Adaptive traits certainly are socially constructed, if only for how they come to count for us.

It is an epistemologial blunder, of course, to try to founationalize our cause in “nature.”

First of all, because that would not follow in terms of describing what our nature does.

We seek to assimilate natural health and natural ways which are conducive to the well being of our people, but we do not simply let nature dictate the terms of our interests - for an obvious example, we do not simply let a virus destroy our people, but we develop means to deal with it, from vaccines, to quarantine, improved practices, sanitation and so on.

What that is describing even, is the fact that we are founded in our people’s interests first - not firstly in nature, the ‘interests’ of its viruses and so on. We look at nature as a guide and check points to health and non-health.

But to foundationalize our cause in nature is an epistemologial blunder.

The proper foundation is in Social Constructionism. In our people. That is the position of Praxis, following Aristotle’s corrective program. And then, very much in line with Aristotle again, we look to nature as guide-line check points of a healthy social system - e.g. placing value on optimality as opposed to maximization as a guide to homeostasis (racial autonomy).

A social constructionist perspective sensitizes us to our interactive connection, indebtedness and therefore indebtedness to our people, our forebears, to our corrective social systemic homeostasis at present and our responsibility to our future.

Next, we deploy the Hermeneutic turn when this positive view is cramping our breadth of perspective, individualism and imagination - we use it to gain more historical perspective, or novel ideas, concrete practical insights, or we become a bit more Platonic, say, in order to get a broader formal perspective on our systems, and develop working hypotheses. But the Hermeneutic turn is always duty bound to its circulation of inquiry, against Cartesian runaway, it will return to empirical verification wherever necessary or desired.

                    DanielS

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 17:41 | #

The parasite wants the Hermeneuticist Cricket to ignore the reality that “individuals” will,

Maybe he does, but the Hermeneuticist is keen, in fact, provides a key understanding and means of agency, by either corporeal or autobiographical self, so as to not let that individual will be ignored.

if left to make their own conscious choice of so-called “social contract,”

I don’t talk much in terms of ‘social contract’. I believed that term has been tarnished a bit by being among the Lockeatine repertoire that we’re trying to correct for, but it doesn’t bother me.

will largely choose to assort along lines that correspond

Probably would sort on racial lines (as they do in the lunch room or in jail), but there apparently has to be more deconstruction of Jewish language games that have White people mystified (with tangles, confusion, paradoxes, loops, the golden rule and so on) and in fear (with bugaboos like Christianity). I can give myself credit for doing well in that regard.

to what I, in 1998 (long before “DNA Nation” was coined by anyone), described as DNA-testing-based nations. Of course I got the idea basically from Wilmot Robertson’s Ethnostate—and simply adorned it with the then-emerging DNA sequencing technology.

I never claimed the idea of a DNA Nation came to me ex nihilo - for me it is a matter of trying to put into effect the idea of ‘your race is your skin” or “O.R.I.O.N.”

I put your name and the seeds of your Sortocracy idea in there hoping that you would see that your efforts were respected, that your competence to help guide the project would be encouraged - that you would see that the project was not antagonistic to your interests.

I also did that to try to re-direct your competitive tendency to take an “I did that first, long ago”, angle with ideas that I’d propose. That you were a bit too competitive in that regard, so I tried to create a collaborative atmosphere and project.

You do acknowledge that you are not an originator of the notion either. I too, sought to operationalize it in genetic form - a logical inference, that I made originally on my own, but which any reasonable person might.

Knowing that you tended to be a bit too competitive was part of why I put your name front and center, to try to encourage you to a collaborative disposition in its regard.

But briefly touching on where I have found you to be (perhaps) too competitive (I say perhaps, because one must be careful, and lock step association is not particularly careful), I could give examples.

You messed it up - really didn’t get it with the (to paraphrase!), ‘you Johnny come latelies to the YKW co-opting of the Right, are not appreciating that I have (since 1892) been trying to encourage this so that I could gain their leverage in fostering our right wingers.’

First of all, you were not respecting what was being done here with your ‘I did that first bit’ and you were not seeing that that’s not exactly what we need (you won’t agree and I don’t care; I understand that your being thrown in the pan mixia of America makes you keen on extricating yourself from social entanglements - but the horror of that and reaction to Jewish abuses of language games had you not appreciating that I am conceiving of the social as delimiting ours, yours, them ..as in people you want to be social with).

Such also as refusing to see the way Cartesian is being used. The way social constructionism is being used (if it makes you feel better, Harre says that only individuals have agency, not groups. I’m not sure that I’d agree and I don’t know if he calls himself a social constructionist anymore, but he’s contributed to the post modern project; and he is a trained neural scientist: talking in terms of the corporeal and autobiographical both). With all these terms, I assume the proper understanding of them, not the straw men that GW sets up or that you might.

But there are other instances in which you were probably a bit too competitive, if not unfair - taking something that I said, then you say that you said it. You’ve done that a couple times. You were going to tell me about the irony of the “grooming’ term. Another example that comes off the top of my head is where I had inferred that the hippies were about “being” as prompted by the San Francisco “Be-in” ...sometime later, you plucked out the Wikipedia page on “The Be-In” and suggested that I needed to be apprised of this - you were going to tell me.

Another one that bothered me a bit, was my application of the idea from “Women, Fire and Other Dangerous Things” ...that people have the need to classify (that book says ‘categorize’, but its basically the same thing) from which I drew inferences, and you felt the need to say how you’d had this idea long ago… well, I’d made several important inferences from there and I can’t really think of any good reason why you’d try to diminish these inferences (which I didn’t see coming from you) with another instance of “I did that first.”

What of the Deracinated Crickets who will not so-choose? It is reasonable to presume they suffer from a similar infection to the Hermeneuticist Cricket, but with a far less egregious ecological consequence:

I can agree that the Hermeneuticist Cricket is capable of egregious ecological consequence if its imaginative side is left to go crazy; but the saving grace is that it is duty bound in its non-Cartesian circularity to empirical verification.

However, the real salvation of the Hermeneuticist Cricket is that it liberates agency from the already egregious ecological consequences of The Cartesian Cricket and the runaway it has caused with its detached, non-interactively conceived and impervious linearity that runs rough shod over ecology, interactive indebtedness and human accountability generally.

The Deracinated Crickets may be decisively divided into those that choose to permit individuals to choose a DNA-based “social contract” and those that will oppose such individuals.

I’m glad you’re thinking about this, because it is a problem, e.g., what to do about people, say, who are indeed White, but identify as Christian first and foremost.

The Deracinated Crickets that so-permit individuals to separate from them will be voluntarily consigning themselves to quarantine—even if they perceive the racinated individuals to be placed into quarantine.

Yes, that’s good, but becomes more problematic to coordinate on the nation scale, which is a necessary scale, if not confederation size, if we are to have sufficient power. One thought is that, “you can do it - e.g., believe in the golden rule, but it is not sanctioned by the state and not encouraged, as it does not recognize important differences.” ...something like that.

In so doing, their parasite will seek to detach and flee to find a host but be blocked by the quarantine.  Many of these, relatively benign, Deracinated Crickets, may find themselves freed from “the parasite’s directives”.

That would be good, and is probably true.

The Deracinated Crickets that oppose racinated individuals will identify themselves as opposed to the individual’s choice to be racinated, and thereby laser designate themselves as the target of a Declaration of War.

I suppose.

The Hermeneuticist Cricket, by opposing such assortation as “Cartesian”, is serving the parasite that is terrified of any human ecologies free of its “directives”, as well as of being exposed as a parasite.

You are again persisting in misunderstanding the philosophical use of the term Cartesian. There has been much abuse of the idea (of post modern, anti-Cartesianism) on the imaginative side as well as the rigorous side (you are balking against the imaginative side). I suppose that YKW or other ill disposed liberal sorts could accuse your sortocracism of being ‘Cartesian’, but that would not be something a proper heremeneuticist/ social constructionist would do if its not true of your sorting and association.

I mean, as long as you don’t tell me that I have to be a part of some trip about “shield maidens, sovereigns and pair wise duels.” ...still, it is more boring than threatening to me. If I observe that something should be called “Cartesian” however, that is not an aid to the parasite, it is an aid to our own consciousness as European peoples. We are more vulnerable to the parasite when stuck in the rational blindness of Cartesianism.

I’m sure that you are anticipating ‘native American’ claims being launched against you, with the aid of YKW and other potential antagonists, but you should understand that hermeneutics is not only about history, but is capable of taking a myriad of factors into account with deftness.

That this fear of comparison bears some relationship to “experimental controls to discover causation”

[Note: there is also a background reference to my (Daniels) position that a sheer empirical take, that is to say, “voting by referendum and with your feet”, would not, for salient example, have resolved the “Polish corridor” issue prior to World War II, but that a hermeneuticicist perspective on the history, logistics and more, of these cities, would need to be taken into account to achieve a more likely well coordinated outcome].

The fear is not of comparison itself. The concern, is rather when two qualitatively different but necessary parts of systemic function are compared as if they are necessarily supposed to perform the same function; and one is deemed redundant and inferior - to discard irrespective of ecological niche and systemic balance.

This false comparison can happen between groups as well.

should be taken as a mere side effect of trusting Euroman’s DNA to choose wisely, rather than imposing on Euroman an authority structure which is exactly the body politic type the parasite seeks to create for its own ends.

Well, quantitative comparison may be a part of choosing wisely, but it requires practical judgment (phronesis) in the matter of praxis.

PS:  At the appropriate extrema, I would hope that the nigger hiding behind the pseudonym of “Captain Chaos” and I would end up in what The Fair Church℠ calls one of the “Natural Ecclesia”.  (CTRL-F “Natural Ecclesia”)

It is very important to note that Captainchaos drew a way, way to thin comparison by saying that your individuality vs. eusociality was likened to me with Hermeneutics as opposed to Cartesianism.

Firstly, again, you all persist in misunderstanding Hermeneutics proper as if it is anti-Science/empiricism - which it cannot be or that would be against its non-Cartesian mandate.

But the major point to make is that the White Post Modern project is not reduced to Hermeneutics vs Cartesiansm.

Again, CC is going back to Majorityrights STEM fetish for the one line zinger that would bring the whole house of cards down.

And typically of STEM mentality, it is trying to find the “one problem” that breaks the lineal chain, to isolate it and remove it.

Its a reductionary straw man

In so doing, he vastly misrepresents the several aspects of the White Post Modern Project. (Maybe I should call it the European Post Modern Project…I can’t see White Post Modern catching on… “White” works in tandem with some words - such as “White Class” but not others). ..You’d have to add Social Constructionism, emergentism, pragmatism, and more as being just as important components in correction of Modernity and its Cartesianism.