|
|
|
Curt Doolittle’s Propertarian Constitution vs Jim Bowery’s Sortocracy
Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 May 2020 08:02 | # I have doubts about Bowery’s claim that an individual’s entitlement to a piece of land is foundational. It is warranted as an important rule, but foundational, well, the group should facilitate private ownership and can and should at very least accord space and resource to provide at least subsistence to its individuals if they are accountable. However, the group has more of a claim (but still not perfectly foundational) to territory; especially if it is the scene of millennia of co-evolution. Territory and natural resource, especially where it is a place of our systemic co-evolution is a crucial guideline - an imperative stop/check point on the anti Cartesian, hermeneutic circle - in what is more like “foundational”, viz., our genetic systemic governance, our relative autonomy. Again, it’s accountability, therefore correctivity, therefore systemic maintenance of its social captial and quality, not always in evidence in particular individuals, parts of the life span or circumstance, is structured by something like group unionization. Being overly fixed on a given piece of land as foundational would be Cartesian as well. That is not to say that the English should not claim eminent warrant to control England for the genetic English. Obviously exclusive territory and sufficient natural resource is necessary. But individuals are hapless without their group systemic support and an individual’s having a permanent claim to particular land is even less foundational than that of the group - which, for example, may not want to foundationalize England as the only place that English can be when it becomes covered in glacier again. We don’t want our emergence, profound a guideline though it is, to be rooted like a tree that will die if uprooted or covered in ice. I imagine that given the choice in that case, you’d prefer the people system of the English to survive rather than dying along with the land. Hence, the genetic group is most foundational - O.R.I.O.N. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 May 2020 08:52 | # First one must decide what foundation is. When we say the word “life”, we actually mean life’s continuity ... its on-goingness. In the contemplation of foundation we cannot get beyond its state of differentiation from non-life (and eventually from other life), by which continuity is marked, and its internal and external relational constants by which that state is maintained. These things are Essential; and lead to the understanding, as I have tried to argue, that “the essential principle in its origin and prior relation to existence [is] the primal operative order of human life”. It is not too long a STEM step from there to the “genetic systemic governance, our relative autonomy” you reify as the foundation of group continuity. You then speak of “group unionisation”, but that’s a tautology. The group is a group because it has differentiated as such, and remains such while its essentiality holds (ie, while its internal and external relations of difference, held in common among all its individual members, are constant). In place of unionisation you do now need to speak, in some form, of remembering or recognition of singularity, uniqueness and belonging. At this time that is where I stand on this question. I would welcome Curt or James’s critical input on that, and yours, Daniel. Curt appears to be offering a utilitarian philosophy; principally a (claimed) transformative method, in which respect he has some similarity to your own project, Daniel. A debate between you could be interesting. 4
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 May 2020 09:06 | #
Why do you say “reify” when I say that it is more like “foundational”, i.e., explicitly NOT reifying it in several places, saying it is “more like foundational”, only and in order to try to accommodate your concern for foundations. Genetic grouping is certainly more of a foundation than relation to particular soil, which is being reified (crucial though relation to land is in the non Cartesian guidance of systemic process). In fact, one of the reasons that I would argue that Whites are warranted to land in the Americas and elsewhere is their demonstrable responsibility in management of habitat and carrying capacity. Though obviously not all White individuals and groups (notably corporations) score well in that regard, where Whites do demonstrate such responsibility, it adds to the especial warrant to assert our right to govern our population, lands, ancient habitat of co evolution - Europe and its discreet nations. More, any morally responsible person would acknowledge that the English are warranted in maintaining their people and that England is the land of their natural habitat. It is warrantbly assertable to the extreme, foundational enough that they are entitled to accountability from their people and others; along with action that ensures the maintenance and governance of their people and their ancient habitat.
It is not a tautology. You have a wish that the people would simply and necessarily maintain their group without social rule structuring of accountability through something like exclusive unionization - a largely unobtrusive structuring, contouring the nature of the group anyway, which Bowery might call a modicum of “artificial selection.” 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 May 2020 09:49 | # OK, Daniel, I will give you your point on my use of the word reify, although I do not mean it in the negative sense which you obviously associate with it. To me it is a neutral descriptive of the act of construction. You are, of course, a social constructionist in key respects. We do not need to revisit my concerns about the view of Man, categorically, as a social animal. In which regard ... I will not give ground to your objection to my description of “Group unionisation” as a tautology, except to say that it might have verity in the pan-European context of white America. I think if you sharpened your focus on the extant specificity of the native European kinds you would see that blood cannot be unionised, but attention to its voice can be heeded by the unheedful. That is all the difference between on this. I am not, by the way, proposing some mechanically emergent process of ethnic political self-realisation. I don’t know how many times I have explained that my own focus has not been on the political. 6
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 May 2020 09:57 | #
I definitely disagree with you here. More, I see it as an important disagreement; and unnecessary. If and when what you want to happen comes about through tautology, there should be no conflict with the concept of unionization - which structures exclusivity along with accountability, correctabilty and thus group/ethno-national maintenance, particularly for those cases where members get thrown off course and threaten the group with the introduction of liberalization, which obviously does happen, has happened. Furthermore, what you call politics is actually philosophy, true philosophy - not to be trivialized by scientistic reaction to misrepreseneted social constructionism and post modern philosophy which, in your intransigent reactional state to its red caping, has you calling philosophy mere politics and scientism, ” foundational philosophy.” I am not a social constructionist in just a few “key points.” I guess you whisked that out for the reader who has not yet seen my many posts explaining the correct understanding of social constructionism, so that they can go with popular misconceptions which could make association with me look silly and shallow - your convenient foil, as you would perhaps want to conceive of me (propping up misdirections and misrepresentations of the concept, as if it is about promoting ideas of solipsistically making just whatever one likes and imagines of oneself irrespective of facts and reality… “the White race is ‘just’ a social construct, an illusion”...which would be Cartesian, against its raison detre; and not what it is saying at all in correct understanding). I am a social constructionist. I’ve explained to you dozens of times and still you refuse to understand: It ranges from 1) What is more literally constructed socially, like a building 2) What is more metaphorically constructed between people, like a child to 3) what is socially constructed in terms of how facts come to count post hoc (by the sane, anyway). This communications perspective, social constructionism and its hermeneutic process facilitates coherence, accountability, agency, warranted assertability and operational verifiability in the management of our human ecology (as opposed to the no account, “that’s just the way it isness” and Cartesian rational blindness to social interrelation, indebtedness and accountability that scientism would veer into). 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 May 2020 12:06 | # The disagreement cuts to the heart of the difference between us, which is that your nationalism is a function of your model of Homo socialis, while mine is a function of my model of Homo sanguinis. Up to a point, you are attempting to change aspects of the life of the former for certain aspects of the life of the latter by introducing blood rules and habits to his inconstant and hapless lifestyle. It has about it all the regulation of the otherwise anarchic urban space governed by systems imposed from above. It is coercive, but it has to be given the profoundly orthogonal entities of wise nationalist ruler and unwise ruled. To me, as ethnic nationalism it lacks conceptual consistency - there must be no conflict between ruler and ruled. Indeed the former is emergent from the latter. That said, I believe that our respective work could easily be made to dovetail. But the modern urban superstructure, so to speak, must emerge from the substructure of the bedrock. We have to be in agreement that social organisation is indeed superstructure and not bedrock. 8
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 May 2020 12:45 | #
No. You are trying to project your Cartesian separation onto me. My view does not deny blood (DNA) nor its profound significance. Rather, it recognizes that we are defending the DNA of our groups, who are inextricably social.
No. You can keep trying to stawman me, but they will never hold up.
No it doesn’t
No it isn’t. In fact, it’s an insane allegation. People are free to leave, nations are free to stupidly go along with a scienstistic world view (and wonder why their cause isn’t doing very well). You will never be able to demonstrate coercion, top down or whatever you say, coming from wherever in imagination and bad will.
Not true. A few simple rules that everybody can understand.
Totally untrue. And I hope that people do not get stuck on your petty, jealous, dishonest misdirection.
There is no such conflict in my conception, never has been.
If you could get over your intransigent desire to strawman what I say, you would see that our concerns have dovetailed. You should have seen this eight or nine years ago.
This urban stuff is one of the more out-to-lunch straw men you’ve introduced
And your strawman here is in the word “organization” ...we are talking rather about social/biological systemics - the groups/genus of our race and its group/species: That is as bedrock as it gets, and there is nothing wrong with a “superstructrure” which facilitates its maintenance where it might otherwise go off course. It is necessary to protect our qualities, including individualism, where that is the concern. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 May 2020 15:07 | #
I know. I did not say that your nationalist view did. I said that your social model displays inconsistencies with a philosophy of the blood. Social relation, on which your academic goods depend, is not blood relation, on which your nationalist Weltanschauung depends. Hence my remark that you are forced by your perfectly proper instinctual nationalism to adapt your academically-derived Social Man to rules militating for blood relation. But you do this without abandoning his social relation. If this is all a “strawman” ... all untrue ... then what is the meaning of your ideological dependence on the social analysis of Man? Is it tacked on to your essentialism and nationalism as a mere tool? Or is it your organising concept? Because not that long ago you were telling me I was wrong, all wrong to be investigating the life-fundamentals and the natural in Man because an appeal to such things cannot articulate intellectually (which was a classic strawman, but never mind). 10
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 May 2020 15:51 | #
No it doesn’t.
Screw your jealousy and resentment of academia upon which your worldview depends - so much so that you must straw man and impute stereotypes onto me in order to maintain the veneer of integrity to your reaction to abuses of academia; with jealous strawmanning of me as your foil - to try to say that I represent those stereotypes. Our race didn’t grow out of the soil - or not for a long, long relevant while it hasn’t - it evolved through interaction - it’s called natural selection - selection, as in an occurrence of interaction. We co-evolved with habitats and I never deny the significance of that interaction either, or the profound and manifold qualities of emergence upon interactive selection having taken place.
No, your reaction to academic abuses won’t allow you to abandon your white knuckle attempt to establish pure scientific foundations apart from our evolution in interaction and its relevance in social interaction.
That’s all you can do is strawman. And it is true that is what you do. That’s all your ego reaction affords you - because if you did not strawman, misrepresent what I say, you’d have to admit that what I say is sound, good, usually more important and relevant than what you have to say, but not mutually exclusive either. Why you would be so dishonest as to impose this false either or, well, the reason can only be a sad, has been for years now.
You zero in on that word social and all it does is highlight your reaction to academic red caping of eminently legitimate concepts. More, my analysis interweaves the gamut of our concerns, DNA, behavior and science generally - I do not besmirch or deny science, its value - while at the same time, I do reject scientism (bad science or misapplication) and am not averse to centering my world view in social group concern. Aristotle would do the same, recognizing it as the most relevant starting point. Further, we are under attack as a group, so I largely, though not exclusively, defend our people as a group/as groups. A race is not just a biological, taxonomic classification - we are people, thus also a social group. And I have stated time and again the important reasons (accountability, correctivity, agency, etc) to maintain that unit of analysis - which Aristotle would call praxis (pardon, I sometimes forget that you’re smarter than Aristotle and that if I mention anything that has passed through the halls of academe, it is a mortal sin against you.) Darwin would firm up my position by observing the unit of survival as the species (group); while Bateson would lend some weight to your concern, correcting Darwins’ unit of survival to make the unit of survival organism PLUS environment (while I have never been remiss to acknowledge that).
I don’t see things as mere tools. And you say that I am essentialist? That you don’t strawman?
You say “organizing concept” as if I am conjuring them post hoc, not making use of scientific, descriptive categories from the start.
I didn’t say that. I said your are mistaken to try to trivialize what I say and to make it an either or between what I am saying and where natural engagement below praxis (social concern) might provide sound guidance, where it does not go off track in natural fallacy.
I did not say that our natural relation cannot be articulated intellectually. Very dishonest of you; thus, there was no classic strawman because I didn’t say that. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 May 2020 18:59 | # Daniel, In the politics of the blood, the social realm is subordinate, its substance plastic and shifting and, in itself, it is given over to the surface and to the trivial and so, all-too-easily, to the banality of evil - because, as a product of Time and Place, it is quite untethered from the human fundamentals. For us, therefore, it is a theatre of operation, nothing more. Ultimately, our struggle is to naturalise those of its artificialities which can be naturalised, or brought closer to the natural in us. Ethnic nationalism has this dynamic. It cannot be different in that respect and still be ethnic nationalism. The question for you, as an ethnic nationalist, is whether you have a view of the social realm which is in some way more than that. 12
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 May 2020 22:09 | #
Hitler had this kind of politics of pure nature, below praxis, as his guide; and as his idea functioned below the human nature of praxis, it was beyond correctability, coming unhinged, going over the top into systemic runaway and disaster.
For us, therefore, nature below paxis is a guide with which we must come to terms, accord and harmony, but not at the sacrifice of praxis, which is the theater of operation.
You’ve shown me no reason, through the years, to believe that what YOU consider to be trivial artifices that should give way to “nature” are indeed, or necessarily trivial artifices that should give way to nature. On the contrary, you have an amazing case of philosphical dyslexia. Your aversions have become a waving red flag that you are reacting to a red caping of a good and important idea. If there is an important idea - utterly crucial for us to have - you will be trying to destroy it; the better the idea is, the more important it is to us, the more sure it is that you will be trying to destroy it and bury it, apparently because you want to believe that you and your thing for brute nature is so deep, while those who have thought about matters with the aid of our philosophical canon, are “trivial”, “confected”, “doing a little dance” whatever thing you will try to say in jealousy, reaction and resentment of the red caping ...a reaction that has given way to a psychological transference onto good and important ideas, such that you attack good ideas as if they are one and the same as the misrepresentation (the red caping usually conducted through the auspices of academic YKW).
Ethnonationalism, on proper theoretical grounds, has the systemic dynamic that hermeneutics and social constructionism affords - through the broad scope of hypothetical imagination to the most rigorous scientific examination; without dumb allegiance to objective truths or principles beyond our interests in praxis. Rather, facts, nature, scientific findings, objectivity even, are subordinated as feedback, necessary and important feedback but feedback to the proper calibration of praxis.
This is your finest wish, always has been, to say: “there can be no other.” And that is simply not the nature of open systems, the human nature of praxis. But while the modicum of arbitrariness to our border is a small and necessary concession, your wish sacrifices agency, whereas our dealing with the reality, does not. We are afforded coherence, accountability, agency and warrant to govern the autonomy of our human ecology, its social capital; in relation to other groups and pervasive ecology, habitat, resourced management, carrying capacity etc.
The human realm of praxis affords more than brute nature of course: one of the finest examples that I’ve pointed to numerous times is the liberation from mere facticty. It is a liberation from the arbitrary flux of the “pure” empirical realm, affording transcendence of moments and episodes which might find us wanting in comparison to the popular call to yield our broader relational and cultural patterns (how ‘objectivity’ unburdens us from responsibility to matters of our demise as a people) - we are afforded by contrast the depth and systemic breadth of historical cultural pattern, relational systemic perspective. ...this liberation from mere facticity is in fact necessary for coherence, responsible accountability to the treasure of our social capital. On the other hand, for this coherence, accountability and agency, we may free ourselves of the brute common denominator of a social realm gone uncorrected for its liberal and right wing detachment from the relative interests of our people - unteathered as it is of “artifices” like national borders (as a unionized concern and constraint would facilitate). We have some liberation from the facts of what people are doing, sleep walking rather naively/disingenuously taking for granted the foolish, no account modernist belief in its objectivity, that the best natural results for us will necessarily come about from that - from that “purity” and natural puritanism. On the same basis liberals and right wingers commence maneuvered to the disaster of systemic runaway; while those anchored with the correctivity of praxis can in fact, look to facts and nature where liberal and right wing “objectivity” has taken leave of their senses and our fundamental interests. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 May 2020 00:33 | # Daniel, I will not lose patience with you or give way to the sorts of harsh judgement others have. But you have painted yourself into a corner with all this ex-uni days stuff, and everyone else has lost all interest and walked away from you. Not a few tried to tell you the problems before they went. But you read their explanations as something personal, which it certainly was not, and then you doubled down. Now there is just me left, trying to pull you out of the corner, damn it; and you cannot see it. Here is the truth. You have fashioned a very narrow, technical politics, far too much of it abstracted from methodological interpretation, social construction, and a positively platonic style of academic elitism, scarcely any of which accords with, or is necessary for, the simple and rugged desiderata which constitute the politics of the blood. The good in it is all too easily lost because you have complicated everything so much in your own mind, all anyone can see is an obscuring barrier of terminology. Ethnic nationalism, on the contrary, is not difficult to understand. It is instinctive. It is about essential love and belonging. It has not hitherto been formally intellectualised, but any such formalisation must deal in the simple, rugged things. You are a good man with good instincts - the best I have found in this nationalist life, actually. Your passion for justice for our people is worth ten times more than the idiosyncratic system of thought you have bolted together. Your instincts and your passion connect you to fellow nationalists. Your system isolates you from them. You cannot help them because of it, as things stand. That situation must be resolved. I don’t know how much of your system can go into pure political practise and how much can be saved for philosophy. But such a division appears to me to offer the best hope of bringing you out from the isolation you have visited upon yourself. Your prodigality would then grant you the respect of others I know you (very naturally) desire, and deserve. 14
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 16 May 2020 05:00 | #
GW, what you call ex-uni stuff, is among the excellent material that I bring to bear to our situation. I have not painted myself into a corner. YOU HAVE PAINTED YOURSELF INTO A CORNER. I am not saying don’t do what you do. On the contrary, YOU are trying to eliminate what I do - and not for good reason. And ridiculously, you want me to do what you do. GW, go for it. Let’s not be redundant. Go for it, go for your foundations. One day it will be known that it is YOU and your obstructions of me, that people have lost patience with. The other “everybody” that has “lost patience” with me are those who have their personal grievances against me: perhaps not favoring me because I am not one nationalist or another, or wanting a friendly featuring of Hitler, Jesus, Jews, Scientism, Conspiracy theories among our advocacy platform (i.e., welcome the idiots and the enemies into the fort).
You don’t know everybody else and your petty obstruction, inability or unwillingness to promote ideas that are better than what you offer alone is the turnoff. In the meantime, you’ll eventually find people moving into areas that I am discussing, like Keith Woods saying, “nobody is talking about the connection between population and environment” (after I’ve cleaned up the mess this kid and the “McSpencer Group” made of Post Modernity) and I suppose then you will have gotten what you like - i.e., that I don’t get credit as a purveyor and the better form that I bring to bear for ethnonationnalism is buried and pushed aside because you don’t want to give me credit as an agent, but just want to continue your jealous battle with the university vicariously against me, with no concern whether something I say actually comes from the university or whether even if it has, if I have retooled it properly for our ethnonational ends.
Only a few tried, and never with good motives. Your talking Hitler-heads and Jesus freaks, those who want to include Jews as European and/or as being in our ingroup. A few others may want scientism and otherwise like you, won’t see the difference between me and the red capes you chase. (By the way, you won’t see that concept of red caping in academia. For a reason). Isn’t it ridiculous that you want me to do what YOU do GW? Don’t you see how that is not only redundant, but how many people were interested in your recent posts? None…but you say its me. I know what I am dong is good. I don’t need the approval of Regnery, Church of Entropy and Uh.
I did not read their “explanations” as something personal against me, but as something personal of themselves - someone like Daniel Antenora aggrieved because he wanted Hitler and Jesus to continue to gunk up the threads. Thorn, because he wanted Jesus and Jews to continue to gunk up the threads.
Not one of them offered any valid criticism that I was not amenable to; for the rest of what they might want, they can go elsewhere. You act like your naive right wing predilections and reactions are the thing that is different - there is plenty of naive scientism around, GW. The Jews would have it no other way and are very grateful for your unwitting obstruction. Their fingers are crossed that you continue to act as useful idiot. It is naive GW. It leaves you susceptible to dubious characters and has left you susceptible to being maneuvered in accordance with Jewish agendas.
The platform that I have cultivated has performed like a radar tracking device that works perfectly in tracking enemy positions, and in showing us where we should go. A perfect air force is ready to go into operation. The Air ships are sound, Air Traffic Control, Flight paths are prepared., etc.
GW, it is you that is the obstruction and the turn off. Look in the mirror. Nobody is stopping you from writing your fucking foundational articles in all their Zen triumph over academe. Go for it baby! You think that Bowery was only put off by what I am doing because he saw it as antagonistic rather than complementary to his scientific/engineering angle? No, he was insulted by you for the same reason you insult me. You never appreciate anything good.
That is a fucking lie. This platform is not narrow and even where I use technical terms for their analytic power, it is not the only means I use - thus, neither am I “backed into a corner.”
You’re talking about what you do.
This has been explained to you and it apparently won’t get through your reactionary head. You whip out the word in a different context, knowing most people are going to react to the misrepresentation of the term and you can go on with your stereoyped characterology of me as your foil to serve your jealous autobiography, its pretense of the no nonsense common man David against the pretentious and deceptive academic Goliath.
Am I doing a positively platonic style of academic elitism? Try proving that one. You won’t be able to. Neither platonic nor elitist.
This is just the same old jealous you, GW. You want the “common sense” - scents, wafting up from your armchair - to be the only thing that matters, the only thing heard. Like a sneaky businessman, you want to minimize, trivialize, divert from and eliminate the “competition”...never stopping to consider how inappropriate your competitive model is in this situation.
No I haven’t. That is what someone like Church of Entropy would have you believe, so that she can divert concerns from the concerns of White men for their biological species, and direct it toward her devotion to Indians and some sort of Hinduism, in a veritable op, an attempt to placate White men with a quack notion of reincarnation and to try to pull the wool over peoples eyes with physics talk. By contrast, there is NOTHING that I say that I cannot or would not explain in simpler terms if a person points out what they feel they do not understand. Including why it is important. If you look on the recent Luke Ford thread from the day before last, you will see the shit that Church of Entropy tried to pull. GW, people are trying to move into the war of position that I’ve got and misdirect it; and you have made yourself into a useful idiot in that regard by antagonizing me every step of the way. Like I said, the better the idea is the more sure you are to attack it. I guess that you’ll take the confirmation and encouragement of your anti academic autobiography - misapplied against me - from wherever you can, including from enemies.
Not true. And those who won’t see, are not trying and don’t want to see. I am proud of my recent articles especially and would encourage anyone to read the last three, four, or five.
Sometimes it is and when it works out, as I’ve explained to you several times now, that is fine and good. When it does not, and obviously it does not always work out instinctively, then it calls for analysis, and the best conceptual tools available as to why it is not working out and how to sort it out. There is no good reason for you to obstruct this. The only explanation is jealousy combined with the bad will encouragement of those who are veritable enemies to ethnonationalism and its coordination. Your wish to make your “common sense” the only thing that matters is nothing more than a statement of jealousy, pettiness and arrogance.
I know GW, all anybody needs is you and your humble offerings.
You’d like to believe that I don’t deal with simple, rugged things.
At least you’ve found something nice to say about my offerings, despite what I’ve “bolted together.”
They’re coming around. It is centuries of brain washing that has to be undone - Christianity having replaced and red caped our moral order, the Enlightenment purity spiral thereupon and the Nietzchean, Nazistic revolt against a false, affected moral order being among the hurdles (as if we don’t need a moral order) which I’ve discussed in my article on the red caping of post modernity. And by the way, if there is ANYONE who has not read my last few articles especially, or is not impressed by their significance, I simply have no respect for their opinion.
I cannot help people who do not want to be helped. Nor will I proceed according to their misdirected and misdirecting maps. As I’ve said, my radar tracking has proven itself to work perfectly in tracking enemy position, designs, what ethnonationalism needs and where it has to go.
It is resolved. The people who are against what I offer are either enemies, willfully ignorant or stupid. And you should not listen to them. I’ve still got people attacking me because they want redeem Hitler. Obviously there are people who want to include Jews. The Jesus freaks are the worst antagonists. And there are the scientistic, who are easy to maneuver at the Jews’ convenience. As Norbert Weiner observed, STEM types are notorious dupes, because they are geared to solve Augustinian devils, not Manichean devils.
I’m not worried about it. I have not said anything for the sake of chatting. Anything I’ve said, I have said because it was somehow useful.
I did not realize how infertile the soil was here at Majorityrights when I came. I thought it would welcome the best that theory had to offer. One of my drawbacks and there are several, is that I am not a very good judge of character. Had I been, I might have found my way to a different cast of characters (as opposed to Hitler heads, Jesus freaks, Jews, the scientisic and nutty conspiracy theorists), people who have sound judgment, better positioned to asses and work with my work - we’d have been off and running with by far the best ethnonational program nine years ago.
Thank you for your kind words, but as people have begun to see the perfidy of those types and individuals who’ve been dead set against me, they will come around and are starting to come around to our platform, because they must, because its best - by far, hands down. 15
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 16 May 2020 06:27 | # I can see where this thread may have gotten knocked off course a bit from an oversight in my first comment. Because I take private property for granted, I neglected to emphasize it, and may have come across as almost communistic in my view toward the nation’s property; almost like one set to embark upon the holodomor for heaven’s sake. I should have been more clear to add the words in bold: I have doubts about Bowery’s claim that an individual’s entitlement to a piece of land is foundational. It is warranted as an important rule, but foundational, well, the group should facilitate private ownership (and I endorse Bowery’s elaboration on the Georgist idea of individual property as homestead, tax free up to a certain site value necessary for family formation - beyond which point it begins to be taxed for citizen’s dividend) and can and should at very least accord space and resource to provide at least subsistence to its individuals if they are accountable. Beyond that, I stand by my position that our genus and species is even more foundational than relation to a particular piece of land (crucial though habitat, resource and co-evolution is as a concern): O.R.I.O.N. Now, I’ve long held in mind that if you/your people are detached from the land (a la Descartes) that you run the risk of developing parasitic relation (like YKW). That’s why I am always quick to enter it as an important concern after the more foundational concern of our people O.R.I.O.N. 16
Posted by Dr_Eigenvector on Sat, 16 May 2020 18:13 | # @DS “A perfect air force is ready to go into operation. The Air ships are sound, Air Traffic Control, Flight paths are prepared” Dan, have you got anything condensed down that I can take on my travels or convert into memes? Have you considered arguing your case on /pol/? Here: https://boards.4chan.org/pol/catalog It’s our biggest gathering place but it is under relentless assault and won’t be viable at all for much longer. It is one of the last free speech outlets which is why they all came to our side in the first place. If you are ready to go, I would recommend starting there. Our guys are desperate for proper leadership and direction. They will come at you from all angles so you will need to be resilient. I would advise doing what GW does to me when I post on MR ie temporarily drop your IQ by about 40/50 points! The site is easy to use once you get the hang of it, but the mods are bought out and hostile so factor that in too. You need to win over /pol/ in open debate else your ideas are dead in the water. You need to improve your communication skills in order for the average man to understand you ie dumb it down. Chris Langan is very good at this. There are many high iq posters there. Be prepared to be called a “faggot”. A lot. This is just par for the course. They are the army of the dead. If you truly wield Anduril, they will fight for you.
18
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 17 May 2020 14:04 | #
DS: I’m very glad that you are willing to work on conversions to meming, Doc. Let me see if I can condense things a bit to facilitate conversion to memes. That will be in my next comment. But first, let me address your suggestions directly here.
DS: I haven’t looked at it for a long time. I can see potential merit in seeding memes there, but am skeptical about the productivity of bloodsports. I know that some people have gotten a great deal of use from pol. Kumiko showed me around and informed me that is where Anglin, for example, got most of his stuff.
DS: Indeed, my communication skills can certainly stand improvement, and that is why I gravitated toward communicology in the first place – if you think I’m bad now! - but it is also true that when I do a bad job of presenting an argument, whether in the stammering example of my recent podcast (wine screws with my speech and cognition, even the next day) or when I impetuously toss out writing that has bad grammar and is hard to understand, I’m usually able to correct the original underlying, worthwhile idea, so that it becomes more clear – better communicated. While I am sure that my putting out rough drafts are a big turn off to some people, it almost seems to be something that I need to do (I need to feel the audience and need for correctivity), but I can’t expect everyone to sustain confidence through the rough forms of what I have to say and have patience to look at the more corrected later versions. That admitted, and aside… I might offer my help as I am confident in the direction that I advise, even if I don’t think I will win them over as their “leader” - nor is that the point, the direction and platform is. I can see the value of seeding memes, cultivating them, stewarding them, as the logical and well intentioned will pick them up and take them to places where they can flourish; but fighting directly with people on an ongoing basis is dubious for me, as the prospects of my winning people over and their fighting for me are neither likely nor again the point anyway; while they might and should fight for this platform of ideas, and not antagonize them, because it truly is in their interests as opposed to their common red caped misunderstandings (that should be a meme - red caping misrepresentation by YKW to get you to chase against your interests). Nevertheless, the DNA Nations concept, for prime example, should be adopted irrespective of pol. It goes right to the heart of what we want; and there is no good reason why it should not be popular. Well crafted arguments should often hold up anywhere; and there comes a point where you can believe that anyone should understand that your arguments are innocent enough, you can state them and stand by them as warrantably assertable even though they will try to bury your voice/platform and may even try to persecute you. I’ll be damned if I cannot advocate for the preservation of The European genus and species – viz, our DNA and its unionization. Having said that, we all know that even the most innocent motives and slightest indication of self defense can be stigmatized by our enemies; hence, why it is that some seek out the pol ghetto. I might have a go at visiting after I present the “airline/airforce” platform that I’ve been cultivating to the broader audience first (Youtube etc.) as I believe it is on grounds that should be acceptable to them, while taking the direction of the ultimate aim of our sovereignty. Again, that is how it should be – we should honestly be able discuss our platform with anybody, not because we are sociopaths who think things that happened in WWII were funny or because we are willing to lie, because we can go into denial (double entendre) utterly about history, or recklessly fed post, displaying willingness to sacrifice our lives in futile gestures of terrorism. Our views don’t need to be marginalized to a quivering mass in the pol ghetto. Further, I’m not sure that pol is not a playground where Jews will just try to keep Whites in right wing, reactionary identity, red caped against our interests. I suspect that it is. “Politically incorrect” carries a burden as some ideas should be politically unpopular and yet, in reaction and youthful rebellion you will have the majority of the WN demographic engaged, by definition, in the context of political incorrectness, in intransigent defiance on behalf of their differentiation from a sound alternative moral order, in demonstration of their agency, to distinguish themselves while at their most ignorant and energetic ages. So engaging them can entangle you like getting wrapped up in fly paper, and weigh you down in resentment - who am I helping here? “The road to hell can be paved with bad intentions too” ...it’s hard not to retaliate with mean spirited epithets against fellow Europeans when they direct them at your nationality along with false propaganda (which they might supply in endless droves that you are supposed to sort through) ..and creating bad blood between us is the opposite of what I want to do. In a word, my concern is to coordinate our efforts and move forward though many of them want to re-fight World War II; while others want to force people back under the yoke of obsolete Abrahamic religion. Rather than struggle haplessly in the quick sand (for another analogy) and droves of bad will and disinformation, for a leadership role that will not likely be accorded me anyway, I would rather seed the platform and let it take root with whom it will, with those who are intelligent enough to see its merit and significance. It is true that my position has advantages and disadvantages as one who’d provide guidance (we’re talking beyond my personal foibles and limitations): My position is very strong for advocating some important issues – particularly ethnonationalism. I have the relative innocence of being aligned with Polish Nationalism – hard to argue against nationalism’s right to exist in that case, as our enemies would be overlapping and taking the side of the Nazis and the Soviets. Unfortunately this gift of relative innocence that I try to extend to all Europeans has not been appreciated. Probably due to pandering and instigation of the particular White demographic hegemony of America, with ill conceived ideas that our innocence and warrant has to be achieved through denial and redemption of Hitler/Nazi supremacism and imperialism; that “that is what has to be done.” And so, while I might have the advantage of being informed and incentivized to correct Nazi propaganda, I am not in the best position to dissuade this WN demographic from the counter productive, divide and conquer of Hitler redemption and “revisionism” - they will be pandered to as the likely audience and source of what limited money there is for WN, while Jewish instigators will encourage them to try to write me off as a “Polock’ and that’s why he don’t like Hitler” - breaking the concordance I maintain, which is very frustrating, as my most important concern is the coordination of European peoples. These people at pol are not likely to help in that regard; thus, I could use some help. I really don’t like talking about WWII anyway, and want to move beyond guilt trips (including provocations and guilt trips they’d like to lay on those descended from the Allied side) to move forward in cooperation. Again, pol strikes me as a playground where Jews will just try to keep Whites in right wing, reactionary identity with its inherently unstable, anti social purity spirals - destabilizing because they lack correctability and capacity for group maintenance as such, and I suspect that it is. I can see pol encouraging the idea that it’s ok to love Hitler there (thus, tough shit if you don’t like the divide and conquer of Whites about it) because we’re not beholden to political correctness, none of that “optics cucking” - utilizing a (((Madison Ave.))) meme assimilating a wink and a nod to “in group members” as opposed to “normies” (another Jewish exploited meme) who won’t understand what “we know” ….”that Hitler/Nazism were correct across the board, were misunderstood, any alleged misdeeds and initiatives, warranted and strictly lied about.” Predominant White demographics of the reactionary sphere are susceptible to Hitler redemption which is compounded by Jewish incentive to keep White identity associated with Hitler – thus, in their politically uncorrected “defiance” they will make it hard for better ideas to gain traction for a solid alliance within that context. However, alternative memes might have legs enough, as they are eminently warranted and reasonable to be picked up and taken to different contexts where they might be more effective. Hence, while I might enter pol for limited engagements to drop memes and otherwise pithy concepts, it strikes me that a great deal of engagement for me would be toxic, counter productive, feeding the trolls and exhausting my faith in the cause. Still I can see the point of seeding ideas there, stewarding them from time to time, even though ongoing debate would probably be futile and counter productive. On the other hand, you might be very effective in connecting with people there and I’d be happy to help you craft memes and digestible ideas which the people there may indeed be more inclined to accept coming from you. As I said, I’ll get to work on that in the subsequent comment. 19
Posted by Dr_Eigenvector on Sun, 17 May 2020 20:30 | # Aye Dan, all of your critiques of the site are true and accurate. It’s the numbers there that interest me. Only the likes of you or GDubya can go in there and grab them by their necks and slap them silly. A shock and awe campaign of brain power bombing would get their attention and respect, certainly amongst the posters there that count. The shills nearly always turn out to be Chinese or Jewish hiding behind other flags. You could just dismiss those. Although the more of them that showed up in your thread, the more it would indicate that you worry them and that they are desperate to shut you down. I cannot post on there at all with a standard UK internet connection. I can’t even access the site without using a VPN and they don’t allow you to post if you’re using a VPN. I haven’t tried to post there for at least a couple of years so I’ll have a go and see what happens. My last /pol/ efforts were on 8Chan /pol/ which got blamed for multiple false flag attacks including Christchurch, and it got shut down. It was also hosting Q and QResearch which was possibly the main reason they got rid of it. Q currently posts on 8Kun which may be worth a look but it is accused of being an FBI honey trap and almost certainly is one. I’ll start looking back through threads and see what I can find. By memes, I mean just extracting killer quotes and putting them on top of a nice, relevant background picture. Nothing fancy. But good ones spread like wildfire all the way through to mainstream sites like FB/IG/Twitter etc and can be seen by huge numbers of eye balls. They are scared stiff of our capabilities in this area of the war on discourse and the energy is rising amongst our guys in anticipation for the US elections. There’s zero interest in fighting for Zion Don again. Once bitten… But there is huge determination to use the election as a vehicle to push our ideas, hidden amongst the vast election traffic. You don’t need to do anything. I don’t want to add to your workload and burdens. Give me a couple of weeks and I’ll see what I can come up with. 20
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 17 May 2020 21:44 | # Hi again, Doc, I am already about 3/4 through the effort to boil down ideas that are in pre-form specificatory structures that might be shaped and crafted to be delivered in pithy statements if not by memes. I’ll probably have it up as a post Your request was for condensed form of what I think is important, so it is not too much work, it’s on me. Cheers and thanks again. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 20 May 2020 08:26 | # James’ concept is really more applicable to white Americans, since it provides an argument (possibly a tad propositional and reliant on the “rugged individual”) for group defence in the absence of a natural blood-tie to the soil. In Europe the emphasis is on that tie and the singular recourse to self-defence which it licences. The other specifically white American aspect of James’ thinking is in the identification of the out-group based on behaviour. This, again, operates in the absence of the recourse among Europe’s peoples to actual kinship. Europeans can speak of the out-group in terms of a coercive and completely abusive process of colonisation and dispossession, displacement, and replacement, and there is never any question that natural right and justice is with the colonised native victim. That’s a harder argument to make across the Atlantic. On the matter of left and right, for decades the European nationalist explanation has solidly and truthfully been “neither left nor right”. There is simply no gain in trying to split hairs with the word “left”. Arguing against the left does not automatically place one on the “right”. Actually, one is arguing, morally speaking, against wilful ignorance, insanity and destructiveness. The argument against the right, meanwhile, is the argument against estrangement, shallowness and irresponsibility. They are the arguments, politically speaking, against radical equalitarianism and universalism on the one hand, and against economism and materialism on the other. Psychologically, they are the arguments, respectively, against pathological self-contempt and narcissism. Philosophically, they are the arguments against liberalism. Ethnically, they are the arguments against Judaism in our deep culture. Holistically and positively, they are the arguments for life and love and kin. 22
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 20 May 2020 09:46 | # This comment of yours actually belongs in the Doolittle thread. What you say here has all been taken into account already:
I am not making James’ argument. He is actually more aligned with you in his libertarian concern to attach the individual to property as foundational and the belief that the chips will fall naturally with the group - him because a natural aversion that any normal White person in America has to sharing and being exploited for their resources by outgroups (which is a prescription of international socialism as opposed to left ethnbonationalism) goes together with a strong belief that libertarian propertarianism will lead the way to his preferred outcome (having voted with their feet); while you because you believe that the historical tie of English to their land and borders is deep enough so that a more libertarian attitude unfettered of explicit social accountability will just naturally wind up with a nation native English enough. What you have in common at bottom is a boomer generation reaction to cultural Marxism and a philosophically incompetent reaction to my offerings for where it shows your STEM “solutions” could use some help. The resources that I provide are complementary, facilitating and covering grounds that the STEM perspective does not. You react to me like the adversaries you experienced coming out from university humanities departments. You react this way because both of you are assholes. My platform provides for the differences in you priorities. It also provides for what you are after, with very little compromise. It’s really not hard to understand.
That’s a good point. True.
They are truthfully and honestly identifying as Right, now as much if not more than ever, and have been for decades, going along with that identity altercast by Jewry (understandably repulsed by what was being represented as “the left”, I certainly was repulsed by it) but more so since 2008, Jews are emphasizing and successfully encouraging White people to depict their enemy as “THE Left.” Why? because our enemies would have it no other way and for reasons, important reasons that I’ve made clear: its depth grammar of social accountability, correctabilty, agency, warrant, social capital, human ecology, the crucial liberation from mere facticity, call back to operational verifiability provided for in the systemic maintenance of our groups through the structuring concept of borders and boundaries by unionization (as opposed to your magic hand).
Look at the sentence before and anyone will see that I have destroyed your jealous assholry. We defy Jewish misdirection and initiate the maintenance of our autonomous functioning at once.
If we’re charitable enough to make a mental note that what they mean by it, inasmuch as they are ethnonationalists, is the international Marxist and Cultural Marxist Left, it doesn’t automatically place people on the right, no. Nor does it mean that we cannot work with them, recognize them as having their heart in the right (left ethnonational lol) place as ethnonationalists. When I have a chance to talk to nationalists more, I’ll charitably tell them that I make that mental note - they don’t have to disregard any of their activist efforts to date, against “The Left”; we know that they are talking about the internationalist, anti nationalist left, i.e., liberalism for us; we are not deep down talking at odds; but their maps are primitive misdirection by YKW and the primitive, reactionary response is the one that you are giving - “we are neither left nor right” ...which suites the Jews just fine because it allows them a back door and the destabilizing elements of the right to come back in; un-girded by the calibration that unionization of praxis (the group) faciltates. What I mean by unionization in the case of ethnonationalism, is citizenship, birth certificates, marriage licences, social benefits, passports that are not usually issued to non natives/non “union” members. Dangerfield and Daughter of Albion may be naturally coming to their ethnonational positions which yes, they call right while calling the enemies “the left” and “lefties”, and their nationalism is great. I hope they keep it up. One may simply make a mental note that their identification as Right corresponds with a nationalist rejection of the Marxist, internationalist left. But their identification as right also touches upon a kind of “rugged” liberalism that Dangerfield practiced and still practices to some extent, that would have both casualties and demoralization among the English for its no account ‘naturalistim’ that’s-just-the-way-it-isness (right wing/liberal arguments). Thus, while they join us in White Ethnonationalism and Dangerfield is very intelligent, talented, great fun, a good guy that we want on our side of course, and Daughter of Albion is also a brilliant delight and inspiration to us all, she probably should spank his hand a bit in this odd couple routine of theirs. Some of this stuff that Dangerfield was up to was a bit piggish (he still has a Cambodian girlfriend now) and while I would not want to lay guilt trips on him or purity spiral, you need to be aware that while he might survive the natural, invisible hand (with a Cambodian girlfriend) there are others less likely to be afforded and to make it through the kind of indulgences of the harrowing liberal epoch in which he participated. I like both of them. I just want them to be aware that this right wing/liberal no account “naturalness” leaves wreckage behind and that is part of what creates the disillusionment and cynicism that has left us susceptible to this situation we’re in. There is also a streak of unnecessary brutality that liberals share, and typically take with them as they swing to the right. I am suspicious of right wing women who may be wanting to clean out the “dead wood” (as I believe Tara McCarthy once put it), those pesky men who resisted their liberal swing while they, along with the rest of the world experience the consequences of the liberal phase and so they opportunistically swing to the no account right. I am also suspicious of women turning right for that reason - rallying behind the war monger to get rid of the “dead wood” - rather than be accountable and feeling guilty, lets use them as canon fodder and breed with the winners of the (unnecessarily) incited genetic competition.
Typically, you are trying to take one of my good arguments and turn it against me. When actually, willful ignorance, insanity and destructiveness are the ramifications of the liberal attacks on our groups (which is mislabeled THE left in order to discourage us form grouping for ourselves) and no account rightism, which seeks to avoid accountability to our groups, wanting to believe its achievements have no indebtedness and responsibility to our people, they are purely due to the natural greatness of our individual wonderfulness.
Those problems and more, as I’ve articulated many times.
No. I understand that you are not listening to me. My radar is calibrated much more effectively than that. The Jews and their right wing cohorts want “THE Left” to be all about radical equalitiarianism.” Because to argue against equality puts one in the position of an asshole and equality is not what defending one’s people is about at any rate. While universalism is more in line with right wing reactionary fetishization of foundationalism.
That critical take on our concerns is a muddle of left and right that my platform’s radar sorts out much better (while you ignore it).
Well, we probably agree on that much, as we do on the important quest for our ethnonationalism. Try to understand it this way. That when I speak of the White ethnonational left, I am speaking of borders and boundaries for our people. What our people do within ethnonational bounds is not my especial concern. If you don’t want to identify as left or right, just ethnic nationalist, fine; but try not to argue with me therefore. I maintain this radar system because it works very well as an explanatory heuristic. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 20 May 2020 12:21 | # 1. I am sure it must have occurred to you that the individual and the group are not opposing entities, but reside within one another and only within one another; and it is that residence which our nationalism ... ethnic nationalism ... exists to express and amplify. This is my position, and has always been my position. I would like you to respect it, please, and not bowdlerise it as “individualism” or “Cartesian” or “boomer”, or whatever. 2. Likewise, it has surely occurred to you, as an intelligent interlocutor, that the absence from my modest corpus of a means by which nature, affirmation and authenticity, having first arisen, are then carried into the lived life and its politics does not imply that such a means does not exist or is not necessary because “Nature will handle it”. So why do you continually get this wrong? For the record, some simple inherencies emerge rather effortlessly at a higher level. For example, sex hormones power the complex manifestation of male and female; and not a great deal of controversy attaches to it among academics. But neural activity as the parent of consciousness is quite another matter, and remains an utterly unresolved problem. It has been so since the ancient Greeks, and it may always be so. As a casual, conversational descriptive, emergence is alright but, obviously, of limited utility - it can be used but always with circumspection. As an operative principle, however, it has a definite, technical meaning which we are bound to respect. Not to do so ... to employ it as a simple and certain means to everything we might like to take place ... would be an unforgivably lazy assumption. As I said to you in a recent comment on another thread, there is a heavy task to be undertaken to properly investigate what the process actually are - in which regard, btw, the awakened - ie, us - have the substantial advantage of a ready-to-hand lab rat! 3. I am not “muddled”, and your radar, which is inherently political in weight, is not “better”. I engage elsewhere in the Weltanschauung, and specifically in a place which enables me to slice through certain ideological assumptions on which too much of your work rests. For example, you are resistant to criticism of equality. But equality does not exist in Nature, and is not part of the European tribal heritage (the comitatus, for example, is based on mutual respect and loyalty, not on being equals). Equality as a normative concept ... as a making real in the lived life something which is not there at the beginning ... is Judaic in origin, as is universalism (which derives from Christianity). One is a really rather direct deception and the other a more circuitous route to the same end. So we can talk perfectly properly in terms of correctives for maladaptive behaviours such as breaking the bonds of tribe (ie, unfairness) as we can for breaking of the bounds of the group. We can oppose elite predation and free-riding as we can oppose the betrayal of the self-aggrandising out-group altruist. The first does not turn us automatically into equals, and the second does not make us automatically anti-human. We should take care not to be susceptible to the actions upon us of these two supposed desiderata - actions which are different in their application to us but the same in their re-rendering of us as a people sans identity and thus not a people at all but just people in Olam Ha-ba, under the priestly caste formerly known as Jews. 4. I know what you are trying to do with this White Left idea. But the horse has bolted long ago, and you are standing there holding a saddle which has no surviving function. As I said to you only a couple of days ago, you isolate yourself. You will likewise isolate anyone you can draw into your memetic sphere. You are not focusing on the tenets of our philosophy. You are focusing so hard on the shifting exigencies of activism that you have lost sight of our certainties. There is more to our thought than reactive utility (ie, heuristics) - a charge, ironically, you serially bring against me. Listen to what people have said in great good faith to you. 24
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 20 May 2020 15:39 | #
If you paid the least attention to anything I’ve said and it’s theoretical underpinnings (non Cartesian) you would not ask that question, but would know that it doesn’t occur to me otherwise. And by the way, I am going to put this next pile of straw men of yours into the Doolittle thread, where it belongs.
..not just amplify but to add reinforcing structure.
Where you are demonstrably Cartesian, displaying “boomer” social irresponsibility, etc. I might call attention to the fact.
I don’t get it wrong in your theoretical argument against me, because you could not be arguing against me without end, trying to say that everything that I offer is useless, if your theoretical backing was anything but the “magic hand of nature.”
I’ve acknowledged that (many times) and never theorized otherwise. Why would you get that so wrong? Could it be because you always want to say that what I bring bear is not necessary? That anything that looks to you “academic”, you want to consider affectation which needs to be cleared away in favor of, well, only you?
Interesting observation, but it doesn’t conflict with anything that I’e said.
Obviously I don’t make this assumption. Most of my attention is to the interactive unit of analysis.
LOL
You straw man muddle the platform that I offer, and my “radar” has worked amazingly well.
You have not “sliced through”, you have strawmanned - misrepresented what I say, time and again.
GW, this is so lame of you. Goes to show how you don’t listen to/read what I say, but rather wait for the strawman and wish to altercast me as your foil. I have ALWAYS and without exception acknowledged that there is no such thing as equality. The point is that to argue against it is neither tactful nor necessary, because it is not really the essence of what we are called upon to fight against. While Jews might like to tell our people it is, so that they might have us arguing against it, to look like elitist assholes and make it look like we have no respect for social concern, therefore turn people off. It is indeed a red cape of our vital concern, predominantly about qualitative difference, not quantitative - over emphasis of which invites false comparisons, ignoring niche evolution, leaving one vulnerable to hubris; e.g. our people getting killed or miscegenated by blacks because our people are taught to believe simply, hey, they are stupid, therefore no problem… ...then a daughter hears they are stupid, then sees the reality they have some talents, their abilities that don’t fit the comparative “stupid” model (are Oscar Peterson and Thelonius Monk’s piano playing “stupid”? are they “unequal”?)...so, she puts it off as superstition because the argument of the qualitative pattern has not been inculcated, while rather the obnoxious comparative model has, of arguing against equality - inculcating hubris. Congratulations, GW, you have just shown your will to bury dozens of careful (and important) arguments which render this strawman nothing but intransigently applied stereotype.
Though you have said that the reason that I am horrified by your arguments is because I am intimidated, the real reason why I have been horrified is for your willingness to utterly put aside what I’ve said in the emphasis of several articles and without exception, you’ve tried this before. I will find the article if necessary, where you tried to say that I argued for equality. I HAVE NEVER ARGUED FOR EQUALITY. My horror resides in the fact that you might treat a new audience coming to this article as if they can be made to believe that I have EVER argued for equality, when I never have.
Equality probably is Judaic in origin: as a red cape.
You are at your best here. I am not arguing against you at this point.
I believe I can agree with that as well.
Why do we love GW? because of statements like this.
No, I am doing it with a left ethnonationalist idea. You tried before to ignore the crucial ethnonationalist aspect, which is really bad of you. It shows your wish to ignore what I say and have this platform considered by the non-nationalist, anti nationalist, and other stereotypes of “The left” that our enemies are marketing, that the casual onlooker to this conversation might believe if they believe you (they shouldn’t, because a look at anything that I’ve ever said will show otherwise). You are just trying to reconstruct me as your foil, and its the part of you that is contemptible. Leave it behind.
This is your wish, for the vain sake of your autobiography. And if your strawman were true, it might be true. But what I describe is the underlying pattern of ethnonationalism and it works, cross contextually, to make sense (the radar).
Not true. And it is not MY memetic sphere….memetics are about propagating ideas..
You are a fucking liar.
Bullshit. It is your fantasy that I am irrelevant precisely because I am relevant. As I’ve said, you will attack anything that is good, that threatens your autobiography as the great slayer of what you want to portray as academic pretense and artifice.
Heuristics are not merely reactive, they are proactive, and who said that is all that I am about?
Yes, you are reactionary in your treatment of me and what I purvey. The arguments made against me and my offerings here by you and others here have predominantly been made in bad faith. It’s clear. Any well meaning and constructive criticism (not much) has been noted and taken to heart as something to correct. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 20 May 2020 22:49 | # You tell us, Daniel, why ethnic nationalism stands on the left of the liberal spectrum. And if it doesn’t perhaps you might explain why left and right are universal to all philosophical systems. Or just left. Or something. And if it’s not, maybe you will explain the relationship which the nationalist system of thought actually has to the liberal system, and how the types of nationalism array and on what axis or axes. Then at least we will know whether your invention, the white left, is anything more than a cunning stratagem. 26
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 05:14 | #
This has been explained to you dozens of times already, that the left is not on the liberal spectrum - it is the opposite of liberalism. Among the many times that this was explained to you, Kumiko confirmed that position in a Skype call with you. My explanation of its being the opposite of liberalism has largely to do with unionization being the most fundamental commonality of the term. You are either in the union or you are not. Thus, you are conserving what is within. That is the opposite of liberalism. Applied to eithnonationalism, it implies a unionization of the nation. you are in the union (of the ethnonational species, or you are not). And you are most fundamentally accountable to that loyalty, of your union, delimited by ethononational borders and bounds, not nature below praxis, not Hitler, not Jesus, the king, principles or god beyond.
They are not universal to all philosophical systems, but there are reasons why we can say that they are universalizable enough today, and why people keep coming back to the divide, because it goes to the radical divide in the liberal epoch since the Enlightenment, between those who see the reason to place the most fundamental value with loyalty to their group and those who value liberalism above all.
People of good will, intent on getting a theoretical hold on ours and the world’s problems (e.g. Frank Salter) usually endorse universal nationalism, nationalism for all people. That’s the way we can establish common grounds, negotiation and coordination as fair as possible in service of pervasive and human ecology. To maintain a nationalism, it has to be centered in a unionization of the people; not in god - especially not Abrahamic - not in something beyond or below accountability and correctability to the praxis of that national unionization and its coordination with other nations (human ecologies) functioning within pervasive ecology. Nationalism, favorably ethnonationalism, would then calibrate our most important concerns, our people - unionized as such it does run the risk, like all unions, of being too powerful. While the right is inherently unstable, unionizations can be too stable - intransigent. One take the example of America’s teacher’s unions, where the teacher’s are overpaid, you can’t remove them and a system is locked in where they are brainwashing kids with cultural Marxism. You want to unionize people, but not forms of work which are liable to become obsolete. There are infamous examples of workers unions protecting an obsolete form of business. Or those cases where incompetent workers produced, in sum collective total, a pathetically eclectic mishmash of a car - one worker assigned to this part, another to that part, to put together a disaster. Thus, you don’t necessarily want the kinds of work unionized to where they are more powerful than national interests, beyond what natural resource can bear, and more powerful than ethnonational interests. Because it is so powerful and stable a concept, however, we do want to deploy it in the interests of our people - in the interests of ethnonationalism. And that is why our enemies are now all over the news and internet, lending support to reactionaries, joining them in the chorus of “we on the right against THE left”...because they know how powerful an idea it is and they don’t want our ethnonationalisms to gain a hold of it before they can eliminate us as a viable group. But again, because left unionization is such a powerfully stabilizing concept, including in the correct prioritization of our people, it can be too powerful, intransigent and grind down integral aspects of its functioning, from its connection and dependence upon accord to nature, to its respect for individual integrity with a stasi-like pervasive, invasive tyranny of accounts requested (viz., spying on your neighbor). That is where you STEM, liberal/right wing inclined fuck-heads become so important. Objectivism, science, facts, nature, mechanical principles, truth beyond our relative interests are all important as crucial feedback on the system (calibration) to maintain healthy functioning in relation to nature and other groups. In this perspective then Left functions as Calibration (unionization of our people - our most important value). Right functions as Feedback (crucial feedback).. This systemic functioning, the accountability and correctivity that maintains the ongoing system goes by the process of hermeneutic circularity - “the radar tracking device” - maintains paradigmatic conservatism: strong borders and individual liberty within. It maintains a vigil on borders, enemy antagonism thereof, especially holding to account elite betrayal thereof, but also rank and file and marginal betrayal thereof. Holding them all to account regarding borders but also working to keep them all happy on the other hand as a harmonious group, not divided as classes struggling against each other - ethnonational coordination being a distinction of White Left Ethnonationalism. We want the highly stable aspect of left unionization to function mainly for our borders and not to overburden anything else. Even the necessary option for a “union"of the monogamous would be an important option, not a restriction. One can leave, just as one can leave the nation (while they can’t necessarily come back, esp. not with mixed kids).
It is not really my invention. It is a somewhat original application but only following clear logics. Disingenuously, you once again leave out the important distinction that I have made many times, of specifying the white ethnonational left. Kumiko’s analytical framework capped-off the idea, confirmed the idea, that Left Nationalism is a standard concept. Among other examples, she cited her own nation of origin, Japan, as Left EthnoNatonionalist - on the right end of the spectrum of Left Nationalism but Left Nationalism nevertheless, holding fast to its borders for its people. Like many from ancient countries, she treats “nationalism” and “ethnonationalism” as if they are redundant. We in the west, cannot take that for granted, especially not outside of Europe and less and less can we take it for granted within Europe.
if you look at anything that I’ve said before adding the specification of ethnonationalism, it always held racial loyalty in mind and never proposed ignoring the crucial difference of national species, never (I used analogies of compartments on a ship or parts of the body). It is amazing and very sad that despite the clear good will of my motives and intent, obvious alignment with your interests, that you have never given me the benefit of the doubt but have invariably strawmanned to place what I say into a stereotype of “the leftist academic” as the role foil to your autobiography. Before I added the specifying word “ethnonational”, I always took it for granted. But even now that I have made that explicit specification years ago, having taken it for granted at one time is apparently enough, even now, for you to insert self serving mis directing stereotype - a stereotype that Jewish Madison Ave has been cultivating assiduously since 2008 to direct against the enemies of ascendant Jewry, i.e., “the left” viz. left ethnonationalism (with you having apparently purchased the program), as opposed to what I mean by White Left and White Left Ethnonationalism. Nevertheless, I had to add and perhaps should have added explicitly from the start, the term ethnonational to White Left Ethnonationalism. Because the naive and disingenuous were trying to take advantage and say that I was advancing liberal internationalism and Marxism or Cultural Marxism. Goodness knows that you were not going to look at what I was saying and give it the correct clarification for anyone having that misapprehension. Maybe I was reluctant to specify because White Left Ethnonationalism is a mouthful. But another reason why I had to add that term was to distinguish it from the Chinese thing, Baizo, “White Left”, by which they mean Cultural Marxism. And again, there still remains the issue of Jewish crypsis, their passing for European extraction. This is where meming of the happy merchant and so on can help, so that he does not infiltrate and misdirect our ethnonational union, as he is certainly wont to do.
I suppose that the most valid criticism that you might attempt is that I have not made a scientific study of word usage and its correspondence to right, left and liberal. I do not accept this criticism because my “radar system” has worked, time and again and cross contextually. Not that a scientific study cannot and perhaps should not be made to back up my working hypothesis…but.. A huge first clue comes with our enemies having wanted to refer to us as right and far right for years. Why would they want to do that? For a starting guess, you can imagine that the reasons are Not good for us. With them having co-opted and red caped the notion of the left, weaponizing it against any would-be White unionization, I was as repulsed by “the left” as anybody, while never really being able to get on board with the right and all its retarded associations, as the supposed redoubt for nationalists. Feeling comfortable with neither left nor right then, I would try to walk gingerly around the issue when anyone queried my racial nationalism. I recall a funny instance in Salerno, Italy back in 1996, me and a few other hostellers had a big laugh when I tried do delicately parse the issue, saying, “economically, I am a little to the left, while culturally I am a little to the right” (I wouldn’t necessarily put it that way now, but these were more primitive times - that was the last year before the internet took hold). An Italian local who was in on the conversation said, “Oh, I understand, you’re a fascist.” - big laughs. Ok so… after trying to sell people on the low hanging fruit of wanting to be separate from blacks and not having much luck, like anyone who does not want blacks imposed upon them and finds people going along with the imposition, i.e., if you care about Whites, you are eventually forced to confront the J.Q. more head on. Though in fits and starts, I already recognized that they were an issue in imposing blacks and liberalism upon Whites, I had reached the end of all the futile rope I was willing to extend them (not wanting to traffic with Nazis, after all) by 2009. In a low time, I began listening to Metzger and found that he had no problem with putting Hitler/and Nazism behind, believing that they had some things right, but not when it came to who he cared about defending - European peoples, which he calls “White people.” Left racialism was his main position. I would be critical and reject his suspicion of nationalism as necessarily breeding infighting between White people - the reason why he does not consider himself a nationalist. I would argue that imperialism creates conflict between Whites (and others), not nationalism. Nevertheless, hearing how devoted he was/is to White interests and drawing upon White Left racialist perspectives, such as Jack London and several others, I started becoming comfortable with the idea of a left perspective and I became comfortable with one of his mainstays - looking critically at the right. His perspective is traceable in part to David Lane’s disillusionment with the right, as Metzger remains loyal to The Order to this day. Now we can be critical of The Order, of course. They were functioning and making sense as best they could in days before internet. They were still largely aligned, insufficiently liberated form the right wing perspective of William Luther Pierce and that is why they came unhinged, even David Lane himself, in the hapless killing of a Jewish radio shock jockey. Nevertheless, they were dabbling in some left nationalism as anyone would, by proxy of Strasser, if they are interested in “National Socialism.” By the night of the long knives, when Strasser was murdered along with key Brown Shirts to vanquish their potential threat to Hitler in favor of a deal with the industrial elite, left cover of Nazism was jettisoned and they became what they were at bottom - right wing, supremacist, imperialist. Ok, so all of this and much more is making sense, falling into line from an emerging left ethnonational perspective on my part. I expect people in WN to be readily amenable to this perspective, for my sources and motives, but find a maelstrom of frenzied opposition, including by people who should be on my side. So I am looking at how they talk, their apparent motives and sources and things are making sense… Reasons why they are gravitating toward the right and buying-into positing the (((Madison Ave))) marketed stereotype of THE Left and Characterology thereof, as the enemy. I’ve explained the pattern of corresponding terms many times and will again below Patterns of word and idea usage: ..... I’ll fill it in later but will take a rest for now as you are making me tired of having to constantly repeat it (for years). adding 21 May 2020: First, by centering the worldview through praxis - one’s group - one is required, really availed to make use of the non-Cartesian process of group maintenance with the best of White post modern thought, such as heremeneutics, some of the better ideas of the Pragmatists and more.
Furthermore, the right is associated with an array of anti social valuations that can effectively turn the broad base of popular assent from getting behind it. Conversely, the left is associated with compassion, social accountability, justice and compassion which can, in fact, generate effective popular adherence and organization. Perhaps the issues are too deep for a competitive businessman’s framework and a national hobbyist, who’s mere resentment of academia props up a mimicking of (((Derrida))) to reverse his deconstructionism of anything constructive - this reverse deconstuctionism is supposed to suffice and is presumed to be well placed. Anything on offer by “the competitor and academic” must be “THE left” and in need of complete deconstruction. Nevermind, it is clear that you have been chasing a red cape, but you have done enough good, in many important ways that face saving will not be impossible despite your obstruction. I doubt that you will take the olive branch, even if I tell you in earnest, once again, that I don’t require that you use the word left or right, but that you please stop over burdening me with your straw men and antagonism of my position - I will not stop because it works to make sense and it is deeply correct. White Left Ethnonationalism is definable for our interests. I is not against private property, not against free enterprise, nor is it Marxist international. Marxism does what a typical Jewish red cape does, takes a good idea for social organization, i.e., unionization, and red capes it against our interests, viz red capes it against nationalism, by advocating a union of the workers of the world to unite against the state, which is supposed to wither away. You’d be harder pressed to show how a left ethnonationalist, pro-its-social group and facilitating accountability to the borders and bounds of its social capital, its history and future, is Not a natural fit. 27
Posted by Cleaned up on Thu, 21 May 2020 10:48 | # Ok, I’ve cleaned up my typical mess of a rough draft that I put up a few hours ago this morning. I do apologize for the embarrassment and frustration that these rough drafts must cause. Though I can guess at some explanations as to why I find it difficult to break this habit, there are no great excuses. Apologies. Nevertheless, for those who haven’t had the misfortune of happening upon the rough draft thrown up this morning, or for those who have and would like to see the cleaned up version, it’s there in my preceding comment. Fixed now as the underlying ideas were always worthwhile.
28
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 21 May 2020 12:28 | # As usual, I am not going to address everything you have written, because I will be all day. But if you feel you have some particularly strong point I should address, then by all means I will attend to it. Otherwise, I will just offer a couple of familiar plaints which illustrate the problem as I see it. 1. The left already exists. Everybody knows what it is. You can’t appropriate its title and change all that. It cannot work. In any case, it’s not the correct direction to go. Ethnic nationalism does not have the relationship of “left” to liberalism, and liberalism does not have the relation of “right” to ethnic nationalism. We do not inhabit a left-right arrayed philosophical universe along which all the great systems of the European past, including the city states, the imperialism of Rome, tribalism before and after it, monarchism, feudalism, and theocracy, are arrayed. One could perhaps say that the true relation, systemically, between nationalism and liberalism, is that of the making of human authenticity to that of human artifice. Or one could say that it is the advocacy of natural interests to that of the unfettering will. One could try in a number of ways to penetrate to the heart of it. But just saying “left this, right that”, free of philosophical substance, will not do at all. There is no such constituency as “the White Left”. You made it up without bothering to ask yourself who agrees to be named as “the White Left”. When you found that nobody agreed your response was to double down, and no amount of resulting self-isolation has made you question the wisdom of that. What, then, is to be done, because, as the Doc said, you are too valuable asset to waste himself on an impossible mission. 2. Blood does not “unite”. Its singularity is expressed within the person and asserted in the life of the people, or it is not. In the West in our time it is not. So ethnic nationalists speak of a political “awakening”. That is the event in question. The fascists and Nietzscheans spoke of other considerations (the life of glory, the destiny of the Volk, and so forth), and may have routinely thought in terms of unity. But we are not them. Our nationalism has a prior condition attached, and it is this: Without the singularity of the blood there is nothing to awake to, and without awakening no common action. From a sequential and utilitarian perspective, therefore, it is awakening and the mechanics thereof with which we are concerned. You cannot ask those who are not yet awake to “unite” when, not being awake, they don’t even understand what there is to unite with; and when they do awake they are already there! You are demanding the wrong action from them. 29
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 12:51 | #
. Bullshit right from the start. The White Ethnonational Left DOES NOT EXIST IN THE PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS. When they say “the left” (the left that “already exists”) they mean the international - anti-national - Marxist Left and Cultural Marxist Left which translates to liberalism for us. All of my points are strong, and I advise any White ethnonionalsists who knows what’s good for them to read the comment as opposed to getting lost in GW’s self serving strawmen and diversions (it’s ok to him to make me spend all day shoveling through his invariable horse shit and strawaman diversions). ... 30
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 13:17 | #
It is the way to go, the stable, accountable, correctable way to go. Ethnonationalism is a perfect fit for a left (social unionizing) perspective, which is in opposite relation to liberalism and I have many times explained the relation of the right to it as a purity reaction to abuses of the left social unionizing concept by our enemies (red caped) against our White ethnonationalism, but it never penetrates your selfish, disrespectful arrogance. 31
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 13:28 | #
We do inhabit a left-right arrayed philosophical discourse as I have correctly deciphered in in depth grammar since the time of Aristotle - who placed praxis (the group) at the center of philosophical concern. And before Aristotle, placing one’s concern for one’s people at center would simply be the natural position. Through time, this socially centered position has come to be called “the left.” ..though not yet applied for a distinction of White ethnonational application. City States would be Praxis. Imperial Rome would be Right wing in its imperialism, devotion to the “gods’ and so on… Monarchism is right wing, a narrowing of accountability and warrant to the king - by definition right wing, the context of the French revolution placed those who sided with the King to the right and those who sided with the union of national populace to the left. Theocracy is to the right, attempting to invoke warrants beyond social accountability. 32
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 13:34 | #
Well, this is your purity spiral, reactionary jive (and you say that I will not reach people - lol). This Zen-esque purity shit as opposed to stating the case simply and accurately that liberals are of two kinds A) from our group who don’t care to maintain our group bounds or B) those form other groups who want to crash our group bounds. 33
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 13:41 | #
Again the purity spiral of “nature” as if a group member can’t see it in their personal genetic interests to betray us, for natural reasons (and have). With that, you invoke the invoke the Altercast Jewish Characterology of what “The Left does” .. I guess that as a hobbyist, you’ve got to make some use of this red caped program you’ve purchased. As if anybody serious believes in unfettered free will and is trying to argue for that. But this character in the program “THE Left” he/she might argue for free will. Ask Paul Gottfried about it, he’s familiar with the designers of the game. 34
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 13:48 | #
Too bad for your straw man argument, that’s not all I do. It’s a fraction of my platform and I was afraid that you were going to obstruct the meming program for the sake of your unmeritedly gargantuan ego. You try hem me in, “paint me into a corner”, to defend against your reaction to the word left and keep people focused on the Jewish red caping stereotype characterology of that word, not my clarifications for our sake - but for the sake of your autiobiography and the allegiance of asshole adherents on the right, who cannot get over uncle Adolf, Jesus, Scientism and in some cases, their Jewish friends. 35
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 14:03 | #
. How many times do you need to be told? You keep calling it merely “the White Left” because you want people to ignore that I am talking about a White Ethnonational Left, having to clarify the ethnonational aspect a couple years ago because I took for granted my concern for both Genus (White/i.e., European) and Species (our ethnonational kinds). I had to clarify this largely because of you, your investment in the Jewish Characterology of “The Left’ as your puerile autobiography plays Zen master dragon slayer against this internationalist (therefore liberal for nationalists) red caping. Because you can’t get over the fact that you’ve been duped into right wing reaction/over-compensation beyond praxis’ accountability and correctability, you simply try to enforce this stereotyped characterology of “the left”, ignore what I say, replace it with straw men so that you can go on treating me as the foil of your autobiographical fantasy as slayer of Jewish tinged academic pretense. 36
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 14:17 | #
You don’t know everybody. The nationalists you know and who encourage you are, like you, invested in the reaction to what has been called the left, the Jewish character; its more stupid arguments easily countered by right wing feedback, causing them to cling white knuckle to identification - to double down - as Right through the maelstrom of Jewish rhetoric, while the better arguments against rightist positions are ignored as they and YOU DOUBLE DOWN like a baby clinging to its pacifier. I double down because I am correct while you and the “everybody” you purport to know, are wrong. 37
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 14:24 | #
It’s not self isolation, its Jewish imposed isolation as in the case of any ethnonationalist, while they enlist right wing reacionaries, those who go along with the altercast convenient to them - i.e., as Right - to contribute to the isolation of this platform. 38
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 14:31 | #
I have addressed the difficulties. You ignored my rebuts. Jews have had control of media and therefore have controlled common apprehension and misapprehension of the terms right and left. As a result, most people in their casual understanding will go along with the terms defined in Jewish convenience. You want me to accept their red caping of the terms as if an objective, found object or without a stable pattern of referents. That’s idiotic.
39
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 14:36 | #
It’s not at all an impossible mission, but just as importantly, it is only a fraction of the platform that nobody is required to elaborate upon or even speak explicitly of. The concern now is that you are trying to divert the meming program by suggesting that all this platform is about is credulity, credence and adherence with regard to a Jewish stereotyping characterolgy of “THE” left. 40
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 14:41 | #
Nor do classifications exist in perception. Please get over John Locke. 41
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 14:51 | #
Blood ties have received little reinforcement from the kind of transcendent purity spiral that you are committed to beyond the corrective structuring of praxis. And STEM types are notiorious dupes for their preoccupation with Augustinian devils; and being enamored of precision, attuned to look for the ONE break in the circuit, they are averse to the multifarious fallibilty and correctivity which is a central feature of praxis maintenance - which we may call defense of blood ties. 42
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 14:56 | #
That is psychologizing bullshit. Unfortunately you have invested too much effort in reading psychology. You want your investment to pay off, but it won’t. It was largely a waste of time. You say that I studied the wrong thing. No, you have studied the wrong thing, GW. Psychology’s unit of analysis is the individual. Our race is under attack. A race is a group. We need to be most concerned about our group and its maintenance through interactions. 43
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 15:06 | #
One time and one time only did I use the word “fascist” in a negative sense (I don’t use it in positive sense either, just don’t use the term) following your use of the term and I will never do it again. It invoked a chorus of “you are anti-fa!, you are anti-fa!” arrayed against me. They would not believe me when i said that it was the first time I’d ever used the term. And in fairness, in The United States, I have never heard anybody but liberals use the term, and they always use it in an anti nationalist sense. I didn’t feel comfortable about using it in a negative sense in that one instance and I will never do it again. 44
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 15:10 | #
I agree with you that Nietzsche is toxic. He had important utility as a step in a process of taking down some false and misdirecting idols, and he provided Heidedgger some important clues for the post modern way forward, but now he is toxic misdirection himself. 45
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 15:18 | #
The only “unity” that I am intent upon is the borders and boundaries of our people (genus and species) (boundaries for those instances where national bounds are not the issue or circumstance). 46
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 15:25 | #
Again, this reveals that you have studied the wrong thing in psychology. Common action comes about through logics of meaning and action circulating in interaction, among people as currency, as it were, logics of meaning and action providing coherence, accountability, agency and warrant. 47
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 15:38 | #
You may be concerned with such mechanics, but I am concerned with that and more that goes into achieving coherence. Though I can and do include your concerns in my platform, you continually try to deny the importance of my broader resource, which is actually more significant in the broad picture, as it provides more and vital input into systemic maintenance and reconstruction. That has been the hell of it coming from you and Bowery for some time now. My platform can include the matters that you like to attend to in your perspective, you are not respectful enough to suspend disbelief that I am NOT representing the Jewish red capes that you wish to sweep aside. That what I bring to bear is important, Not to be swept aside in favor of your fetish for mechanics and precision. 48
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 15:49 | #
I don’t ask those to unite who are not aware or concerned about the dissolution of our people. I have been clear about this from the start. I send to whom it may concern messages and have stated explicitly, in the DNA Nations, for example, that we are beginning with people who want to be a part of it, not trying to marshal those who do not want to be a part of it. Along side that (since you are obtusely accusing me of being concerned about only one thing - as STEM people are wont to do - “see, here it is, the ‘one problem’ in the circuit that makes this pesky threat to our gargantuan ego go away”....), I have been working diligently to explain to people the significance of their dissolution, thus why they should unite in the concern of Unionization/EthnoNational boundaries. The problem is that the YKW and Right Wing complicits, disingenuously or naively, have been diverting attention from this platform, attempting to bury it (you, for the sake of your fucking ego apparently) not allowing that “consciousness” to come about. 49
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 21 May 2020 15:55 | # Aristotle’s great pupil was Alexander the Great, a Greek war-monger and murdering imperialist. After Alexander’s death his empire broke up into city states ruled by his generals and henchmen who were not noted for their “praxis”. The city states of the Italians in the immediate pre-modern period were not Aristotelian but Christo-Platonic in inspiration. It would be another two to three centuries before liberalism began to take form, and four before the National Assembly in Paris established the basis on which the terms left and right are understood today. It is, of course, brutalising to take that and blag every prior system of human organisation into it. I mean, would Aristotle’s Greek boy have cheered on the absolutist Louis XVI or the sans cullottes on the barricades? Or would the dictator and empire-builder Napoleon have been more to his taste? Let us avoid the cherry-picking of philosophical ideas and methodologies (I know you respond to that suggestion, because I have seen you work on your Heideggerian usage in the light of it). So we understand one another ... 1. I am wholly supportive of your stand against the Hitler-worshippers. 2. Likewise your fealty to European ethnic preservation, which is unimpeachable. 3. Some sincere-self-criticism, however, would not go amiss. In the light of (3), you make a good point when you say, “Blood ties have received little reinforcement from the kind of transcendent purity spiral that you are committed to.” There is an agency problem with the existential focus, which is why, in the essay I am currently writing I note the following at the very outset:
My interest in beefing up the approach to all the issues surrounding emergence also attests to the same realisational ambition. You may not recall, but at the beginning of Part 1, I stated that the intention of these three essays would be to shape what went before for onward development. One has to be intellectually disciplined or the whole exercise is bound to fail. My feeling is that you DO have to make a similar effort but in the reverse direction, so to speak. You have to reconnect in all the areas where you have made dangerous assumptions. Don’t be so damned rigid and defensive. Make some space in your head to at least think about addressing the problems. 50
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 15:58 | #
And again, I have explained what they might/should unite about and why and you have done nothing but obstruct its understanding. Here saying that I am calling upon people to “unite” when I can’t recall ever having made that call. I suppose that you are trying to wink and nod to those who’d like to go along with you in the depiction of me as a Marxist: “Workers of the world, unite!” This is so dishonest and disrespectful of you. I have never called upon people to unite and yet you put quotes around the word and say that this is what I want people to do upon some rallying cry. 51
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 16:02 | #
I am not demanding action of them. That is yet another egregious strawman meant as a desperate attempt render me redundant and nothing but you and your unmerited, gargantuan ego project, as ‘Zen master, the only one necessary to consult.’ 52
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 16:20 | #
Alexander the Great is widely criticized for Not following Aristotle’s advice; had he followed Aristotle’s “praxis” (which you, in your resentment of academe, put in scare quotes), his empire would have lasted beyond his death. 53
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 16:24 | #
A Platonic form of the circumscribed people would be a form of praxis. True, it would be diverted from praxis some, perhaps significantly by the Christian element, but we understand that Europeans did what they did correctly despite Christianity - a right wing, and liberalizing influence.
54
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 16:28 | #
I am not talking about the terms as you would like to use them on behalf of your ego project in opposition to my deeper, abstract understanding, which makes more sense. 55
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 16:38 | #
I do not brutalize, my abstractions make sense, cross contextually. There is no reason to drop it just because it hurts your feelings along with those who egg you on in incessant opposition and misdirection of anything that I say.
It is not relevant what Alexander the Great might think as we already established that he did not follow Aristotle’s advice. It does follow that Aristotle would side with praxis - the national group unionized against the despot. That is absolutely clear.
This is not cherry picking, which is just another pejorative term that you attempt to impute to me where I actually follow Heidegger’s advice and thrust, for example instead of your plodding and inept adherence to the letter and not the spirit of philosophical thought. 56
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 16:41 | #
Recently, when Dr. Eigenvector said, “you have to improve your communications skills”, I did not say, “how dare you?!” 57
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 16:45 | #
That’s why your project is worse than a failure, but outright obstruction and misdirection - because you somehow lack the honesty or judgement to recognize and respect sound philosophical premises. 58
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 16:46 | #
I have not made dangerous assumptions. You project dangerous assumptions upon me me so that you can try to place me in the stereotype role of the foil to your autobiography as ‘slayer of academic falseness.’
Speak for yourself. The dangerous assumptions are with with you and your project as it quest for pure nature or whatever pure, seeks what is below praxis, below human accountability and correctivity and as such, is liable to come unhinged.
Take your own advice and apply it to your defensive rigidity with regard to what I am saying. My platform can include your concerns. 59
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 17:01 | # Finally, despite departing from Heidegger in some places as one should, because he was a bit off in some places and ways, you don’t get that right, totally ignoring what he had to say about Poesis, e.g., that thinking is more like poetry than science; and of course you ignore the creativity and imagination that hermeneutics affords, not merely about meaning but crucially about sense making and transcendent coherence of the arbitrary flux of mere facticity that we are thrown into. And you would try shove me aside and try to misrepresent and trivialize what I say? Sorry GW, I can’t let that happen. There are so many important ideas that I’ve purveyed that you would try to bury and shove aside. It is demented. 60
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 21 May 2020 21:39 | # I am certainly not trying to “shove you aside”. I am trying to bring you in from the cold. Your notion that liberalism is “right” and nationalism is “left” is cooked-up, chimerical. I can scarcely credit that anyone with your academic credentials would look right past the screamingly obvious problem with such charged binary judgements. In the same year that Heidegger published Being and Time the jurist Carl Schmitt published The Concept of the Political. He famously claimed to have discovered the root of politics in human conflict (friend vs foe). It seemed plausible at the time, I suppose, to those whose political ambitions involved imposing their will on everybody else. But after the war Schmitt’s argument was judged by many to have laid the intellectual foundation for totalitarianism. Heidegger’s non self-referential epistemological model allows for the world to be its ownself in all its particulars, witnessed by human being. It sets us the task of knowing reality by real being. Playing ideological whack-a-mole is not part of it. 61
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 23:12 | #
Every response to my offerings from you over the years indicates otherwise. That you don’t recognize the value of what I bring to bear and wish to set it aside on behalf of your horse shit. There are a variety of important things I’ve brought here. From the first offering, a retooling of Maslow’s hierarchy. You tried to dismiss it as “a garden variety concern” ....revealing yourself as willfully ignorant of crucial aspects of man’s concerns and requirements. You don’t know the lay of the land, but this is no matter for you, because all you really think important is your own musings. This bit about wanting to “bring me in from the cold” has already been explaind for the nonsense that it is, and your pseudo benevolence doesn’t help. Among the dozens of important ideas that I’ve brought here, there are no examples, zero, of your saying, “hey, that’s significant, we need to concentrate and elaborate on this… I can see the point. and it’s not the first time - lets put it together with that other good idea of yours.” Never. And you have the nerve to say that you are trying to help me with your fucking gas lighting. 62
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 23:26 | #
No it isn’t. You don’t listen because you don’t want to hear. I have long ago diagnosed liberalism and right wing-ism as coming from the same objectivist root. It makes consisent sense cross contextually. That is the opposite of “chimerical and cooked up.” By the way, Kumiko made the same observation and agreed, that the right wing and liberalism are coming from the same place. As far as Nationalism being “left”... well it doesn’t have to be, but it won’t last long and will be inherently unstable without praxis’ accountability and correctivity and be prone to go over the top, like Alexander the Great’s imperialism or Hitler’s imperialism; i.e., wouldn’t last long as it left praxis’ correctivity behind. If only your contentions were as benign and harmless as some sort of Walter Mitty fantasy of your own great importance that corresponds with the your self purported benevolent wish to bring me in from the cold from the utter irrelevance of what I bring to bear. Your intransigent and invariable gas lighting makes you as good a friend that the Jews ever had. 63
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 May 2020 23:43 | #
Yes, it may have seemed plausible at the time to make drawing friend enemy distinctions central.. especially if one wanted to return to the “innocence” of mood signs below praxis, in natural fallacy - distinctions drawn catastrophically wrong for the sake of European coordination of national interests. “Friend enemy lines” are lines of war, the heart of nothing more than sheer ethnocentrism boiling and ready to go over the top, over the top of any sort of praxis correctivity to come unhinged into imperialism ...on the same right wing grounds as Hitler’s natural fallacy of might makes right. Not recognizing or appreciating Aristotle’s lessons in human nature in praxis’ and with it the capacity, and need really (as Bateson explains) to get along with other nations i.e., to coordinate national group interests with other nations. I mean really, not as in Hitler’s “peace offerings.” 64
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 22 May 2020 00:01 | #
Then you should stop playing ideological whack-a-mole and while you’re at it, stop trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes, with your half-assed understanding of Heidegger - as if he is the be all and end all of philosophy, you ignore the sources, place and interplay of Heidegger in the history of philosophy. And there were important problems of Heidegger’s philosophy of itself - too individualistic and though concerned some for social implications of praxis’ and coordination with others, not nearly enough. That is to say nothing of his concern and respect for biology - not much, while Aristotle and Bateson recognize its crucial significance and central place. Give it up, GW. And don’t you dare again try to write-off what I bring to bear “whack-a-mole” unless you want more nasty fights on your hands.
65
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 22 May 2020 00:15 | # By the way, is the name “tuberculosis” an arbitrary tag given to the disease under the microscope? It is somewhat arbitrary in the choice of name yes, but not in the referent. Left is a fairly arbitrary name given to social concern, unionization of social groups and their concern for justice, coalitions thereof, etc. Nevertheless, Left is what we are calling these concerns; and we understand that when our nationalists nowadays refer to “THE” Left they are referring to he intenational left (which is liberalism with regard to our National/Social unionization). They are not referring to our Ethnonational Left. “Whack-a-mole” - fuck off. GW doesn’t feel like calling tuberculosis “tuberculosis” today, let alone dealing with the referent significance. Deep thinker - not. A petty business man and a hobbyist out of his element and out of his league. Jealous beyond belief, such that he would try to destroy any good idea that he cannot somehow attribute as emanating from his own armchair. ... that he would do this, placing his ego in obstruction of the well being of our people is entirely unacceptable. As good a friend as the enemy ever had. 66
Posted by The Implosion of Propertarianism on Thu, 09 Jul 2020 18:04 | # Post a comment:
Next entry: “Time is on their side, yes it is…”
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by Curt Doolittle on Wed, 13 May 2020 21:07 | #
The problem is that the Peace of Westphalia (Europe’s Domestication of Warfare) died with the Semitic revival: (a) the communist revolution, (b) the islamist revolution that copied it, (c) the institutional adoption of it by Iran, (d) the neo-marxist-postmodernist-feminist insurrection from within, (e) Russia’s Defection with her Little Green Men invasion of Ukraine, and (f) China’s Restoration of Total War - all of which are counter revolutions against the anglo-empirical revolution, and the french counter-revolution against it, resulting in the french revolution and it’s restoration of roman empiricalism and systematic destruction of the core of european civilization: the holy roman empire (greater germania) that had preserved western civilization’s core (customary law of sovereignty and reciprocity) through the dark ages. The anglo experiment is over. It was a failure. We cannot make the world an aristocracy (or even middle class) of everyone. The continental experiment is over. We cannot invent a secular theology. (there is no replacement for the church). The democratic socialist experiment is over: we cannot defeat physical(scarcity), natural(incentives), and evolutionary laws(regression to the mean). The Chinese have demonstrated that the winner of the 20th century experiment was Ethno Nationalism, State Fascism, and Restoration of the conflict of civilizations - just as Huntington predicted.
My work restoration of social science in the face of the failure of the false promises of the anglo(political), continental (social), jewish(pseudoscientific), revolutions against physical natural and evolutionary laws of the universe.
There is no steady state. there is no ‘rest’. We defeat the red queen or we are destroyed by her or those that do. And it is not clear at all that the uniqueness of european thought - always limited to a minority - can be repeated: and it is not clear that we have an infinite period of time in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace to complete the transcendence of man to a condition where we are no longer victims of a universe apparently all but hostile to life.
So far we are alone. There is no one to save us from the laws of the universe but ourselves.
So, no more wishful thinking. It’s time for adulthood.
Otherwise, good job.
-Cheers