Consensus and facts constrain the possible range of classifications allowed.

What constitutes a fact Daniel? In your system and on your understanding what are the components of a “fact”?

First of all, consensus is just ONE goddamn thing among others that would constrain the range of possibilities.

Please elaborate on, list the others, or point me to a place that does.

Therefore, that would be a fact constraining classification.

And it could totally turn the extant and accepted classification system around, upside down, or inside out. Which in my opinion means the method of generating the system is arbitrary and hence not True with a capital ‘t’.

NO! I “admitted” of no such thing! What is wrong with you with!?! to say “all contingent” is the same as to say “mere”  construct.

Sorry for the confusion. This is what you said:

I understand that you would counsel “reasonable” classification systems. I’m just pointing out that they are arbitrary at bottom (like so many turtles stacked atop one another).


I’ve said this several places and many times: they are contingent. That is one of the main points.

Please refrain from straw men

I don’t mean you literally admitted it anyway. I’m speaking royally and idiomatically. It is a habit and it is imprecise. How does it rise above ‘mere’ construct into a ‘valid’ construct? How is it that it can’t be ‘valid’ and ‘mere’?

And again, social constructionism as I’m understanding it from you would have to admit that the ‘valid’ social construct right now is that race is just a mere social construct. It has ‘facts’ and ‘consensus’ in its corner.

There is no reason to move onto the rest of your slop until this disingenuous slop which you began with is cleared away.

You might find it sloppy (as I find your thinking) but can you stop with the accusation of dishonesty? Please.

DON’T PUT WORDS LIKE “ANY” AND “ALL” INTO MY MOUTH SAYING THAT I “ADMITTED TO THEM”. THOSE ARE STRAW MEN.

Again it was simply because I think this is what your system reduces to. I demonstrated why.

You admit that all this is quibbling, not honest inquiry. I suppose it is meant to tie up an divert from the authentic case.

Not genuine quibbling but quibbling in the sense of doing philosophy or having a debate. Again with the ridiculous assertions. Nobody is even seeking the authentic case with you. This thread is essentially a discussion between you and me. Who the fuck are either of us diverting anywhere?

P.S., this strategy of bullshitting by dumping a load of straw men seems common to Christians. Matt Parrott was into that too. That is why I began to look askance at him.

I don’t think I’ve done that. I think I’ve demonstrated that your viewpoint reduces to skepticism. 

Um… Matt was a Mormon. Now he seems to have ‘adopted’ Orthodox Christianity. I don’t think it is genuine but you’d have to ask him. I think it is merely tactical. Nevertheless, Matt is a stand up guy that does what he can for his people.

And that is not the understanding proposed.

But that is what is logically entailed and the resultant understanding.

That’s a dirt poor argument. Worthy of a Christian.

I think it’s all right. We should have a poll and come to consensus wink

You can come damn close to brute facts (as good as) in this scheme.

Please explain how.

I suppose the Jewish road might be the one of skepticism (a non sequiter) and the Christian road would be to follow them.

Yawn. Ok. When I say every epistemology except the one based on the Christian God reduces to skepticism I include the Jewish one. I’m not a skeptic at all. I believe the real world exists and is upheld in meaningful order at every instant by the God of the Christian Bible.

I’m saying that your view entails skepticism as a consequence. Ditto for the Jewish view.

For intelligent people, however, skepticism does not follow at all.

So I’m an idiot now too?

What is the point of having a discussion with me? If you don’t attribute rationality and humanity to your debate partner there is really no point. You think it is ‘instructive’ for the peanut gallery (the non-existent one) or something?

Anyway… I’ve got a lengthy reading list that I’m behind on so I’ll not be bothering again. Might cross post some book reviews here.

Toodles.


25

Posted by Daniel Antinora on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:51 | #

Ok one more response…

That’s the problem with these Hitler as god people. There is so much wrong with Hitler that, where do you even begin? To begin, your premises are false.

Again.. Hitler isn’t God. There is so much wrong with America and England and Russia and…. But we never start there do we? It’s all Germany being villainous which is really a jewish blood libel against White folk writ large.

You perhaps turned a blind eye to this post.
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/nazism_as_overstated_premise_of_white_nationalism_and_a_false_either_or

I’m sure I missed out. I only drop in once every few months these days.

He wasn’t right about everything; he was way too much about a militaristic approach and enmity among Europeans. He was not the only one nor the only European national who had NS type ideas and wise to the Jew.

Nobody is right about everything. I think the English (the original corporate plutocrats-not the English folk) were waaaay too into the death grip they had on the planet. The French were ridiculously militaristic. I think all of Europe was arrayed against Germany and the fought back with the only vehicle available to them: ethnic chauvinism and nationalism. And this vehicle was stock-in-trade for all of Europe at the time!

Anyway, I would just turn the charges you are making right around on the allies. Just based on military spending alone I think I would come out the winner in the argument.

Its all hindsight man.

Indeed. I hate counterfactuals in general.

If Hitler had been a more cooperative sort, instead of his romantic German chauvinism, we’d all have been a whole lot better off, a whole lot less destroyed, and whole lot further on the road to what we wish.

I think he was incredibly well disposed to the English. Too much so. I think it was the Anglo-American banking establishment that was the problem and we’d of been a whole lot better off if Hitler never stopped and destroyed the English at Dunkirk. But again… Counterfactuals. What we actual had was the firebombing of Dresden, the mass starvation of Germans, the Marshall Plan, the Cold War, the sickening fusion of Marxist materialism with capitalism climaxing in the war of all against all in the neo-liberal marketplace.


26

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 14:16 | #

///
Consensus and facts constrain the possible range of classifications allowed.

“What constitutes a fact Daniel? In your system and on your understanding what are the components of a “fact”?

First of all, consensus is just ONE goddamn thing among others that would constrain the range of possibilities.

Please elaborate on, list the others, or point me to a place that does.

Therefore, that would be a fact constraining classification.

There is joint action as well, and momentary experience (which later undergoes explanation and assignment of meaning if the person survives the fact).

“And it could totally turn the extant and accepted classification system around, upside down, or inside out. Which in my opinion means the method of generating the system is arbitrary and hence not True with a capital ‘t’.”

It doesn’t turn it upside down at all. That is your wish, perhaps.

A fact is like when you are hit by a force and fall to the ground. You can deny it, but 99.99 percent of the people will recognize that you are crazy.

Why do I have to endure this dissimulation? Because we are supposed to endure bullshit until Brown Johnson et al can insert Hitler as god.

A fact is like when someone pees on Hitler’s face and he finds it all warm and tingly, with a capital P.


“I think I’ve demonstrated that your viewpoint reduces to skepticism.”

The operative term is is “I think.” You think anybody who does not believe in Jesus and Hitler is skeptic. It isn’t true.


“Matt is a stand up guy that does what he can for his people.”

I found him (to my surprise) bureaucratic and petty…quite a bit more about his position than the cause than I would expect.

Sending me a picture of Hitler, the dark and light patters of which were composed of the words, “The EuroDNA Nation sucks” - very mature. Solid leadership. LOL.

..............

And that is not the understanding proposed.

“But that is what is logically entailed and the resultant understanding.”

No, that is the logical consequence that you would like to follow.


It’s a dirt poor argument. Worthy of a Christian.

I think it’s all right. We should have a poll and come to consensus wink

There is also joint agreement between two or three people, not only vast consensus; and there are facts that one might only try to deny to no avail.

You can come damn close to brute facts (as good as) in this scheme.

Please explain how.

This is so ridiculous DanielA. Drop a ball and see that it floats into outer space.

You are not arguing in good faith. This is just bullshit to divert attention away.


:I believe the real world exists and is upheld in meaningful order at every instant by the God of the Christian Bible.”

See? There we are.

If you are satisfied to believe that then we are probably too far a part for useful discussion. Your arguments will always conform to some attempted justification of Jesus, and failing that, Hitler.


“What is the point of having a discussion with me? If you don’t attribute rationality and humanity to your debate partner there is really no point”

How can I attribute rationality to you? There is no point indeed.
///


27

Posted by Daniel Antinora on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 14:46 | #

Everybody does immature things (although I don’t know if Matt truly did that or the context). I’m guilty. You’re guilty (in this very thread!). We are all guilty of it.

You think anybody who does not believe in Jesus and Hitler is skeptic. It isn’t true.

I’ve said repeatedly that there is room for disagreement about Hitler.

I think anybody that doesn’t adopt the philosophical system that is entailed by accepting the self-attesting Christian God being what He says He is will end up trying to justify a philosophical system that has skepticism as its end result. This is has been the way of Western philosophy for 2,500 years. We still haven’t solved the problem of getting ‘outside’ the mind, the problem of universals, the problem of other minds, etc.

This is so ridiculous DanielA. Drop a ball and see that it floats into outer space.

How can you justify that it won’t next time you drop it? I don’t think you can. Hume didn’t think you could and Kant didn’t fix the problem despite being roused temporarily from his dogmatic slumber.

You are not arguing in good faith. This is just bullshit to divert attention away.

What is disingenuous about that? How is doing philosophy and asking you to do the same mala fide?

Just because you can’t justify your presuppositions (viz. that the future will resemble the past) you think I’m “distracting” folks from becoming racially aware?

Sigh. I argue all the time on Vice our cause.

Here’s an example: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/insane-racists-are-bombarding-the-white-house-petition-site

Adjust the comments to ‘social ranking’ and look at what I’ve tried to do. Was I distracting people there?

Pace Daniel-san.


28

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:15 | #

“What is disingenuous about that? How is doing philosophy and asking you to do the same mala fide?”

Your whole purpose here is disingenuous: to try to find some hole in my argument. And because you cannot find it, you endeavor to create it.

Just because you can’t justify your presuppositions

Of course I can justify my positions. You cannot justify yours.

(viz. that the future will resemble the past) you think I’m “distracting” folks from becoming racially aware?

The future might not resemble 99 percent of the history of natural law, social agreement, stories told, joint agreement and so what? So, we do the best we can to create the way of life we might like and to see that it goes on..


 


29

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 18:01 | #

Note that author’s name “Brian Merchant”. Ethnicity?

Anyhow, when we’re talking about a project as large as preventing white extinction, it’s going to involve a lot of people, people who otherwise will have massive internal disagreements. Think of the wonderful intellectual diversity of the West, in attitudes, thoughts, ideologies, cultures, philosophies, cults, classes, etc. Any such movement for white preservation is going to have to be a proverbial ideological Big Tent. No one white cultural or philosophical or political or economic tendency has a right to be (or ought to be, or can be expected to be) absolutely dominant. Obviously, white “diversi-tists” won’t be a part of it, but otherwise, there will be a lot of persons who, other than race and a desire to save it, don’t have much in common. Think of whites’ global, existential situation as akin to a US prison. To survive, whites must stick together as whites; those who would divide the race based on secondary concerns (eg, DanielS and his dislike of Christians) must themselves be removed from the group.

Once white existence has been secured through the reacquisition of racially cleansed living space, the natural mental and sociological heterogeneity of whites can safely reassert itself, and we can all retreat into our separate ideologies and social spheres.


30

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 18:34 | #

.....
“To survive, whites must stick together as whites; those who would divide the race based on secondary concerns (eg, DanielS and his dislike of Christians) must themselves be removed from the group.”

Nice try Leon.

I don’t divide Christians from a concern for WN. I reserve the prerogative to participate with those who seek non-Christian ways, discussions and sites, such as MR; and to not have Christian beliefs imposed on me and those who do not want it.

I do not go to Christian WN sites and try to tell them what to do and say that they should be removed from Christian sites, as you have just attempted to say that I should be removed from a non-Christian site.


31

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 18:54 | #

(eg, DanielS and his dislike of Christians) must themselves be removed from the group.

Danny has already, by his own repugnancy,  been removed from the group. He only exists here at MR (under GW’s protection).

DanielS is to the benefit of the White Race as is the Gordian worm is to the cricket.


32

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:23 | #

Posted by Thorn on February 09, 2014, 06:54 PM | #

  (eg, DanielS and his dislike of Christians) must themselves be removed from the group.

Danny has already, by his own repugnancy,  been removed from the group. He only exists here at MR (under GW’s protection).

DanielS is to the benefit of the White Race as is the Gordian worm is to the cricket.


Thorn, thanks for making your desperation, yours and Haller’s agenda clear.

But most of all, thanks for making me laugh.


33

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:33 | #

We all like to laugh, Danny. But desperation? Reilly, Danny? You are such a silly boy.


34

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:49 | #

Your desperation is clear, Thornblossom. Whistling in the dark won’t help. Perhaps a night-light.


35

Posted by Matt Parrott on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:44 | #

Daniel,

P.S., this strategy of bullshitting by dumping a load of straw men seems common to Christians. Matt Parrott was into that too. That is why I began to look askance at him.

False.

You were totally cool with me and praised me regularly up until I gave you my honest private opinion on your DNA Nation essay you sent me. You immediately went postal and have been going around taking petty jabs at me ever since that exact moment I pissed in your egotistical cheerios.


36

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:55 | #

Posted by Matt Parrott on February 11, 2014, 12:44 AM | #

Daniel,

  P.S., this strategy of bullshitting by dumping a load of straw men seems common to Christians. Matt Parrott was into that too. That is why I began to look askance at him.

False.

You were totally cool with me and praised me regularly up until I gave you my honest private opinion on your DNA Nation essay you sent me. You immediately went postal and have been going around taking petty jabs at me ever since that exact moment I pissed in your egotistical cheerios.”


No, it’s true Matt. I began looking askance at you when you started dumping straw men. “looking askance” as in, wondering to myself, what the hell is going on? There was a chat board at VoR when I was suggesting that the N word had a place and you spoke in defense of Rei (as an example, I imagine), asking if I would call her a “nip” but agreed that I had not. On one of those chats, maybe that same one, you suggested with a profusion of stuff (these straw men are hard to capture argumentatively because it is a rush of information such that it is hard to enlist example) that I should give “mudsharks a bath” and just get on with it - in these instances, I thought you might be a bit overprotective of women.

In an example of bureaucratic positioning, when VoR went down and we were collecting archives, I said that I had Soren’s interview audio file. You made some sarcastic remarks to the effect of “oh, now that’s important, LOL!”

Your comments on the DNA nation did in fact, strike me as irrelevant and bureaucratically motivated as well: a bunch of stuff (straw men) presented as reasons why it was “wrong at every turn” motivated it seemed to me, because you were not the purveyor (I would almost hope, for your sake that that was the reason and not because you were some small fraction AmerIndian). This concerned me because I guessed that you had an influential position at VoR; my “pet project” as you called it, was not getting posted, despite repeated requests to Mike, despite MacDonald liking it, and having even asked me if he could edit it which he did; I was left to wonder why it never got posted. I was concerned, because I felt you might have influence with KM too, to be against this, what I believe is a benign plan at worst, to this day. That was when I tried to flesh things out by accusing you publicly of standing in its way - to get to the bottom of how much your person was in fact in the way (or not). Because if you were, I believed that you had too much influence; especially if you were indeed concerned that you had a small percentage of AmerIndian, I felt that this was a trivial that could be cleared away quickly by bringing it into the open (as not important); I wanted an opportunity to set that kind of thing aside as unimportant by example.

But again, the moment that I really got provoked with your straw men was a particular article at Counter Currents where you claimed that you were going to sit down and attend to the struggle’s problems while you proceeded to characterize other projects with straw man cartoons (I could find the essay again). This was where I thought it was an issue worth airing (not your criticism of the DNA Nation), seeing this illustrated your having motive of protecting your position; and the obfuscations of a bureaucratic position taking priority for you.

So, my suspicions of your bureaucracy were roused there (not when I was supposed to be “butt hurt” in your words, over your rejection of the DNA Nation).

Coincidentally, the day when I aired my suspicions of your being significantly obstructive, you had published an essay saying we should not leave a fallen comrade (Hitler) behind. This confirmed the worst for me, i.e. that you were a bit young to be taking on such influence in the struggle and needed a few more years.

Apparently, there were also Christian motives, lately the Orthodox version, which could add motive to obstruct non-Christian visions; obstructions that I am experiencing here at MR.

Still in all, I don’t go around bad-mouthing you. I Have made some barbs (for the purpose of provoking clarifying discussion), but not that many, here at MR. You are not heavy on my mind but rather one of many right-wingers who I see as obstructive to WN organization - and inasmuch as peple are right wingers that’s the nature of their beast. A lot of it seems to be coming (programmatically) from Counter-Currents - talk about petty, on and on they go with the “false and phoney right left paradigm” meme.  Bureaucracy would have a place there, as they seek to protect what they believe is an elite leadership group. The problem that I have with that is that they are also protecting the seeding of some bad ideas.

On the other hand, I never aspired to be a part of the Counter Currents club. I did not like their platform the moment I heard Greg Johnson saying that he made respect for Hitler a litmus test for inclusion. But my concerns over his being too much about Hitler were roused when he followed an essay that I’d written about hippies, with this theory of “west coast liberalism” ..headed by an image of Hitler with love beads. So, I detected a proclivity to bury my view with his Hitler fetish or just other stuff.  Another indication of his view came when he got very angry one time and edited my comments, finally deleted them, when I suggested that Hitler did no have to invade Eastward. Finally, he banned me from even commenting at Counter Currents when I criticized Dial’s essays and motives.

That’s fine. I never aspired to be in the CC club. And even though I think its paradigm is importantly off the mark in some fundamental ways, there is still some wonderful writing and podcasts going on there.

Johnson writes beautifully, he is obviously erudite, deeply educated and worth listening to, even if one disagrees with some important matters.

In those regards, I can understand his being snooty with someone such as myself.

You are obviously an excellent writer too, Matt, with a brilliant ability to take highly complicated ideas, abstract and organize them for understanding.

Hopefully you will come to understand that I am motivated to get matters of the struggle right.

Even provocative barbs of you are conducted in hopes of an occasion such as this, to clarify matters. I have a working hypothesis that you are a bit over protective of women (because you were raised by a single mom) and that is not an emphasis that is always the best perspective now (sometimes, probably); and your being protective of mudsharks might be part of the occasion of your being here now - with my arguments over the inclusion (or not) of reformed mudsharks at Renegade. That was an argument of yours (to go blithely and bureaucratically defensive of them) that I first heard heard here, at MR, in fact - to my consternation.

I also found the altercation between you and Joe Webb to be telling, with your dismissing this man who was quite rational as far as I could tell, as “insane”. He was in fact saying things which, by my experience, were far more correct than the arguments that you were making. Calling him “insane” would be another bureaucratic straw man.. as was your dismissal of Soren’s efforts.

..also telling was your (my) “best horizons lay elsewhere” and “hundred percent unreliable” bureaucratic memes because I reject Hitler and Jesus and your infallible judgement. You did send me an image of Hitler, the dark patterns of the image being formed by a repetition of the words, “the dna nations sucks”. You called me a “Christ-hating Pole.” That could even be dangerous, Matt; but it is too ridiculous and indicative of pathos to get angry about. All it means to me is that you are bit young and stressed for the roles you are taking on; maybe you will rise above it to see that my focus is on the struggle, not with trying to ruin your career.


37

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:15 | #

Adding:

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

From the three ways of knowing, Theoria, Praxis and Poiesis and their means, episeme, 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.


38

Posted by Matt Parrott on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:47 | #

Dear Daniel,

On one of those chats, [you suggested] that I should give “mudsharks a bath” and just get on with it - in these instances, I thought you might be a bit overprotective of women.

Former mudsharks.

Your comments on the DNA nation [...] motivated it seemed to me, because you were not the purveyor

I disagreed with your essay, politely critiquing it in private. Your response was to conclude that I’m a petty vindictive ego monster (classic projection) who hates your idea because I didn’t think of it. I hated this evidently brilliant idea so hard that I launched a massive and elaborate campaign to cause everybody else to be icy or lukewarm with your manifestly sublime manifesto.

This isn’t critical thinking on your part, this is Silent Movie Madness.

(I would almost hope, for your sake that that was the reason and not because you were some small fraction AmerIndian).

Can’t forget to inject that into the conversation, can we? The punch bowl just wouldn’t be complete without this necessary turd.

This concerned me because I guessed that you had an influential position at VoR; my “pet project” as you called it, was not getting posted, despite repeated requests to Mike, despite MacDonald liking it, and having even asked me if he could edit it which he did; I was left to wonder why it never got posted.

Alternative Reality: KMac is an exceedingly nice guy who’s mastered the art of dealing with fragile egos during his years of undergraduate instruction. Conner is (was??) an exceedingly nice guy, too. His niceness just didn’t extend to republishing that essay he didn’t care for on the front page of his blog. Contrary to your belief, content creators who’ve lovingly crafted their portals don’t owe you shit, not even an explanation.

And God forbid you offer them a sincere explanation.

I was concerned, because I felt you might have influence with KM too, to be against this, what I believe is a benign plan at worst, to this day. That was when I tried to flesh things out by accusing you publicly of standing in its way - to get to the bottom of how much your person was in fact in the way (or not).

You’re a vindictive paranoid and unimaginative little faggot. That’s why. Stop dancing around it.

Because if you were, I believed that you had too much influence; especially if you were indeed concerned that you had a small percentage of AmerIndian, I felt that this was a trivial that could be cleared away quickly by bringing it into the open (as not important); I wanted an opportunity to set that kind of thing aside as unimportant by example.

That’s not how telling people shit in confidence works, you vindictive paranoid and unimaginative little faggot. You didn’t “leak” the “scandal” that I’m probably fractionally Amerindian due to a sincere crisis of conscience, carefully couching it in the context you’re trying to couch it in right now. You did it audaciously and salaciously, presuming it would harm my reputation and put a stop to my secret campaign against your brilliant manifesto.

There was no secret campaign, there was no brilliant manifesto, and there was no harm to my reputation or fallout from your dishonorable decision to betray my confidence.

There’s nothing going on here but a vindictive paranoid and unimaginative little faggot who keeps on, month after month, year after year, poisoning the well and muddying the waters about me with every audience within earshot.


39

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:16 | #

Matt, since I barely had to scratch the surface of this deluge before getting the first straw man, let me address just this first one, by itself for now.

My comment

“Your comments on the DNA nation [...] motivated it seemed to me, because you were not the purveyor”


and you say:

“I disagreed with your essay, politely critiquing it in private. Your response was to conclude that I’m a petty vindictive ego monster (classic projection)”

There is the first straw man. I did not conclude that you were all these things you said that I “concluded” about you at that point (or even later), when you sent me an email in response. Rather, at that point, I was mystified by your response, but did not consider it to be especially significant. I did not yet see it as perhaps being part of a pattern until later - as I made clear in the comment above: It was with a later essay of yours at CC that I began to suspect that maybe you had a bit of bureaucratic eqo getting in the way of worthwhile discussion.

I made that clear in the post above that it was at that point that I thought it might be necessary to test this out.  And I have said made this very point before, that was when I began to wonder, not with your irrelevant criticisms of the DNA Nation.

Nevertheless, at the very beginning of your last comment is the first of one of what looms to be one of your straw man deluges.

 

 

 

 


40

Posted by Matt Parrott on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:17 | #

Daniel,

I barely had to scratch the surface of this deluge before getting the first straw man

It’s not my fault that you actually manage to be every bit as simple and absurd as you are. Concluding that a negative review of your essay is probably the result of the author’s jealousy at not having originated the “idea” is worthy of every last bit of mockery and parody I heaped on it, ...and then some.

Nevertheless, at the very beginning of your last comment is the first of one of what looms to be one of your straw man deluges.

I’m not the one who narrated a tale of an egotistical twit whose bitterness at being rejected bloomed into an elaborate multi-year stalking campaign. You did. I just reiterated your own tale in third person. You are a straw man, and it’s impossible to describe your story without superlatives and absurdity, because it’s superlative and absurd.


41

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:20 | #

Ok, now lets move onto the next (surprise surprise) torrent of straw men.

“I hated this evidently brilliant idea so hard that I launched a massive and elaborate campaign to cause everybody else to be icy or lukewarm with your manifestly sublime manifesto.”

You made it clear that you thought “it was wrong at every turn.”...also told me to keep your being a fraction Amerindian under my hat.

I was mystified as to why Mike was dragging his heels on posting it at VoR, especially given the fact that MacDonald had edited it - so KM must have thought it had some merit.

I didn’t really know why it wasn’t getting posted but Mike did mention to me that “he’d known some people who had DNA tests and were disappointed by the results.”

My curiosity that you might be an obstruction was piqued when I read an essay of yours at CC (I’ll find it again, if necessary).

I wasn’t sure then and am not sure now how much (maybe not much, maybe a lot) your input may have discouraged the posting of The DNA Nation at VoR or Occidental Observer, but I thought the possibility of your being a significant obstructor should be tested-out - because you had some pull and respect from Mike and even with KM.


42

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:32 | #

Now onto Matt’s next pile of shit (I’ve hardened the tone, since I see that is where he is going).


“This isn’t critical thinking on your part, this is Silent Movie Madness.”

Well, there’s another (surprise) straw man.

  (I would almost hope, for your sake that that was the reason and not because you were some small fraction AmerIndian).

yes, it would be better than just obstructing it in favor of some bureaucratic position.

“Can’t forget to inject that into the conversation, can we? The punch bowl just wouldn’t be complete without this necessary turd.”

Can’t forget to allow such a trivial “big secret” obstruct more important things than your vanity.

I said
    This concerned me because I guessed that you had an influential position at VoR; my “pet project” as you called it, was not getting posted, despite repeated requests to Mike, despite MacDonald liking it, and having even asked me if he could edit it which he did; I was left to wonder why it never got posted.

“Alternative Reality: KMac is an exceedingly nice guy who’s mastered the art of dealing with fragile egos during his years of undergraduate instruction. Conner is (was??) an exceedingly nice guy, too.”

There is just another straw man! I didn’t say they weren’t…but you were going to go ahead and protect them from me…do you see how you see yourself Matt Bureaucrat?

“His niceness just didn’t extend to republishing that essay he didn’t care for on the front page of his blog.”

I did not think then and do not think now that they owed me publishing the essay. What I did was wonder why, and could not find a satisfactory answer for myself.

“Contrary to your belief, content creators who’ve lovingly crafted their portals don’t owe you shit, not even an explanation.”

And there is another huge, unethical straw man - “my belief” that they owe me something.  How dare you act like you are the defender of these people against the straw men you attribute to me?

 


43

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:34 | #

“You’re a vindictive paranoid and unimaginative little faggot. That’s why. Stop dancing around it.”


No Matt, that’s not why. These are projections of yours, that’s all.


44

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:43 | #

“That’s not how telling people shit in confidence works, you vindictive paranoid and unimaginative little faggot. You didn’t “leak” the “scandal” that I’m probably fractionally Amerindian due to a sincere crisis of conscience, carefully couching it in the context you’re trying to couch it in right now. You did it audaciously and salaciously, presuming it would harm my reputation and put a stop to my secret campaign against your brilliant manifesto.”

No, that’s not true. I brought your fraction of Amerindian into public because I recognized it was a trivial detail that you tediously suggested I turn into a bureaucratic detail of importance. It also went to the bureaucratic games that you were playing which were unnecessarily obstructive.

Anybody who would look upon your reputation as tarnished because you have a small fraction of Amerindian would be absurd.

I didn’t think then, and I don’t now, that you have some secret campaign to thwart the DNA Nation. At most some petty, quasi boycott organized by means of gossip.


45

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:48 | #

“There was no secret campaign, there was no brilliant manifesto”

That’s right, Matt, there is only your bureaucratic straw men.

“and there was no harm to my reputation or fallout from your dishonorable decision to betray my confidence.”

Betray your confidence? lets take the peace-pipe, shall we Chief?

There’s nothing going on here but a vindictive paranoid and unimaginative little faggot who keeps on, month after month, year after year, poisoning the well and muddying the waters about me with every audience within earshot.

Yes, I have nothing better to do but go all around, everywhere and poison the waters about you (and I am the paranoid one, right?)

Thanks for the laugh, Matt!


46

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:03 | #

And the next straw men:

Posted by Matt Parrott on February 11, 2014, 12:17 PM | #

Daniel,

  I barely had to scratch the surface of this deluge before getting the first straw man

Matt
“It’s not my fault that you actually manage to be every bit as simple and absurd as you are.”

“Concluding that a negative review of your essay is probably the result of the author’s jealousy at not having originated the “idea”

For the hundredth time, I did not conclude that, I wondered if your estimation was not negatively motivated, particularly as Kevin MacDonald had liked it (for one salient example)

“it is worthy of every last bit of mockery and parody I heaped on it, ...and then some.”

Sure it is Chief.

  Nevertheless, at the very beginning of your last comment is the first of one of what looms to be one of your straw man deluges.

“I’m not the one who narrated a tale of an egotistical twit whose bitterness at being rejected”

Wait a minute. Yes, you are the author of that one.

“bloomed into an elaborate multi-year stalking campaign.”

I am the paranoid one? Where do I stalk you? Where have I talked about you but in a few barbs here at MR? You are a bit unhinged, Matt.

“You did.”

No I didn’t Matt. I have stalking campaign against you. Again, I have said nothing about you anywhere but in a few barbs here at MR

“I just reiterated your own tale in third person You are a straw man, and it’s impossible to describe your story without superlatives and absurdity, because it’s superlative and absurd.”

Relax, have a beer Matt. The small fraction of Amerindian you have is not likely to leave you prone to alcoholism.

Peace-pipe Chief?


47

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 03:54 | #

Adding this part (in bold) which I had in the original argument but had forgotten to include here:

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.”


48

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Feb 2014 02:23 | #

Adding (since the summation was a little abrupt without a little more explanation re Heidegger and hermeneutics).


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).


Greg Johnson’s lecture on Self Actualization http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/02/pursuit-of-happiness-lecture-3-part-2/ discusses Vico, but I would care to emphasize that I am not endorsing all of Vico’s project, particularly as it shares Nietzsche’s notion of “eternal recurrence.” In fact, I can scarcely think of anything more horrifying than “eternal recurrence.”

Rather, I am merely setting-about to establish Vico as a contemporary, seminal figure in prominent opposition to Descartes and favoring engaged knowledge pursuit, instead.

While “eternal recurrence” and the willingness to choose one’s life all over again may be one way of testing agency as offered by Nietzsche, I believe the means presented in this post are a great deal more happy as philosophy of life goes.

On another matter, Johnson’s discussion of Self Actualization as Aristotle, Nietszche and de Montaigne laid-it-out, goes to show that it would probably be a good idea to revisit what I was doing in this essay -

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/re_evaluating_hierarchy_of_motives_optimized_for_the_white_class

- in order to demonstrate the significance of my point: Which was, essentially, that self actualization, as a self centered pursuit in the American context (individualist constitution, free market competition, pop-culture, adoption of self actualization in Maslow and Friedan) had been so over-stressed in valuation, as to effect a marked dark side, especially its being a large factor to rupturing necessary base premises of social order, organic process of being and what I then called “selfhood” (which, with GW’s criticism, I have come to think better to call “routine”). That (changing selfhood to “routine”) would be one of the refinements that I would make, therefore.

As it is the logical inference against over-emphasis on self actualization to take the idea into an Aristotlean balance of optima (I argue, with socialization, being and ordinary routine), it is only reasonable to bring this to bear against his, among other, scholarly treatments of self actualization, not just the popular expressions as they happen by default of the Cartesian text or by popular Jewish coercions - such as those of Maslow and Friedan. I will show that these matters still remain relevant to a worthwhile critique of our predicament, an integral part of our context from which to “differance”, but as a critique nevertheless and naturally enhanced by the scholarly treatments of self actualization.

Particularly, my ad hoc definition self actualization would of course be improved with Aristotle’s treatment of it. Not that re-definition is a bad idea, on the contrary, but in being critical of the notion, its popular fall-out and Jewish instrumentalization, it is best not to ignore the fact that even as these popular American takes on it are crass and deserve criticism, Aristotle’s take was not quite so anti-social (magnanimity, etc) and crucially, incorporated virtue as its part.

Thus, it would be worthwhile as a remedy to the destructiveness of the American project to incorporate refinements of understanding provided by Greg: viz. Aristotle’s idea of self actualization, particularly that it was, of course, not so crass as Maslow’s, but measured against virtue - though also crucially, as a matter of critique, still quite self centered - Nietszche’s contrary idea that self actualization is not uncovered, but made, and de Montaigne’s ideas of self acceptance.

 

 

 


49

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:19 | #

“Sadly there are some in the struggle who are now buying into this thing that race is a social construct. It is one of our six core principles that race is a biological reality not a social construct.”

- Christopher John Bozo

What an idiot! Where do I say that race, or the White race, is Not a biological reality?

But then, another of these guys’ six core principles is that anyone who rejects Hitler as a figure of eminent esteem is to be ostracized from the struggle for White interests

- Way to go!

 


50

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Feb 2014 22:49 | #

adding:

the hermeneutic turn provided a second liberation, from mere facticity (and into narrative and its potential for coherence).


51

Posted by National Reactionary Front on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 02:50 | #

Do you know why Jews say the white race is a “social construct”? It’s because you can shoot a social construct in the head and push it into a ditch and no one says anything. A social construct doesn’t have a mother or father who will shed tears for it.

Those who are truly concerned for our people will not invest themselves whole-heartedly into some stupid social theory, will not sacrifice our precious blood in order to flatter their ego that they “have it all figured out”. Myself, I prefer the company of those traditionally called “right-wing”,but I concern myself with what advances the cause of our people. What makes them safer,freer,more educated, healthier.

Words and fanciful narratives will not do that, only courage and might can. Nothing abstract can help our people, only concrete things like food,weapons, and fortifications will help them. Social constructs are a social construct,they are constructed to give sociologists a reason to take our money and they are useless to our people,especially as science.

Our blood is real, the things which shed it and dilute it are real. They are objects, they are not narratives or words. If you do not understand a knife or broken beer bottle or baseball bat shedding your blood or bruising your flesh,nothing will make it explicable to you. If you do understand them, no theorizing is necessary.


52

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 05:42 | #

NRF@51

Generally true words, but as I have stated for more than a decade, Western Man is Ethical Man. That virtue may now be our vice, but it is a ‘hard’ fact as much as Negroidal savagery, and must therefore be recognized and neutralized.

I agree that too much of nationalism these days consists of a lot of worthless wordplay. But that does not mean that no theorizing is needed. What we need is a new ethics of survival, one which gives whites the justification they need to be racially preservationist. It’s totally inadequate to say that survival is its own imperative. Hard measures will have to be taken if we are to endure. Would an individual have the right to destroy another to ensure his own survival? Can you make an ‘ethical’ rule out of that stance? Would most whites accept it? Would we want them to?

Nationalist philosophizing is a vital component of the broader awakening agenda. But that philosophizing should be in conducted in the realm of ethics (and for the numerous white Christians, theology), the only non-scientific intellectual sphere which has any serious bearing on the issue of white survival.

 


53

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 07:11 | #

Posted by National Reactionary Front on February 19, 2014, 02:50 AM | #

Do you know why Jews say the white race is a “social construct”? It’s because you can shoot a social construct in the head and push it into a ditch and no one says anything. A social construct doesn’t have a mother or father who will shed tears for it.

I know why Jews say race is a (mere) social construct - they do so for the reasons you have cited and more. I have made it clear that they abuse and misrepresent the idea.


Those who are truly concerned for our people will not invest themselves whole-heartedly into some stupid social theory,

The theory is that our race is real, that we choose to act with agency and accountability in its regard - what is supposed to be the problem that you have with this “theory.”

“will not sacrifice our precious blood in order to flatter their ego that they “have it all figured out.”

As you evidently believe that you have figured it all out. Do you think you are disagreeing with my words or rather with habituated responses to these words?

“Myself, I prefer the company of those traditionally called “right-wing”

Be my guest; my experience is that they take us into many of the age old and disastrous traps because they tend to believe understanding matters properly is “all nonsense.”

“but I concern myself with what advances the cause of our people. What makes them safer,freer,more educated, healthier.”

Good, then you should like this post. Why don’t you give it another read?

“Words and fanciful narratives will not do that, only courage and might can.”

To have courage requires sufficient understanding of who you are fighting for and how our enemies operate.


“Nothing abstract can help our people, only concrete things like food,weapons, and fortifications will help them.”

That’s not true. We have to coordinate our peoples and have a mutual understanding. Otherwise fighting and supplies will be deployed too arbitrarily.

Although the concrete things you mention are not at all mutually exclusive to what is said in the post.

“Social constructs are a social construct,they are constructed to give sociologists a reason to take our money and they are useless to our people,especially as science.”

Not necessarily true. Social constructionism can be abused in this way, and mostly has: I have been saying for years that higher education is in the big business of selling talk. Social constructionism misrepresented as fanciful narrative, bizarre, destructive and novel interpretation of facts can serve these sorts of Jewish and liberal purposes (i.e. bullshit) - no doubt. But not social constructionism proper, which, as synchronized with hermeneutics, ensures both capacity for scientific verification and a way to focus on our people as the central unit of concern as opposed say, to mere facts.

“Our blood is real, the things which shed it and dilute it are real.”

As I have said throughout the post.

“They are objects, they are not narratives or words.”

They are objects and they are discussed with others in narratives and words as you are doing right now, to coordinate and make coherent their meaning to us.

“If you do not understand a knife or broken beer bottle or baseball bat shedding your blood or bruising your flesh,nothing will make it explicable to you.  If you do understand them, no theorizing is necessary.”“

You, we, are co-evolved to understand these things on a brute level, no doubt. But how these events count can vary greatly. It may be a case of mistaken identity, an impulsive emotional outburst resulting from a despondent and drunk jilted spouse, or it may be that you are the first target among an incorrigibly planned or genetically programmed proclivity to genocide etc. And if you survive you try to do something about it based on what you have gathered from your predecessors, from their “theorizing” as you call it, if you do not literally set about to plan response with others.


54

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 07:47 | #

I’m proud to be black said a black man.

I’m proud to be Asian said an Asian man.

I’m proud to be white said a racist.

Many whites buy into the social construct BS simply because they are too afraid to defend their white identity.

Find a way to rempower whites, i.e., reinstill the confidence in them to the extent that they will unhesitantly come out and loudly proclaim they’re white and proud of it! 

If we can do that, then I can say we’re on to something….

How Whites Respond to Racial Realism’ - Dr Samuel T. Francis


55

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 07:58 | #

Oh, what a surprise! Thorn ignores, tries to bypass, distract from and bury what I’ve said.


56

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:01 | #

On second thought MOST whites nowadays buy into the social construct BS simply because the prevailing ideology called “modern liberalism” thoroughly conditioned them to think that way.

David Horowitz once commented that: “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.”

That Horowitz quote was from the following piece written by Dr. Sanity


THE LEFT’S “INTELLECTUAL RACISM”


57

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:08 | #

This seems to be Thorn and Haller’s calling here. To sell Jewish “conservatives”, ones who are trying to deflect, divert and cushion the backlash - now its Horowitz….the list goes on..


58

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:36 | #

Danny,

Be assured overtly anti-white slime balls like Tim Wise, Noel Ignatiev and countless others of that tribe will, God willing, be dealt with at the appropriate time and setting.

On a personal note, I avail myself of useful material no matter from where or who it comes from. Only a fool would do otherwise.

Just because Jews act in their own self interests doesn’t always mean they are acting against the interests of whites. Sometimes there is overlap. Radio talk show host, Michael Savage, demonstrates that quite frequently.


59

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19:05 | #

On Jews and the social construct, we are required to agree that race is socially constructed because Jews hold that their exceptionalism, upon which their millenarian project rests, is ethnic.  We, in total contrast, have no ethnicity nor even humanity, if you listen to some of them.  Or if we have it today, the work of perfecting the world consists in taking it from us.  It is “racism” if we perceive ourselves ethnically, and “anti-Semitism” if we should reject or resist being “perfected”.

It is that simple.  Jews are not sophisticated people.  They model us now as they want us at the End Times.  It is that crude.  For our part, we never expect to encounter such audacity and aggression from other human beings, and we don’t want to believe that anyone (who might be likeable in other ways) could harbour such offensive sentiments.

On the social construct itself, it is wildly misrepresented by the academics who have popularised it.  The only part of the mind which constructs is the intellectual faculty.  It is, in fact, an associative modelling process.  It is such a massively ponderous and slow system, it swallows our attention and requires our consciousness to be seated within it.  In fact, race is primarily understood instinctively, in which no constructive activity is involved.  Only later, in the way of things, does emotion and then thought overlay the instinctual.

Further, all three perceptual systems must represent the world outside us within reasonable parameters of accuracy, or do so more often with accuracy than without it, so that adaptive life choices can predominate over maladaptive ones and selection for fitness can operate.  Whether there is socially-informed construction at work or not is irrelevant to whether the construction itself is sufficiently true.

On the question of our intellectualism and theorising, it never ceases to amaze me how Americans, mostly, simply do not grasp the fact that they are living in, and are significantly products of, the thought-world all about them.  If they grasp this at all, they very rarely take the idea forward critically.  How can a perfectly unaware product of liberalism (I don’t mean leftism), which is a radically individualist as well as egalitarian and universalist philosophy, possibly generate a meta-political change to a naturalistic and particularist thought-world without “constructing” models of the respective paradigms and understanding their relation to one another?


60

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:07 | #

If you know anything about high pressure salesmanship, you know it’s imperative that you get a verbal agreement prior to your final sales pitch. 

For example:

Salesman: Do you agree that saving money is a good thing?

Prospective customer: Why YES, saving money IS a good thing.


The same sales tactic is being applied to white people WRT white identity and white preservation.

The pitch goes:

Is not vile racism the most evil ideology on the planet?

Dumb white people answer: Yes, yes it is.

Then the anti-racists follow up with: Since whites are in power, don’t you think that they should admit they are the source of racism?

Dumb white people answer: Yes, yes, we are the problem.

You see, with a SICK mindset like that, we can never make progress.


61

Posted by CS on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:11 | #

@Leon

An article that may be of interest to you…

http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/more-on-separatism#comments-52f916eae4b046b167b42498


62

Posted by Daniel Antinora on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:30 | #

You are preeminently reasonable per usual GW.

On Jews and the social construct, we are required to agree that race is socially constructed because Jews hold that their exceptionalism, upon which their millenarian project rests, is ethnic.  We, in total contrast, have no ethnicity nor even humanity, if you listen to some of them.  Or if we have it today, the work of perfecting the world consists in taking it from us.  It is “racism” if we perceive ourselves ethnically, and “anti-Semitism” if we should reject or resist being “perfected”.

Exactly. Social construct for thee but not for me.

It is that simple.  Jews are not sophisticated people.

They are the zenith of crudity. 

On the social construct itself, it is wildly misrepresented by the academics who have popularised it.  The only part of the mind which constructs is the intellectual faculty.

Are we saying that ‘abstraction’ and ‘construction’ are equal here? Are the senses themselves not directly ‘constructing’ the three dimensions? Are they not ‘creating’ space time in some way? In direct, Kantian fashion?

On the question of our intellectualism and theorising, it never ceases to amaze me how Americans, mostly, simply do not grasp the fact that they are living in, and are significantly products of, the thought-world all about them.

More specifically the vocabulary of the ruling class in my opinion. 

Further, all three perceptual systems must represent the world outside us within reasonable parameters of accuracy, or do so more often with accuracy than without it, so that adaptive life choices can predominate over maladaptive ones and selection for fitness can operate

That just does not follow and in fact, although names are escaping me at the present moment, there are certain evolutionary theories/theorists that suggest the opposite might be closer to the truth (not that it was totally related to your broader point)


63

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 23:46 | #

GW@59

Sums up the issues rather well.

Of course the most successful ideology is that which becomes ‘invisible’ - it’s simply the ‘common sense’ of an age or the ‘natural way of things’ or some such. As it is the American Ideology (viz the USA and its denizens) is one of the most remarkably successfully ideologies within modern history. But the most of the fish simply go on swimming in the water oblivious to their own ideological and historical formation as liberal subjects. The USA is possibly the most deeply ahistorical culture in world-history. It’s profoundly dismissive of its own contingent historicity - rather it embodies ‘timeless truth/values’ etc. Think of Carl Schmitt on the politics of ‘non-politics’ aka liberal jurisprudence and ‘natural’ or ‘self-evident’ rights etc.

The USA is the most anti-Heideggerian society (in its praxis) perhaps in all of human history - thus the most deeply committed to radical, eventually and evidently self-destructive, inauthenticity. Perhaps such inauthenticity is the true American art form? Jean Baudrillard certainly thought so:

““America is the original version of modernity. We [Europeans] are the dubbed or subtitled version. America ducks the question of origins; it cultivates no origin or mythical authenticity; it has no past and no founding truth. Having known no primitive accumulation of time, it lives in a perpetual present.”
― Jean Baudrillard, ‘America’.

But on the plus side - “Americans may have no identity, but they do have wonderful teeth.”

On social construction - of course some facts are socially constructed. The best selling pop single of last year is a socially constructed phenomenon - it’s hardly a natural-kind type ‘brute fact’ which is invariant with regard to human wishes or desires such as say the atomic number of oxygen is. Is that really all that hard for people to grasp? That ontologically different types of facts exist within the world?

Moreover with regard to different conceptual models of the world I hope some people would appreciate then this rather poorly rephrased passage from Merleau-Ponty’s, “The Visible and Invisible”:

“Western history reasonably thought it could by suspending phenomena to search for the reasons behind them explain with absolute certainty that which we have yet to understand. The problem however is that it is clear in the case of phenomena and reasons, it is always the case that the former comes BEFORE the latter and the latter are only there to confirm our thoughts when they are shaken, that is, when we stop SEEING.”

Or as Meno wrote: “If I have no idea what I’m looking for, then how can I begin to search for it. . . and if I already know exactly what it is I’m looking for, then why should I bother searching for it?” It’s the phenomena that come first, and our understanding/explanations of them, later.

All human beings, to some small degree, interpret the world and their experience within it. I don’t see any reason to deny this. Even the greatest scientific minds excel at hermeneutics - indeed must do so in order to be great scientific minds. Patterns present themselves through experience but the very best scientists (Darwin, Newton etc.) could see with more acuity and penetration what those patterns were and what they implied about the nature of the world. And whacky conspiracy theorists (Icke lovers et al.) are at the opposite end of the scale - always seeing a pattern that isn’t there. False positives via whatever psychological processes promotes apophenia. But even Icke and his fans are engaged in a project of interpretation of the world however silly, misguided, wrong or asinine.

On the political front facts either do (or do not) achieve political saliency by being ‘viewed’, or ‘understood’ or ‘interpreted’ via a process of individual and collective reflection (which are deeply interconnected reciprocally determined processes). Thus almost everyone can agree on the empirical facts regarding immigration to the USA (the numbers coming in per year). But as to what those numbers mean?

Well what could that meaning be other than a socially constructed/ideological one. Some forms of interpretation adhere far more to the true state of the world or the consequences of policy/action/inaction etc., others get it badly wrong. This, to my mind, seems an unremarkable position to adopt. Hence why socially constructed facts aren’t really a big problem for anyone other than the hard of thinking.

See my essay on “Justice and the Imagination”

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/justice_and_the_imagination

If I may quote myself:

“Agents, of both a collective and individual nature, have an interest in some state of affairs if it enables them to achieve their wants. But it is quite another thing to be aware of this interest; that entails both an ideological and imaginative transformation that allows that interest to be fully visible and informs an agent on how to potentially realise its interest. Often within our political discourse a restriction upon the exercise of a given interest or frustration of a want will be expressed in the idiom of injustice.

Precisely what are justice and injustice are obviously both, at least partially, ideologically and imaginatively forged concepts”

And,

“Here Ishiguro conveys another profound intuition. Clearly, injustice is a matter of some objective measure of victimisation, a structural relation in which some exploit or abuse others and deny them moral standing as subjects of justice. But the harm is compounded when the victims lack the means to interpret their situation as unjust. This can happen by deliberate manipulation - when, for example, the beneficiaries fully understand the injustice, but hide it from those on the receiving end. However, it can also happen in a more subtle way - when, for example, the public sphere in a seemingly democratic society is dominated by individualising discourses, while structural perspectives are absent or marginalised. Or when anodyne, euphemistic and vaguely elevating terms are routinely used to refer to murderous realities - as, for example, when forcible surgical removal of bodily organs is called ‘donation’ and the associated killing is called ‘completion’. In such cases, the dominant interpretative schemas reflect the experience and serve the interests of the exploiters. Conversely, the victims of injustice have few if any words that can adequately voice their experience and even fewer ways effectively to articulate their interests as a group. The result is yet another aspect or level of injustice: the ideologically constructed means of interpretation and communication do not serve all its members equally well.

Under these conditions, the victims lack an essential condition for responding appropriately to their situation. The fitting response to injustice, we assume, is indignation. However, that response is possible only where the victims of an injustice have access to interpretative schemas that permit them to categorize their situation not simply as unfortunate, but as unjust. Failing that, they tend to blame themselves. Convinced that their inferior status is deserved, they bury their legitimate anger and tie themselves in emotional knots. Thus an injustice in the social organisation of discourse produces psychological fallout.”

I guess those folk that forth at the mouth about the socially constructed nature/importance of some facts find the existence of novels (like Kazuo Ishiguro’s ‘Never Let Me Go’) deeply puzzling and offensive? After all how could ‘made-up bullshit’ or ‘imaginary nonsense’ be of any worth or import whatsoever? The vulgar Puritan mindset lives on it seems.

However, all serious (and even non-serious) thinking in some way involves counter-factuals, alternative putative states of affairs, possible worlds etc., in other words the use of our human powers including, in the most broad terms our imaginations, in the interpretation of the world and its possibilities.


64

Posted by Daniel Antinora on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 00:42 | #

All human beings, to some small degree, interpret the world and their experience within it. I don’t see any reason to deny this.

Because the world must be pre-interpreted or we end up skeptics. The facts must not be brute. They must all be related in the mind of God. The entire history of philosophy and Western Civilization is a testament to the fact that if we assume that autonomous human reasoning is sufficient for relating the facts of the universe we end up skeptics and in the very quandary Meno describes.

Either man must be omniscient and know all things a priori or he knows nothing and he has no way to extricate himself from the situation.

Hence why socially constructed facts aren’t really a big problem for anyone other than the hard of thinking.

Um… Or people that don’t wish to see the Truth relativized in such a fashion.


65

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 06:41 | #

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 19, 2014, 11:46 PM | #

GW@59

Sums up the issues rather well.

I don’t think so, but since Graham’s post is long, let me address a few other gambits and then GW’s post before examining Graham’s post.

First, Daniela panders (what a surprise)

“You are preeminently reasonable per usual GW.”

Where GW says: “On Jews and the social construct, we are required to agree that race is socially constructed because Jews hold that their exceptionalism, upon which their millenarian project rests, is ethnic.  We, in total contrast, have no ethnicity nor even humanity, if you listen to some of them.  Or if we have it today, the work of perfecting the world consists in taking it from us.  It is “racism” if we perceive ourselves ethnically, and “anti-Semitism” if we should reject or resist being “perfected”.

and DanielA proclaims, “Exactly. Social construct for thee but not for me.”

And that is exactly true that that is what Jews are doing with “social constructionism”, as I have indicated in the post. But it is not true of social constructionism applied honestly and in the best interest of European peoples.

Nor is it true that Jews (at least some) would not apply social constructionism to themselves, as any people who cared for themselves should - when properly applied, it is both benign and helpful.


Next, let me address Counter-Currents first gambit-yah?

Stark interviews some kid who is prepared to recognize Whites as socially constructed, but not as a people who should, therefore, be eliminated as unimportant.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/02/robert-stark-interviews-bay-area-guy-from-occident-invicta/

However, he indulges some inferences apparently convenient to counter currents. He adds that depiction of Whites as social constructed has caused them to react into searching for proofs in HBD, whereas that, and biological grounding, is unnecessary.

Well, we might have our suspicions why Matt and Greg might not want to consider HBD and biology important, but I certainly do not consider it unimportant; and it is certainly not mutually exclusive to social constructionism - not at all.

Furthering their motives to bring back some model of the leader or whatever, the invicta kid wants to be clear that he does not believe in biological superiority, but cultural superiority - now that’s another matter (counter currents might zeig heil! to that)

Finally, he wants to say that it is those old fogies who want to deconstruct the Frankfurt school. That the new (and CC hopes Hitler/Jesus) youth care about alternative economics, weight lifting and “game.”

On to a more serious concern for the rest of GW’s comment. He goes on to say:


“It is that simple.  Jews are not sophisticated people.  They model us now as they want us at the End Times.  It is that crude.  For our part, we never expect to encounter such audacity and aggression from other human beings, and we don’t want to believe that anyone (who might be likeable in other ways) could harbour such offensive sentiments.”

Yes. And you articulate my experience of them as well“we never expect to encounter such audacity and aggression from other human beings, and we don’t want to believe that anyone.” Exactly


“On the social construct itself, it is wildly misrepresented by the academics who have popularised it.”

That is true, for reasons I’ve acknowledged and mentioned in the post.

“The only part of the mind which constructs is the intellectual faculty.”

Here you are moving to a finer level of misunderstanding, as we move to non-verbal constructions which result from interaction (the alternative of which does not exist).


“It is, in fact, an associative modelling process.  It is such a massively ponderous and slow system, it swallows our attention and requires our consciousness to be seated within it.  In fact, race is primarily understood instinctively, in which no constructive activity is involved.” 


Our racial instincts are constructed in social interaction - that is not to say that they are “wrong” “untrue” or not so deeply seated as to be so hard programmed as to require a massive campaign of rewiring if they are to be subverted and circumnavigated.


“Only later, in the way of things, does emotion and then thought overlay the instinctual.”

Well, later, emotion and thoughtful reflection makes the response more complicated than instinctual

“Further, all three perceptual systems must represent the world outside us within reasonable parameters of accuracy,”

Absolutely: for reasons both factual and social. 

Jewish abuse of the notion has clearly misrepresented social constructionism to where it makes claims beyond what is reasonable and accurate. That is one reason why it is important to take the discipline back into our control.

“or do so more often with accuracy than without it, so that adaptive life choices can predominate over maladaptive ones and selection for fitness can operate.”


That does not contradict social constructionism; on the contrary, it rather has you sounding like a social constructionist (which is good).

“Whether there is socially-informed construction at work or not is irrelevant to whether the construction itself is sufficiently true.”

On the contrary, it is highly relevant. And unless our sociality conforms sufficiently to the facts we will die.


“On the question of our intellectualism and theorising, it never ceases to amaze me how Americans, mostly, simply do not grasp the fact that they are living in, and are significantly products of, the thought-world all about them.  If they grasp this at all, they very rarely take the idea forward critically. 
How can a perfectly unaware product of liberalism (I don’t mean leftism), which is a radically individualist as well as egalitarian and universalist philosophy, possibly generate a meta-political change to a naturalistic and particularist thought-world without “constructing” models of the respective paradigms and understanding their relation to one another?” 


I can’t speak for all Americans, but in my experience that is true enough; and I can say, prior to the internet, the media had Americans pretty much believing they had a good deal and that they had a sampling of all serious matters that there were to consider. Trips abroad were real eye openers in their variance from the stories told by the American media as opposed to the truth of these foreign people and their ways.

About Americans themselves, they were told that they could “be whatever they wanted to be and should be all they could be.” This perverted, individualist notion of self actualization is what I’d like to revisit and retool in my next post. I hope its improved discussion will contribute something of value to the ontology project.
.....


Back to the main topic: GW, you have got to understand that social constionism and hermeneutics does not contradict your ontology project if it is conducted properly - it would only enhance it. Properly applied, it does not deny science, facts, physical reality nor our best interests.

I understand the revulsion caused by Jewish abuse of these terms and theories, but that is part of their strategy - to turn us off to what is good for us and make us live up to what is errant in our philosophy and at odds with our well being.


66

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:15 | #

Sorry gentlemen, but all the pseudo-intellectual claptrap in the world is NOT going to solve the race-replacement/stealth genocide predicament white people have ensnared themselves in.

The only solution is White men need to grow a set... and .... (this is key) .... white women must back them up.

In large part, white Americans helped elect a racial-socialist, virulently anti-white president, then subsequently are allowing him to trample on all the principles they hold near and dear. Why are they allowing him to do so without impeaching the bastard? Because they are too afraid of being called a racist.

Think long and hard about that!

White people have willfully become a weak, pathetic, and morally degenerate race vulnerable to any group that wants to take advantage of them—even dumb Negros are doing so at will.

==

Coulter: Obama “Would Be Impeached If He Weren’t America’s First Black President”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/16/coulter_obama_would_be_impeached_if_he_werent_americas_first_black_president.html


67

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:35 | #

Allen West  said: “This is my clear and succinct message to white Americans. How long will it be before “you people” realize you have elevated someone to the office of president who abjectly despises you—not to mention his henchman Holder. Combined they are the most vile and disgusting racists—not you.”

Have you ever heard a white man or woman of any significance describe Obama or Holder in such terms?

Of course not.

The closest any white came was when Glenn Beck dared to proclaim that he thought Obama had a problem with white people. He made that comment over four years ago and he’s still suffering from the negative consequences because of it. That’s the kind of “anti-racist” society whites have allowed themselves to be subjected to.


68

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:39 | #

Posted by Thorn on February 20, 2014, 08:15 AM | #

Sorry gentlemen, but all the pseudo-intellectual claptrap in the world is NOT going to solve the race-replacement/stealth genocide predicament white people have ensnared themselves in.

The only solution is White men need to grow a set… and .... (this is key) .... white women must back them up.

Thorn Shut the Hell up! What is psuedo-intellectual, irrelevant or unimportant about what’s going on here? Nothing!!!!

The point is that something can be done despite the fact that your Jewish god(s) do not want us to realize that.

What are unhealthy diversions but endorsements of likes of Jewish Michael Savage. Take your sewage somewhere else.


69

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:25 | #

Labour supporters admit it: taxes are to punish the rich, not to raise revenue


What the F—k is up with 35% of the UKIP voters that support such a malicious policy?


70

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:28 | #

Graham, whose post was good, but in my estimation a little off in a few places writes:

“Or as Meno wrote: “If I have no idea what I’m looking for, then how can I begin to search for it. . . and if I already know exactly what it is I’m looking for, then why should I bother searching for it?” It’s the phenomena that come first, and our understanding/explanations of them, later.”


Of course the frame of what is sought can and should be moved, and moved more centrally in concern of the true object - the answer to which is fundamentally sought - social utility.

Graham adds:

“a natural-kind type ‘brute fact’ which is invariant with regard to human wishes or desires such as say the atomic number of oxygen is.

Its factuality nevertheless remains to us as it serves our social interest.


71

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:22 | #

What are unhealthy diversions but endorsements of likes of Jewish Michael Savage. Take your sewage somewhere else.

FWIW, Michael Savage is the ONLY national syndicated talk show host in the USA that expresses the absolute need to STOP the dispossession of Christian whites—both here and in Europe.

The abject stupidity of guys like you, Danny, is unfathomable. You don’t realize it—and probably never will—but you have trapped yourself in a losers arena.

 


72

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 03:42 | #

Posted by Thorn on February 20, 2014, 09:22 PM | #

  What are unhealthy diversions but endorsements of likes of Jewish Michael Savage. Take your sewage somewhere else.

FWIW, Michael Savage is the ONLY national syndicated talk show host in the USA that expresses the absolute need to STOP the dispossession of Christian whites—both here and in Europe.

The abject stupidity of guys like you, Danny, is unfathomable. You don’t realize it—and probably never will—but you have trapped yourself in a losers arena.


Michael Savage is not going to call attention to Jewish influence nor place sufficient emphasis on the Jewish role in immigration and other afflictions of Whites.

Take your appreciation of his and Glenn Beck’s efforts to another audience. Either you are too stupid to get that this inclusiveness of Jewish, Shabbos goy pseudo alliance is out of register here or you are being disingenuously encouraged to run interference.

Thorn’s place: to divert the masses haplessly into Christianity so that the elite Jews and elite Germanics can direct (or run over) their legions ...talk about useful idiots.


..you are really racking them up, Thornblossom: Ilana Mercer, Michael Savage, Paul Gottfried, David Horowitz..


73

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:44 | #

Danny,

Do yourself a favor and give Savage a fair hearing. The fact is he does place great emphasis on the jewish role in transforming America into AmeriKWA. To my knowledge, he is the only national voice who broaches that taboo subject. I’m surprised he’s gotten away with it thus far. That said, he’s by no means an ideal spokesmouth for WP; of course his first and foremost concern is what’s good for the jews. However he rightly believes it’s best for the jews to live in a majority white and Christian nation. IOWs he is not at extreme odds with white Christians the way the vast majority of jews are. Let us always be reminded that the defining feature of what a jew is is what a jew is not, and that would be a jew is not a Christian.

BTW, you can add the late Lawrence Auster to the list.


74

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:38 | #

.....
“BTW, you can add the late Lawrence Auster to the list.”

Yes, I’d forgotten and was about to add him, Auster.

“Let us always be reminded that the defining feature of what a jew is is what a jew is not, and that would be a jew is not a Christian.”

No. For people of native European extraction, the most important feature of Jews is that they are not native European; and with that, crucially, do not conduct themselves in the interests of native Europeans.

There will be Jews who try to cushion the backlash, pacify Whites and render them weak against Jews by encouraging Christianity, conservatism or liberalism: Savage, Auster, Gottfried, Horowitz, Atzmon, the Shamirs.

There was even a rabbi who endorsed a White religion on a thread under one of my posts - however, instead of being able to appreciate that, I was being kept busy by Joe the crazy Christian.

But these Jews must be seen correctly as doing what they are doing primarily for the interests of themselves and their people (recognizing correctly that their Jewish people have overcompensated) and not as a sign that they are one of us: they are not.

Not all Jews are so bad, not all blacks are so bad? Fine, let them be not so bad amongst their own. However, it is wrong to then be so uncritical of them as to not see that they are also encouraging ideas which, when followed, are self destructive for Whites.


75

Posted by Daniel Antinora on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 22:34 | #

It has always been my understanding that Savage exists specifically to bring conservative causes into disrepute. He’s a fucking maniac. Anything he touches ‘cause wise’ immediately gets ripped to shreds by the SF Weekly, The Chronicle, etc.

It is like he is intentionally a punching bag for the SF/Berkeley Jewish Left. From the moment he starts the show with that stupid Bauhaus track to the last few words he says. Like he is one part of the dialectic.


76

Posted by Daniel Antinora on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 23:58 | #

Re: Savage

Savage is Michael Wiener. In case anybody doesn’t understand just how strange and how Jewish he really is…

Well… Read this quick expose: http://www.sfweekly.com/2006-07-19/news/inside-the-savage-nation/


77

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 02:21 | #

Thank you DanielA. It makes sense.


Brother Nathaniel is another one apparently acting for a didactic effect.


78

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 07:54 | #

From the article Daniel Antinora linked to:

Those who dare disagree with Savage on-air are apt to be dismissed as “vermin” and get the treatment reserved for the caller with a Brooklyn accent who — rather mildly — suggests that maybe the host is being too harsh on Murtha. For that, he’s berated as “street slime from the gutters of Brooklyn.”

BWAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahha!!!!!!!!!

Of course Savage (or Weiner if you prefer) is using the term “street slime from the gutters of Brooklyn” as a code-word for Bolshevik jews. We can’t have that, can we?

Of course he’s a “punching bag” for left-wing jews (which comprise 90% of them), he unequivocally attacks all the left-wing causes jews are so invested in. For example:  Look how he attacks the Sodomite agenda! Just listen as the gay activists squeal: . “He panders to the extreme right of the extreme right,” says Cindi Creager of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which has long been at odds with Savage. “He’s not shaping the opinions of the moveable middle; he’s preaching to the choir.”

Not so Cindi baby! The fact is he is shaping the opinions of those in the “movable middle.” That’s why you perves deem him to be so dangerous.

Is it any wonder why Michael Savage is giving the left conniption fits? Is it any wonder why he was banned from entering Britain by their PC Thought Police?

Again, Savage is not the ideal mouthpiece for WP, but he is the only nationally syndicated talk show host that broaches the subject on the role jews are playing in the dissolution of a majority white-Christian America and replacing it with an multicultural dystopia.


79

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 09:03 | #

“Thus asketh Wormwood.

HEH!


Posted by Thorn on February 18, 2014, 07:36 PM | #

“Wormwood”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Screwtape_Letters

In The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis provides a series of lessons as to why you should take a deliberate role in living out a Christian life - that is of course, so that Israel and Jews will benefit in the end.

Undoubtedly we should follow the admirable path of advice set forth by C.S. Lewis and leave all monies to the daughters and sons of Israel:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_Davidman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Gresham

“Gresham’s mother had become friends with C. S. Lewis through correspondence, and the friendship blossomed, eventually leading to marriage in 1956. Gresham’s mother died of cancer in 1960, and Lewis continued to raise Douglas and his elder brother David. (Lewis had adopted the boys when he married, and The Horse and His Boy is dedicated to them both). At Lewis’ death in 1963, his estate went to his brother Major Warren Hamilton Lewis, a renowned scholar of French history. The Major in turn passed the estate to Douglas and David ten years later. Douglas Gresham acknowledged in a 15 November 2005 interview on NPR that he and his brother are estranged, although in a 4 December 2005 interview he did say that they are in email contact. Douglas Gresham is a Christian, as were Lewis and his mother, while David returned to the Orthodox Judaism of their mother’s family while still a child in Lewis’s home. Lewis made an effort to find kosher food for him.”


Add Stephen Steinleight to the list of Thorn’s Jewish approved diffusion and diversionary shills.


80

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 09:29 | #

Your mistaken ass in hanging out all over the place, Danny.

Steven Steinlight is an anti-white shitbag and I never indicated otherwise.

I wasn’t more than a week or so ago I linked to a piece The Irish Savant wrote about Steinlight. I’ll repost it:

My Righteous Jews spreadsheet


81

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 09:34 | #

Oh, Ok. Srike Steinlight from the list. The rest are ok LOL

lets see: Ilana Mercer, Michale Savage, Lawrence Auster, Gilod Atzmon, Paul Gottfriend, David Horowitz, the Shamirs, the Greshams…


82

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 10:11 | #

Never heard of Gilod Atzmon, the Shamirs, or the Greshams…

I don’t necessarily endorse David Horowitz, but I did agree with the quote of his I posted:

“Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.”

Other than that, I never mentioned his name or referred to him.


At any rate, your repeated asshat attempts to mischaracterize me as some sort of philo-Semitic
dupe are feeble at best. But that is the level of mentality I’ve come to expect from you.

 


83

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 10:57 | #

The Greshams are Jewish stepsons who gained C.S. Lewis’ * inheritance.

It is possible that you are not even aware of how philosemitic your motives you are as they are derivative.


* You cited C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters as a Christian cautionary tale against the corrupting (?) influence of my mentioning that I liked Jefferson Airplane music (under Neil’s post above, where he’d mentioned his appreciation for a later version of the group).


84

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 11:37 | #

derivative

Risible.

You are really stretching, Danny.

It think it’s pretty obvious my calling you Wormwood was in response to your revulsion of the term “White Zion”

I can assure you it had nothing to do wit your bizarre interests in the inter-personal relationships of a has-been acid 60s/70s acid rock band.


85

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Feb 2014 14:07 | #

Ok, it was in response to my (widely shared) revulsion over the proffered term, “White Zion”


86

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:40 | #

‘White Zion’ seeks to link up Christianity with what is in fact the world’s most successful modern nationalist movement, to appropriate for ourselves some of the Zionists’ moral prestige (at least in the eyes of many mostly American Protestant Christians).

The Zionists actually set out to win a homeland for themselves - and they did it!

What have we accomplished? We can’t even persuade our own countrymen not to commit race suicide.

If the Jews are allowed to have their homeland - a “distinctively Jewish state”, as the neocon Canadian Prime Minister Harper recently described Israel (how about a “distinctively Aryan state”, shitbag?) - why can’t whites have theirs? WZ is meant to call attention to this hypocrisy.

On so many levels, ‘White Zion’ is precisely the appropriate name for the concept it is meant to convey. It is outside-Europe-Euroman’s only hope for race survival (and maybe Euroman’s as well ...).


87

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:16 | #

That’s your argument for White Zion. It may work to wean evangelical types away from “Christian Zionism”. Those who insist on integrating Christianity are not the audience I serve. I find the term White Zion deeply offensive. I do not accept it nor will those White Nationalists who are not interested in biblical connotations and Jewish associations. I respect and serve the needs for this audience, not ones who want to entangle or align Whites with that tradition and its Judaic enmeshment.


88

Posted by CS on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:51 | #

@Leon

I think you’ll find this article interesting.

http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/more-on-separatism#comments-52f916eae4b046b167b42498

Please acknowledge this message.

Guessedworker, please post this message.


89

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:58 | #

CS,

When are the Christians and wannabee nazis and others of WN going to realise that they, along with white Americans everywhere, are standard-issue liberals?  It is impossible to create a blood community out of the liberal hyper-individualist paradigm without some solidising philosophy.

Is that really so hard to understand?


90

Posted by CS on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:24 | #

Guessedworker,

No I don’t understand what the problem is. Please elaborate.


91

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:24 | #

Christianity is not the problem, modern liberalism is.

When Christianity is combined with modern-liberalism, the latter invariably dominates the former. Because of that, it too often gives the wrong impression to those that are repulsed by Christian liberals that the Christian religion is the problem, when in fact it’s modern-liberalism that is the problem.

Christianity builds family and community; liberalism promotes individualism and most often leads to radical individualism (RI)—which, of course, is both family and nation destroying. A negative byproduct of our technological advancement perhaps?

At any rate, the problems with (RI) began to arise when modern-liberalism began to take form then grew to become the prevailing ideology of the ruling class. The ruling class then used the all means at their disposal to propagandized the masses with modern-liberalism.

Were/are the ruling class successful?

Well, the manner in which the vast majority of whites in all Western countries are quietly accepting their own dispossession is the hallmark of a propagandized society.


92

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:25 | #

Thorn,

Pauline Christianity is the bridge between Phariseeism and Enlightenment values.  That is, it abstracts the model of the denatured gentile in Olam Ha-ba and hands it on batten-like to post-Christian/modern liberal thought.  Thence we get the notion of “the liberal individual” neatly excised from his own nature and peoplehood, and endowed with the coercives of equality and justice and the delusions of freedom and perpetual ascent.

CS,

Reaction is not an idea.  In the absence of ideas there is only the default of American liberalism.  If you question this sad state of affairs, it rather confirms my thesis.

Look, let’s approach this another way.  What is the guiding philosophy of nationalist America?  What are its intellectual and political antecedents?


93

Posted by CS on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:38 | #

Guessedworker,

You’re suggesting what we propose won’t work long term because it is what existed in the past and subsequently failed. I’ll say it didn’t exist in the past but let’s pretend it did. If that is the case, what do you propose as a solution?


94

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:50 | #

CS,

I am saying that the air you breathe, the water you drink, the life you live is liberal air, liberal water, liberal life.  If you don’t change default liberalism ... if you don’t even understand what that means ... the same liberal action will emerge in the new polity.  The same values, the same gods, the same damned politics will return again and again.  Because there is nothing else.  There is no guiding philosophy of nationalist America but liberalism.


95

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:09 | #

CS@88

I tried that link, bro, and it came up NOTHING. Blank white space, except on the screen left, which was blank black space. Repost, and I’ll check it out on Thursday Feb 27 (I’m really busy until then).

Thorn@91

Great comment! I hope I don’t sound patronizing when I note that the intellectual quality of your comments has markedly improved over the past year. You definitely ‘get’ the essence of our struggle.

As to the substance of your observation, I have long stated that there must be an ideological reformation of modern Christianity, especially of our Catholic Church. Our church has veered dramatically to the left in my mother’s lifetime, or so she tells me. It pains me to acknowledge that the church is on the wrong side of nearly every issue except abortion and marriage.

But that leftism is absolutely not an endogenous aspect of the faith. It is a series of problematic if not downright heretical imports into it. Idiots would then have us give up the faith, instead of fighting the heresies. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater!!

Christianity properly (classically) understood is indeed deeply conducive not only to family formation, but also to right character building, and, even more important, to the defeat of nihilism and ennui. The modern church may be a fifth column in the West, but that was never ineluctable, nor is it inevitable that this liberal universalist status quo will be permanent. Just because the church speaks to all men (and thus is universal or “catholic”) doesn’t mean, to put it crassly, that everyone has to live next door to each other, or intermarry. I have encountered nothing in either the Bible or the Church Fathers suggesting that sort of imperative. Neither Bible nor Church reject the world as it is. Their battle is against personal sin - not the shoving of false messiahs like “Diversity” down people’s throats.

Those WPs who declaim against the faith do so because of personal antagonisms, not superior understanding.


96

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:15 | #

I am saying that the air you breathe, the water you drink, the life you live is liberal air, liberal water, liberal life.  If you don’t change default liberalism ... if you don’t even understand what that means ... the same liberal action will emerge in the new polity.  The same values, the same gods, the same damned politics will return again and again.  Because there is nothing else.  There is no guiding philosophy of nationalist America but liberalism. (GW)

Yet America got along just fine with our, not “radical”, but Scottish Enlightenment or bourgeois, classical liberalism. What changed was the embrace of racial liberalism - which however is not at all unique to the States. The UK is arguably even more race-PC than the US.

The original American Idea combined limited constitutional government and free market capitalism, with very clearheaded racial realism. Are those views in fundamental conflict? Why?


97

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:36 | #

“The original American Idea combined limited constitutional government and free market capitalism, with very clearheaded racial realism. Are those views in fundamental conflict? Why?”

It is an apparent obfuscatory tactic applied by Leon to imperviously re-ask questions as if answers have not been provided to them in the post and thread.


98

Posted by CS on Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:41 | #

@Leon

Try this perhaps…

http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/more-on-separatism


99

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 02:25 | #

Equally it may be argued, quite effectively, that the bridge built by Paul was one founded in Hellenism, or Hellenistic Judaism, that found the belief in humanism, equality and universalism well established in various Greek philosophy. And to deny that the ancient Jewish sects were not awash in Hellenistic cultural is as preposterous as denying the preponderance of liberalism in the modern day.

Contrary to the belief put forth by many in this thread, KMac writes that thirteenth century Western Christianity was reactive (or mirrored) antisemitism that was singularly group focused…

Thirteenth-century Western Christianity was, ideally at least, a
societas christiana : “All of society came to be viewed as an organic unity, whose
raison d’être consisted of striving for and ultimately realizing the perfect
unity of Christ on earth.” (Cohen 1982, 248). Christianity had become “a
single social organism” (Lawrence 1992, 157)—unified under the pope,
substantially independent of secular power, and with a high level of
religious enthusiasm and commitment at all levels of society. The group, not
the individual was paramount, and every aspect of behavior was evaluated
according to its effect on the harmonious organic whole. Indeed, Cohen
(1982, 264) points out that many of the friars who developed the new,
negatively-toned theological conceptualization of Judaism also had well-
developed anti-individualist views, in which people were to strive for the
benefit of the entire society.

Prof Fraser, in his book the ‘Wasp Question’, outlines how and why the organic Christian entity that was medieval Europe split along secular and religious lines.


100

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 02:42 | #

Desmond,

Paul was a Hellenised Jew.  Tarsus was a Hellenised city.  It is clear that Paul re-shaped Phariseeism for the gentile of the Roman world he knew.  The Pharisaic view of the gentile passed into that of Talmudism.  The universalised and collectivised gentile that is described in that passage you quote fits perfectly well with the (later) Talmudic view of the gentile.  I see no conflict.


101

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:03 | #

Leon@95

Thanks for the compliment. A year ago I had nowhere to go but up. Obviously there is still plenty room for improvement (that I know), but isn’t that the case for all of us?


102

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:07 | #

.............
Thornblossom says:

“Danny,

Nobody (Repeat: NOBODY!) takes anything you have to say as serious thought.

Hasn’t it occurred to you yet?

HELLO!!!!!

The best we can do is make his stay uncomfertable.”


As if Thornblossom has not been trying to do that for over a year now.

He doesn’t have a prefigured agenda or anything?

One which would have him imperviously talking over whatever I might say?

The central questions are

1. Why don’t he and his tag-team partner, Haller, go to a Christian site?

2. Who put them up to this harassment and derailing of threads meaningful to White Nationalists?

On the positive side, they make it clear that our enemies

1. Want to impose Christianity on Whites as a fallback diversion (obviously because it would make our people hapless, illogical and gullible idiots)

2. React with hysteria when something is threatening to them. That is, you should look carefully at what has them reacting as such, what is it that they want to discredit? What do they not want you to see? When things are written that they don’t want people to see, why are they nearly hysterical in their wish to destroy the messenger with ad hominem; to divert and drown that message with cut and paste boiler plate?

Like the hysterical Jewish female spirit that infests them, they will hysterically hang-on, clinging tooth and nail, rather than let us talk about what we might talk about, elaborate on careful premises in our interests.

Thorn and Haller do not even have the decency and common courtesy to go to one of the many sites where the stuff they profess to care about would be in agreement with the editorial calibration.
...............


103

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 06:39 | #

If you construct a building, is it an illusion? And is it constructed by one person alone, or does it require the cooperation of others at least somewhere along the line (even if only prerequisite parental nurturing of the rugged individualist builder)? Is the construction nevertheless really subject to laws of physics and biology? Are the constraints meted-out by physics and biology nevertheless a moot point if not assessed by people of conversation with a determination by relative consensus as to how those constraints come to count in terms of any action to be taken in response?


104

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:46 | #

....and if it is constructed over the course of 41,000 thousand years, through a myriad of concerns, interactions, struggles and innovations during the course of that time, is it “just” or “merely” anything, but rather something profoundly important?
..............


105

Posted by Guest Blogger on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 03:38 | #

Remembering Martin Heidegger:
September 26, 1889–May 26, 1976
by Greg Johnson


1,540 words

Martin Heidegger is one of the giants of twentieth-century philosophy, both in terms of the depth and originality of his ideas and the breadth of his influence in philosophy, theology, the human sciences, and culture in general.

Heidegger was born on September 26, 1889, in the town of Meßkirch in the district of Sigmaringen in Baden-Württemberg, Germany. He died on May 26, 1976 in Freiburg and was buried in Meßkirch.

Heidegger was from a lower-class Catholic family. His family was too poor to send him to university, so he enrolled in a Jesuit seminary. But Heidegger was soon rejected by the Jesuits due to a heart condition. He then studied theology at the University of Freiburg from 1909–1911, after which time he switched his focus to philosophy. Eventually Heidegger broke entirely with Christianity.

In 1914 Heidegger defended his doctoral dissertation. In 1916, he defended his habilitation dissertation, which entitled him to teach in a German university. During the First World War, Heidegger was spared front duty because of his heart condition.

From 1919 to 1923, Heidegger was the salaried research assistant of Edmund Husserl at the University of Freiburg. Husserl, who was a Jewish convert to Lutheranism, was the founder of the phenomenological movement in German philosophy, and Heidegger was to become his most illustrious student.

In 1923, Heidegger was appointed assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Marburg. There his intense and penetrating engagement with the history of philosophy quickly became known throughout Europe, and students flocked to his lectures, including Hans-Georg Gadamer, who became Heidegger’s most eminent student, as well as such Jewish thinkers as Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt, and Hans Jonas. In 1927, Heidegger published his magnum opus, Being and Time, the foundation of his world-wide fame. In 1928, Husserl retired from the University of Freiburg, and Heidegger returned to replace him, remaining in Freiburg for the rest of his academic career.

Heidegger was elected rector of the University of Freiburg on April 21, 1933. Heidegger joined the ruling National Socialist German Workers Party on May 1, 1933. In his inaugural address as rector on May 27, 1933, and in political speeches and articles from the same period, he expressed his support for the NSDAP and Adolf Hitler. Heidegger resigned as rector in April 1934, but he remained a member of the NSDAP until 1945. After the Second World War, the French occupation authorities banned Heidegger from teaching. In 1949, he was officially “de-Nazified” without penalty. He began teaching again in the 1950–51 academic year. He continued to teach until 1967.

A whole academic industry has grown up around the question of Heidegger and National Socialism. It truly is an embarrassment to the post-WW II intellectual consensus that arguably the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century was a National Socialist. But the truth is that Heidegger was never a particularly good National Socialist.

Yes, Heidegger belonged intellectually to the “Conservative Revolutionary” milieu. Yes, he thought that the NSDAP was the best political option available for Germany. But Heidegger’s view of the meaning of National Socialism was rather unorthodox.


Heidegger viewed the National Socialist revolution as the self-assertion of a historically-defined people, the Germans, who wished to regain control of their destiny from an emerging global-technological-materialistic system represented by both Soviet communism and Anglo-Saxon capitalism. This revolt against leveling, homogenizing globalism was, in Heidegger’s words, “the inner truth and greatness” of National Socialism. From this point of view, the NSDAP’s biological racism and anti-Semitism seemed to be not only philosophically naive and superficial but also political distractions.

Heidegger knew that Jews were not Germans, and that Jews were major promoters of the system he rejected. He was glad to see their power broken, but he also had cordial relationships with many Jewish students, including extramarital affairs with Hannah Arendt and Elisabeth Blochmann (who was half-Jewish).

In the end, Heidegger believed that the Third Reich failed to free itself and Europe from the pincers of Soviet and Anglo-Saxon materialism. The necessities of re-armament and war forced a rapprochement with big business and heavy industry, thus Germany fell into the trammels of global technological materialism even as she tried to resist it.

Read Greg Johnson’s full article at Counter-Currents
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/09/remembering-martin-heidegger-4/

Ultimately, Heidegger’s philosophy — particularly his account of human being in time, his fundamental ontology, his account of the history of the West, and his critique of modernity and technology — is of greater significance…..than his connection with National Socialism. It is a measure of the embryonic nature of our movement that we just beginning to deal with his work.


106

Posted by Social construct business on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:30 | #

http://www.dailystormer.com/sargon-of-akkad-is-just-an-sjw-who-hates-women/comment-page-1/#comment-1929242

Andrew Anglin - “This “race is a social construct” business is a rejection of the existence of genetic science and evolutionary biology in favor of a theory of magical happenings.”


No it isn’t.


107

Posted by WWS no judge of Tan's epistemological merit on Wed, 20 May 2015 13:16 | #

Proving that Wolf Wall Street is no judge of epistemological merit, he calls Tan the “best epistemologist” among WN. Then Tanstaafl produces this - which, in effect, is an accounting of some of the Jewish abuses of “social constructionism”, distortions that began with Boas:

http://age-of-treason.com/2015/05/19/anti-racism-is-a-jewish-construct/

Most of us are familiar, from various sources, with Boas and Trotsky’s seminal roles in “anti-racism.”

Tan’s epistemology lacks the word “mere” and there we could agree, if he were to add that: the White race is not a mere social construct, it is a real social construct that has biological constraints which are not a trivial matter. Understanding our nature and reconstructing what is good for us is the most important matter in the world - reconstructing our people, a social, jointly negotiated matter: social contructionism proper is an anti-Cartesian notion to begin; therefore it must not contradict physical reality in being true to its anti-Carteisn mandate, but rather enhances science in looking after our people. Whereas “anti-racism”, its prejudice against prejudice and social classification, is Cartesian.

Therefore, anti-racism belies social constructionism proper.

I will, however, accept “anti-racism is a Jewish construct” as a valid and good line. I could have and would readily say the same thing myself.

Tan is a smart guy, but title of “our greatest epistemologists”, as Wolf Wall Street would propose to confer upon him, he does not merit. Unfortunately, WWS will tend to promote anybody who is not particularly critical of Hitler. He was ready to get away from that some months ago, but got talked back into Hitler idolatry.

 


108

Posted by Driving while White on Thu, 21 May 2015 00:13 | #

We have been working to create a comprehensive look at black on white murders for the years 2014 and 2015. Many media bosses openly admit that they censor black on white crime. We have been working to collect the biggest sample size of black on white murders possible.

From information we have already collected, many important conclusion can already be drawn. People who drive taxi cabs, deliver pizza, or deliver other food items are probably in much greater danger of being killed on the job than police officers. The overwhelming majority of these killings seem to be black on white and black on Asian. For people who delivery food or drive a cab, this is important information that they should be aware of. They should not be put in greater danger by having this information censored in the name of political correctness.

Also, large numbers of young white males and females are being murdered while trying to buy marijuana off of black dealers. The perps never acquire any significant monetary gain from the murders. They simply kill the victim for the fun of it and to gain street cred. The media often blames the white victim and calls it “a drug deal gone bad.”


109

Posted by Anti-racism is a Jewish construct on Thu, 21 May 2015 00:14 | #

I will, however, accept “anti-racism is a Jewish construct” as a valid and good line.

It is largely true and good for naming the Jew.

I have been saying:

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people.

The reason that I have done that is to cast the premises stealthily in neutral terms that can go across in public, cause consternation and problematize the whole matter of anti-racism.

Whereas “you’re just saying that because I’m White” can have problems for the definition of “White”, which ruin the hoped for smooth effect with some people and in some places. While naming the Jew right away, “a Jewish construct” can be a dead ringer as well, true enough though it is.

Still, my “mantra” was not to distract from the J.Q. as Bowery apparently paranoically surmised.

Nor is criticizing Cartesian and empirical philosophy a means for me to distract from the J.Q., denounce science or “demoralize our people” as Bowery has paranoically and angrily charged me with.

Hermeneutics is not against science, it is against scientism - which is bad science or bad application of science. In fact, it is a means to correct scientism - bad science and bad applications of science.

Bowery tried to order me to not invoke critiques of modernity and Cartesianism, despite well established philosophical criticism and answers to these philosophies.

........................................................

“Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.” In some places you might want to lead with that. It depends upon the context.

I could have said the same thing and would in fact.

“Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.”

I could happily use this as a mantra, with a caveat regarding mantras, that to best effect, they will of course have to change sometimes according to context and audience. Such is the judgement and deft rhetoric required of praxis as opposed to the plodding imperviousness of scientism.

The two aphorisms go well together:


Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people. Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.


110

Posted by Greg Johnson's bum steer on Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:50 | #

In my experience of people throughout my life, from the most ordinary to the most gifted and learned, I have yet to meet someone who is not in some ways intelligent and in someways a bit, lets be kind, ordinary.

Our feet are on the ground.

The same can be said of Greg Johsonon. He does not speak for all of White Nationalism and all he shows in this article is that he neither understands social constructionism nor its purpose. He is giving a bum steer that the lame will take.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/why-race-is-not-a-social-construct/

What he has done with this article is set up a bunch of straw men about what social constructionism is supposed to be. It may be what rogues under the banner of social constructinism might do, but it is not social constructionism proper.

Farther, he says that if “everything is a social construct then there is nothing to contast it with.” That isn’t true.

For the most fundamental example, at one end there are facts which are more objective and on that end social construction would be more a matter of how those facts count. On the other end one might literally construct things with other people.

Social constructionism (proper) doesn’t deny facts, but it does provide for agency and social agency in regard to how those facts count. That is a social agency that we need.


Jews have abused this notion in order to make it didactic, to make Whites react into becoming right wingers and as such, react in a way so as to repel, if not scare (our) people from participation by denying agency and accountability.


111

Posted by episteme/ techne in Aristotle and modernity on Sun, 09 Aug 2015 10:40 | #

Ambiguity and some interchangeableness in Aristotle’s use of episteme and techne.

As I have described in the piece above, it is the relation of techne and theoria which is seen as most problematic in that it instigates Cartesian detachment from the social world of praxis.

The concern is to correct the Cartesian relation (or non relation, as it were) of knower to known.

As such, I have taken some liberty (but only some, as I will explain below) with three categories of ends and means set out by Aristotle.

When trying to frame the categories which help analyse where Western man’s philosphy went wrong - into Cartesian detachment from the social - I have characterized the means and ends in this manner:

Theoria is the ends of detached, universal truth.

Techne is its means - by which I mean objectively detached technology and rigorous method.

Praxis is the socially interactive and reflexively agentive world.

Phronesis are the practical judgments, the contingent and unfinished but working hypotheses which must suffice to make one’s way in praxis.

Poesis is the world of the arts - a means to understand life more accurately or in an instructively different way.

Epistemology is the matter of judgment - a thinking about thinking, premises which combine the practical with the aesthetic.

From what I gather of post modern philosphy, it is concerned with the destruction of the modernist, Cartesian pursuit of universal theoria and the imperviousness of its technological means (techne).

The concern is to correct the relation of knower to known as it was conceived from detached individualism and its implied social destruction in the Cartesian model, to where theory is ultimately housed completely within the domain of praxis - that is to say, the philosophical pursuits of ends are taken to be social - a relative, people centered world view as opposed to a world view where the apprehension of mere facts was supposed to somehow provide a virtue behond humans.

I believe I have this correct in terms of the important framwork at hand for Western man.

The only problem is, Aristotle’s means and ends were normally characterized a little differently. For him, for the most part…

Praxis corresponded to phronesis, yes, but..

Theoria corresonded to episteme ..and..

Poesis corresonded to techne.


Where did I go wrong? Well, I didn’t exactly go wrong, especially not in the utility of what I am trying to do in framing the task at hand for western man to cure his anti-social world view which leaves him so suscepible to “anti racism.”  In terms of what I am trying to do, I am quite right.

More, I would want to see an ambiguity between episteme and techne as an ambiguity part and parcel of both a description of the problem and the cure of the relation of knower to known.

As it turns out, my professors and erudition which led me to believe that the key problem that needed to be cured was the aspect of detachment of knower to known of Catesianism and its ramifications was correct.

“Technology”, techne in the more modern sene, would be a a more modern, modernist and scientific expression of the means to foundational theoria.

Moreover, there was overlap and alternation in Aristotle himself in his use of the terms techne and episteme.

Rather than have these words fight eachother and fight “what Aristotle meant by them”, I would rather say that I will stand by the framework that I have set out [theoria/techne   praxis/phronesis poesis/episteme] as a relation which better describes our modern framework of knower to known, the problems caused by this, the previous epoch’s arrangement of these means and ends, and the suggestion for correction implied in this arrangment.

I will note the ambiguity in Aristotle’s use of the terms episteme and techne as he would use both in relation to theoria.  While techne was a more special case in its use in relation to theoria, it is an obvious inference that as science gained momentum in subsequent centuries, even over philosphy, that the concern and question concerning technology in puruit of universal truths would become problematic for its imperviousness, detachment, inorganicness, lack of social concern (accountability) and non-recognition of social indebtedness.

..........................
Though I am prepared to admit now that I am using a more modern arrangment of the means and ends in relation of knower to known…this passage from The Stanford Encylcopedia on “Episteme and Techne” discusses the ambiguity that existed to some extent already in Aristotle’s use of episteme and techne - techne which he did see as a necessary aspect in pursuit of theoria. 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/

But since accidental factors are infrequent, one can claim that for the most part heat causes homogeneity. In view of this kind of contingency, what the physician can claim to know is that heat produces homogeneity unless something unusual intervenes. In his deliberations, what he does not know is when something unusual will happen (Nicomachean Ethics, 1112a20-1112b10).

Scientific knowledge, in the strict sense, does not deal with these kinds of contingency. Nevertheless, Aristotle still describes medicine — which does deal with contingency — as an epistêmê, as we have seen. Indeed, from time to time, Aristotle mentions epistêmê and technê in the same breath, as though they are not as distinct as Nicomachean Ethics VI would make them seem. In the Physics (194a20), Aristotle argues that the student of nature will study both form and matter. To illustrate he says that it belongs to the same epistêmê to study the form as well as the matter; the physician, for instance, studies health as well as bile and phlegm. In Nicomachean Ethics, in his polemic against the Platonic notion of the good itself— using epistêmê and technê indifferently — Aristotle says the physician does not study health as such but human health — even the health of this human because it is individuals that he cures (1097a10-15). Clearly, if medicine is an epistêmê which studies health, it is also a technê which produces health. If he were using epistêmê in its strict sense, he ought not to have called medicine epistêmê. Indeed, the mixing of epistêmê and technê is not confined to medicine. In Nicomachean Ethics II, when he illustrates the notion of the mean between extremes, he cites experts in physical training. Then he says that every epistêmê achieves well its goal (ergon) by looking at the mean and using that as a standard in its products. His use of the words technitai (craftsmen) and technê to describe this phenomenon shows that he is not thinking of epistêmê in its strict sense (1106b5-15).

Thus, a mixed picture of epistêmê and technê begins to emerge. While technê deals with things which change, Aristotle still has a tendency to call it epistêmê. The reason for this tendency is probably that, while the person with technê does not have epistêmê in the strict sense, he has something close to it. At the beginning of the Metaphysics, Aristotle says that the person with epistêmê and the person with technê share an important similarity. There Aristotle contrasts the person of experience (empeiria) with someone who has technê or epistêmê. The former knows that, when Callias had such and such disease, thus and such helped him, and the same for Socrates and many others. However, the person who has a technê goes beyond experience to a universal judgment. This judgment is that this remedy helped all individuals of this type, with this disease. Examples of the types of individuals are the phlegmatic and the bilious, when afflicted with a burning fever (981a5-15). However, it is important to note that the universals cited — phlegmatic and bilious — have a role to play in explaining a fever and, thus, a role to play in the account of a cure. As Aristotle says, the master craftsman (technitês) is wiser than the person of experience because he knows the cause, the reasons that things are to be done. The mere artisan (cheirotechnês) acts without this knowledge (981a30-b5). Aristotle goes on to say that in general the sign of knowing or not knowing is being able to teach. Because technê can be taught, we think it, rather than experience, is epistêmê ( 981b10). Presumably the reason that the one with technê can teach is that he knows the cause and reason for what is done in his technê. So we can conclude that the person with technê is like the person with epistêmê; both can make a universal judgment and both know the cause.

Thee Stoics shed some light as well:

While virtue is compared to a technê, it is also a complete and unshakeable understanding of the universe. It has then some of the features of an epistêmê in Aristotle’s strong sense.


If reason is the craftsman of impulse and if technê implies knowledge, then it molds one’s impulsive feelings, i.e., the ones that lead one to act, through knowledge of the good.

What happens by nature is governed by universal law, which is right reason pervading everything and is identical with Zeus, who is the leader of the governance of everything (Diogenes Laertius, 7.87-8). The consequence is that the sage’s reason, endowed with knowledge of the way right reason pervades the universe, supervenes on impulse with the good of the whole in view. Chrysippus says that there is no other or more appropriate way of approaching the account of things which are good and bad or the virtues or happiness than from universal nature and from the governance of the universe. (Plutarch. On Stoic Self-contradictions 1035 C-D)

At this point, we can appreciate the way Stoicism presents a distinct view of the relation between epistêmê and technê. Socratic intellectualism holds that what one knows to be good is sufficient for one to do what is good.


The other type is practical (and internal to moral reasoning) and comes from failure to know that virtue is living in accordance with nature and is the only good. This type of false opinion gives rise to such emotions as fear, which impede living in accordance with nature. Once these are swept away, knowledge of what is good is motivation enough to act. In the sage, then, where the unity of the soul is perfected, the theoretical grasp characteristic of epistêmê just is a technê.

....

The way this technê works is illustrated in another widely held Stoic teaching, i.e., the unity of the virtues. Zeno held that virtue is practical knowledge (phronêsis) in various forms. When phronêsis deals with what is owed to others it is justice (dikaiosunê); when it deals with what should be chosen it is moderation (sôphrosunê); when it deals with what must be endured it is courage (andreia). In all of these definitions Zeno means phronêsis to be knowledge (epistêmê) (Plutarch, On moral virtue 441A). According to Sextus, the Stoics say that phronêsis, being knowledge (epistêmê) of the good and the evil, provides a technê concerning life (SVF III 598)

This special technê does consist in a secure and unshakeable insight into what is appropriate at each juncture of life.


112

Posted by Stormtrooper misrepresents social as subjective on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:26 | #

Stormtrooper misrepresents the critical analysis of social agency by casting it in subjective terms:

Storm Trooper radio, along with the rest of the right-wing, cannot come to terms with social constructionism.

Therefore, they continue to straw-man in its theoretical regard.

On today’s Stormtrooper radio [Date: 01-08-16], Truck Roy talks with Don Black about why race trumps individualism.

They make some good points; e.g., that the race lives-on where the individual life does not…

But for their “interesting” right-wing reasons, they try to get around social constuctionism when making the case for valuing the social (which race is, after all - viz. a social grouping) over individualism.

What they try to do is argue against subjectivist agency in constructing race.

Well, that would be subjective constuctionism, not social constructionism, in that case. But they remain determined to argue against the idea that “race is just a social contruct” which no sane person, or social constructionist proper, is saying anyway. However, to argue against ‘race is just a social construct’, they present a subjectivist straw man argument, proceeding in this way:

Roy: “With regard to race, the only [subjective] choice is whether you are going to be loyal or not.”

Don: [sarcastically] “Since race is JUST a social construct, I’m [subjective] going to construct myself as not White as Rachel Dolezol did.”

Its social constructionism, folks, not subjective constructionism, or solipsism as it were, as their straw man would stealthily have it.

It is extremely important to counter their misprepresentation because the social unit of analysis connects agency to the social, to the race, and not just to the subjective, as they would attempt to have it (agency or not) in their right-wing, Cartesian [mis]conception.

The subjective starting point is the classic Cartesian starting point - “I think therefore I am.”


113

Posted by TRS discusses Vico on Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:14 | #

Right Stuff Radio discuss Vico.

The first philospher to note that different historical epochs entail differing world views.

He would thus be a forefather of the concept of Monoculture - Traditional/Ethnocentric culture - Modernity - Post Modernity



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Apocalypto and Conan - warrior myths
Previous entry: Sunic on Tragedy & Myth in Ancient Europe & Modern Politics

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

15 and Pregnant commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 20 Jan 2018 02:17. (View)

Mixed signal for Whitey, not for bloods commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 20 Jan 2018 01:53. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'A crisis in the custody suite – seventh (and final) part' on Sat, 20 Jan 2018 00:58. (View)

Another question from Chris L. commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 23:47. (View)

Ahed Tamimi interviewed commented in entry '“Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom”: Norman Finkelstein on the Many Lies Perpetuated About Gaza' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 11:12. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:11. (View)

Putinism commented in entry 'Putin's Revenge' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 08:12. (View)

Jewish occupy, demonstrate for open borders USA commented in entry 'Africans Deported from Israel “Appear” in Rome' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:08. (View)

question commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:15. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:43. (View)

Crazy Over You commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:22. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:24. (View)

I'm a Man commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:41. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Carolyn Emerick talks pagan folk culture and ethnonationalism with Tara's alt-right panel' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:15. (View)

uh commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:07. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Carolyn Emerick talks pagan folk culture and ethnonationalism with Tara's alt-right panel' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 07:18. (View)

100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 06:39. (View)

The ancient is the modern commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 02:19. (View)

100% European but you might not guess commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:45. (View)

Near 100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:18. (View)

95% Native American (Central) commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:11. (View)

20% sub-Saharan commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:53. (View)

We knew these things commented in entry 'Hermeneutic construction of Putin and Trump's character, positions and relation:' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:13. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:18. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:09. (View)

henry m commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:29. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:51. (View)

This is the Day commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:17. (View)

Emerald City commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:46. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'America: Making The World Safe for Hypocrisy' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:41. (View)

Anything, Anything commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:26. (View)

The Allman Brothers commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:04. (View)

Nobody to Depend on commented in entry 'America: Making The World Safe for Hypocrisy' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:56. (View)

Pearl Jam commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:09. (View)

John McLaughlin commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:55. (View)

affection-tone