|
|
|
“Deleted”: Tech Giants Totalitarian Implementation of Critical Race Theory Algorithms Big Tech and Color Revolutions with Allum Bokhari and Darren Beattie Note, in their discussion of the color revolutions theory, they are emphatic to stress their belief that the “left / right ” divide is obsolete, but they are failing to recognize that the Marxist, international, anti-national left merges with right wing elitism and liberalism license as pitted against the unionization of ethnonationalism. Furthermore, as neo-liberal sources (a step in the process toward the Marxist international, as far as those types see it) are behind the color revolutions, it is problematic indeed, as a Russian puppet dictatorship such as Lukashenko’s should be replaced, not with neo-liberalism, but with a Belarusian, ethnonational leadership. Same issue in this next discussion - Michael Anton | The BLM Movement and Civil Rights | Constitution Day Panel - an otherwise brilliant analysis, but hopefully people will begin to see, along with me, that if the Powers That Be can’t get you to argue against their marketed characterology of the Left (in order to distract you from the fact that you should be adopting a left ethonationalist concept) then they will try to put across the notion that the “left / right ” distinction is an obsolete concept (in order to distract you from the fact that you should be adopting a left ethonationalist concept): Michael Anton | The BLM Movement and Civil Rights | Constitution Day Panel Lots of talk of “the left” - by which, as we know, if we are to be generous to them, they mean the internationalist, anti-White Left - which they explain has a heck of a shake-down racket going on, with the BLM the shock troops on the ground, invoking massive funding from the corporations… Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 03 Oct 2020 12:36 | #
Bull-fucking-shit. To say that I am falling for a trap is for you to ignore (as ever) everything that I’ve ever said to explain this matter. It is to ignore that I will allow you to talk in the terms you wish, as my scheme can interpolate your meaning at its best. But rather, it is you tying to tell me to how to think in accordance with your duped stupidity. You’re the one falling for the YKW trap/obfuscation of the means to organize our people and their defense on the most relevant, stable, non-infiltratable, non-subvertable grounds. Left ethnonationalism unionizes our people, calibrating and structuring accountability and correctivity for what is of most concern to us, the relative interests of our people; while right wing inquiries into objective nature, principles and truths irrespective and necessary to take into account irrespective of our subjective and relative group interests provide feedback, to be applied and gauged against our subjective and relative group interests. Because this is the perspective to take if you want to maintain your group, its systemic homeostasis (sovereignty/autonomy), our enemies, viz., YKW, are trying desperately to keep us from taking it; and gladly find a dupe, useful idiot in you and your antagonism. I don’t have time for your conceited boomer bullshit anymore. Perhaps later I’ll take a look at the rest of your dupe’s stupidity and would-be bum steers to subsequent generations. .... And don’t try to misrepresent this position as Marxist, as it advocates private property, mixed with some public holdings, free enterprise within reason, mixed with public vocations, is not especially concerned with unequal outcomes according to relative merit; while more concerned with commensurability/incommensurability - accountability and niche fit to human ecology. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 03 Oct 2020 16:04 | #
There is no left in nationalism, as argued above; which argument you do not address. Further, the left of liberalism does not unionise. In simple, it seeks the unfettered will through a negative reading of human freedom, while the right of liberalism seeks the unfettered will through a positive reading of human freedom. The negative reading has a conceptual or analytical tendency to agglomerate human beings while the positive has a tendency to atomise them. Agglomeration and atomisation are both estranging, for they both impose a political reading of human being on human being itself. Ethnic nationalism, on the contrary, seeks neither agglomeration nor atomisation. Its function is the living of the authentic life; an abiding estate of human freedom which is, in its absolute purity, there-being on the knife-edge of the present moment. A people in there-being, therefore, is not a unity. It is what is; its ordinary and endemic state of absence or exile or illusion being its concealer. What is, therefore, is not “corrected”. It ... the only singular, natural subject ... is unconcealed. The innate meaning of ethnic nationalism is unconcealment. There are no “right wing enquiries”. Objectivity (what is in the world) and subjectivity (what is in human being) are no more conflicted than Dasein and World are conflicted. Dasein must and can only be in the world. It is the conceptual loss of sight of this which may generate conflict and error, because it engenders human artifice where there was authenticity. The solution, philosophically, is not correction of detail but the restoration of the sight of All. I have been striving to communicate this to you for a very long time, and you doggedly resist, preferring instead to cleave to your personal hermeneutic analysis and your uni communicationist tools. The opportunity was there to work together on the problem of agency, but for reasons entirely of your own you wanted to re-invent the whole game. You have discovered that not another soul will play it, and yet you are too stubborn to confront the fact honestly and with humility. 4
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 03 Oct 2020 16:15 | #
Yes, there is. Japan is a salient example. I don’t have time or need to read the rest of your horseshit.
* Japan is to the right side of left ehtnonationalism, but nevertheless, left ethnonationalist. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 03 Oct 2020 16:19 | # Japan is nothing like a Western liberal society, and the Japanese sociobiology does not lend itself to Western liberalism. 6
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 03 Oct 2020 17:24 | # How many times do you need to be told that “left” is not liberal? Left is the opposite of liberal. As I said, GW. I’m done shoveling your horseshit. I cannot count the number of times you’ve dumped this one. A union (the under current of leftism) conserves what is within. Liberalism opens borders and boundaries. These concepts are opposites. The internationalist, Marxist left is looking to open nationalist borders, including ethnonational borders - borders are a union concept; it wants to open these borders on behalf of a union of the workers of the world; and the cultural Marxist anti-White left is looking to open White boundaries (union concept - the union of the interests of Whites); so, these are liberalizing activisms with regard to White/European borders and bounds; but they do not represent a White/European Left Ethnonationalism, which, underpinned by the concept of unionization, is the opposite of liberalism - it conserves that which is in the union: White interests, the ethnonational borders of European peoples. I’ve probably explained this to you over a hundred times, you sick, gaslighting fuck. Maybe you are hoping that people will be coming here for the first time and I won’t have time to shovel out your horseshit yet one more time. 7
Posted by Tanstaafl's Jewish wife and Millennial Warts on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 15:12 | # Rather than supporting Japan’s left ethnonational success to date (97% ethnostate) and recognizing the antagonism as antagonism to left ethnonationalism, as not internally generated, Semiogogue (typically, according to the Jewish script against the left characterology that he follows in order to make him a famous one eyebrowed clown) is joined by another useful idiot FAUXTAKU LOUNGE (“Japan doesn’t have a turd positionist like Keith Woods”), to promote the Jewish script - Turd Positionism. I call them useful idiots because they’ve been baited to lay in wait. For what was an example of left ethnonationaism, really ...and it is, as Japan looks after its people, despite an American imposed constitution, internationalist banking, etc.. exemplified not only in its 97 percent native population still but in its CEO’s having the least salary distance from the rest of the population of any industrialized nation. Yes, the neo liberals are working on them and pressuring them to adopt self destructive programs, but .. Recognizing that it is under siege like the rest of the world’s ethnonationalities does not justify utter skeptical dismissal of their potential for corrections in their ethnonational interests, nor does it justify hopping on antagonistic breaches of their ethnonationalism to promote a strawman, as a Millennial Warts would, to say that we naively see Japan as THE ethnonationaist paragon to follow, rather than AN example of ethnonationalism to support, which indeed, has functioned despite imposition of American and Jewish NeoLiberalism. I will perhaps lead with a rebut as a news article on the new site. Notice how Millennial Warts was all keen to support this discussion. And its not that the vulnerabilities of Japan shouldn’t be heard, nor are they really surprising. But then, someone like Millennial Warts, who spent his late teens sucking the penis’ of so many men that he can’t even remember their names, might feel his soap box threatened by dedicated ethnonationalists; and be interested in throwing obstacles in their way so that his Millennial Yule can still exercise his jollies. Oh, I suppose that Millennial Warts sucking the penis’s of so many men that he cannot even remember does not preclude him from saying some truths, but… this thing, this antagonism of his out of the blue for the sake of “the truth will live” ... very strange. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Oct 2020 13:28 | #
“Left” means agglomerating the industrial poor in pursuit of a negative, massifying ideal of human freedom. You want to unify a singularity ... let’s say, the Scottish people ... and you want to accomplish this entirely tautological exercise from a non-holistic, non-systemic form of academic thaumaturgy picked up from your uni days, whereby you will inform my Scottish brothers of the correctly hermeneutic analysis of their circumstance and direct them accordingly to unify, whatever that may actually mean. But, actually, all you have to do, sadly, is to stage a football match between Scotland and England, and the Scots will do the rest! No academics required. Uncover the mechanism for that act of self-discovery and install it permanently in the Scottish life, and presto! You’ve done what the NASDAP did in 1930s Deutschland. 9
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 05 Oct 2020 14:18 | #
No it doesn’t. Especially not when it is White Left Ethnonationalism. It is about unionizing the full national group against exploitation whether from high, low or from the side.
When it is White Left Ethnonationalism, that is exactly what it does. Unionizes the “blood interests” and if they come about naturally does not interfere.
Left ethnonationalism does the same thing. In fact, it facilitates that by fending off misdirection where “the magic hand” is blind or disingenuous.
Go to hell you lying scumbag. It’s really amazing the way that you will not drop this bullshit line of yours. What a bunch of shit. Take it to your toilet where it belongs.
Less than that. We don’t need the football match. All we need are the farts from GW’s armchair. No academics ever required. lol. But actually, even where they really are not required you will imagine them (me as one, for example, though I am not an academic), as you require them as the foil to your autobiography, to tilt against on behalf of the ‘naturalism that will bring about nationalism’... your autobiography requires the red cape artifices and my debunking them is actually a disservice to your autobiography as it takes away the kosher coloring book that’s been handed to you, as your “academic adversary” And hasn’t your naturalism done so well against Jewish trickery?... has my sorting out of their academic chicanery been so obstructive of natural course, or has it rather smoothed the way for natural nationalism in England and provided the even more difficult theoretical structuring for diaspora, outside of the indigenous nations.
That’s what you want to do? turn the Scottish into a bunch of Nazi reactionaries, steered like agentless zombies headlong in a ‘natural’ mechanistic reaction over the top into cataclysm? Good thinking GW. Not. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Oct 2020 17:04 | # Daniel, words have meanings. You can’t go around hermeneuticising different meanings according to your personal want. There is no philosophical link between a socially-conflicting model of working-class solidarity and the bond of blood of a whole people. Whole peoples make unconflicted politics through shared, cohering (ie, kin-) interests. Accordingly, it can be said to take a societal form, but not to be primarily a society. It is always more than that ... there is always something more that the social which makes the people such, in consequence of which its members have no naturally-arising need or use for perpetual societal conflict. You might just as well employ the word “up” or “back” instead of “left”; it would have no more utility, and you would obtain not a whit less agreement from your fellow nationalists (who are, I am to believe, being “controlled” or “red-caped” or are “reacting”, else they would all agree with you). They are not going to agree with you. You are on a loser with this. You have been on a loser with it all along. The starting point for all nationalism is the kinship of the folk. That must bear a deeper and more permanent meaning than the war against scheming Others which you are fighting. Our problem, as European peoples, is not how to control those who control us. It is how to parse our human truth in an age of absence and estrangement. 11
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 05 Oct 2020 18:06 | #
“Hermeneuticizing” shut the fuck up. I don’t “just” do anything. Let alone “hermeneuticize according to my personal want. I follow the depth grammar in out people’s interests and not the red cape misdirections against our people’s interests unlike you, who impute meanings largely for the sake of your gargantuan, unmerited ego.
That is not the model that I use. That is a straw man. I don’t advocate a union of working class against other classes among the ethnonation. Rather, I advocate a union of the ethnonation/ethnonationals as opposed to non-natives those indifferent and antagonists. I have explained many times the reason to call this left ethnonatioalism, beginning with the clue that our enemies want us to argue against us the left, conditioning us to be against the salutary associations of the left and to distract us from defining left ethnonationalsm for ourselves, available term that it is for us to say, yes, we can have private property, free enterprise, unequal outcomes according to merit along with social accountability to our social capital and historical coherence with the union structuring social accountability, correctability, our self corrective system - group systemic homeostasis - in effect, our autonomy and sovereignty.
It is unconflicted and whole among our interests and has been in my setting out for a decade now, never was pitting our people against their national coherence; despite yours sick fuck endless strawmanning. This is another one that I have addressed dozens of times.
A group is just a framework, dickhead. One unit of analysis. I has explained to you already. I didn’t say that it was the only unit of analysis to use or even the only one that I use.
Well, asshole, if perpetual societal conflict was what I was modeling then maybe you’d have a point, but as it is, it is just another strawman and a particularly egregious one because you try to portray me as beholden to a Marxist model (which I am not) and you try get people to ignore the many ways I describe group social systemic homeostatis cohering. This is your true goal, to try to obfuscate the value of my efforts. But as far as modelinng conflict, indeed, I model conflict between ethnonationalism and internationalism, particularly as it is orchestrated by Jews with the aid of useful right wing and liberal idiots, red caped into the orchestration of their interests, controlled discourse.
So stupidly wrong. As I’ve explained how many times now but it never penetrates to reach the desiccated peanut rattling around the vacuous cavern of your skull. Why the Jewish marketing campaign against a charcterology of “the left” since 2008, and what is really consistent below the term ‘left’ that they don’t want us to have? Never mind. This has been explained to you a number of times. Certain keys on your piano are broken. Where intelligent theory should be heard playing in harmony, all that can be heard is GW moaning, “academic artifice, I am the god of nature, listen to me and only me!”
The discourse they are abiding is controlled, they are reacting and red caped, yes…at least the ones you know, which isn’t the everybody that you’d like to believe
Wrong. The stupid ones won’t get it right away. But they will eventually be brought along.
And that’s the starting point and central world view of praxis - left ethnonationalism - restoring the centralizing union of praxis, as left ethnonationalism does, the term provides yet another service, it turns away assholes who want to interject all sorts of no account, anti social destruction for their resentment and allows us to define it for ourselves introducing all sorts of good (unlike your retarded idea that words are like found objects that are fixed and have to be adhered to according to a schematic like Jewish dictionary).
There is asshole and just because you try to say that I do not pay attention to that - even though concentrating on conflict with others is not exactly a trivial pursuit - doesn’t mean its so even though, as ever, you are desperate to portray yourself as deep, and not the shallow, conceited, hyper cometitive businessman that you are, who places the interests of his gargantuan, unmerited ego before the interests of our peoples, if another has the nerve to purvey important information that you cannot claim derived from your armchair.
Where did I say that our problem was to control those who control us? That is a far cry from the task of achieving social systemic autonomy, which is what I advocate and have the theoretical means of. This “parsing of human truth” that you proclaim to be all important is your self absorbed, irresponsible navel gazing in the worldhood of the world that is your fart infested armchair. Bad enough that you would think some issues that are already incorporated into the concern of my platform are all important, but what is totally fucked up is that you are totally antagonistic to other, profounder matters of importance to our peoples. I am very glad to be leaving you behind. 12
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 05 Oct 2020 18:32 | # I follow the depth grammar in out people’s interests I follow the depth grammar in our people’s interests Our enemies want us to argue against us the left 0ur enemies want us to argue against
Wrong. The stupid ones won’t get it right away. But they will eventually be brought along. I have explained it too perfectly why they should listen to me. Sorry that it hurts your feelings boomer. Get out of the way. Whether they adopt my terminology, it allows me to make perfect sense of what is going on, and if they get things right in the end, at worst they will be doing the same thing with slightly different words. No big deal. But for now, there are reasons (good reasons, which I have stated many times, that I use the term left ethnonatinalism And as I have also said many times. If I can observe that there will toward our people is good and that their efforts are worthwhile on balance, I will note that they mean Marxist, “internationalist/ant-nationalist left” or “Cultural Marxist anti-White left” where they use the left, cautioning them, where they are intelligent and well positioned, that our enemies want us arguing against “the left’ viz, a characterology of “the left” for a reason (and it is to distract from our people getting the idea of White left ethnonationalism, specified in our interests) 13
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 05 Oct 2020 19:00 | # P.S., the term ethnonationalist by itself is fine. I don’t have to lead with “left ethnonationalist” but rather invoke it when necessary to differentiate from theoretical misdirection. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Oct 2020 21:56 | # So explain the development of nationalist forms on your fictional left-right axis. You can’t do it, can you? Why, then, do you think your left-right model is an accurate representation of the nationalist thought-world? You are misdirecting people, Daniel. 15
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 06 Oct 2020 00:12 | #
No, I’m not GW. Why is everybody so dedicated to arguing against a characterology of ‘the left”? I’ve answered the question - a marketing campaign nudge emphasis since 2008 to divert people from left implications of unionized organization against their greater than ever hegemony at that point, i.e., right wing, objectivst, that’s just natural merit arguments served Jewish interests at that point, left arguments threatened them, especially as they had misrepresented them (red caped them) and weaponized them against whites. Furthermore, whereas the social concern and reasonable compassion of socially structured concern in unionized organization facilitates good will and loyalty, accepting the altercast association of White identity strictly with brutal, ‘that’s just the way it is’ arguments, short on social accountability, is stigmatic and makes popular assent difficult for good reason. You want to say that this doesn’t exist. The YKW are misdirecting people and you are going along with it, the reaction to their red capes - the extent they are going along with the correction of red capes is because the red capes are anti social. I’ve explained how my terminology doesn’t have to matter that much so that I can tolerate people being manipulated thus. I can look and see what is happening through the terministic screens that I use and let people talk as they will, nevertheless seeing corrective direction. I recommend that people note the reason to speak more specifically as I do and take up the implications, but if people are generally acting accordingly, identifying as ethnonationalist, allowing for it, that’s enough. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 06 Oct 2020 04:11 | # It is not unreasonable to expect that, in the intellectual work they do, responsible thinking people in our movement follow the golden thread to “what is”, describe it faithfully for the benefit of others; and do not impose upon it their own preconceived ideas and assumptions or any agenda of their own. If you are going to base an holistic analysis of the nationalist mind on some axis, and assign to it the weight and significance of a human truth, then it must represent something real. Otherwise you are really only making a passing observation (say about manipulation) and blowing it out of all proportion. I understand that your are greatly concerned that the situation in the US ... the (let’s call it) German-American paradigm in WN and the scientism and race-realism ... is a failing model. These things do not constitute a working system of ideas which can generate change. That is why, for the last couple of decades on this side of the pond, we have been feeling our way towards the ethnicisation of nationalism ... bringing it back to the base metal, as it were. It is from the truth of this that we have to proceed, and after your fashion you are trying to encourage people to this end. But you are doing it in this very idiosyncratic way which isn’t working; and the reason for that is that it doesn’t accord with other nationalists’ understanding of what is real. You have had the run of the site with this stuff, and it hasn’t done us any good at all. Now, rather than face that fact, you accuse me of “gaslighting” you, and much else that I have not dignified with a reply, and you are off to start another site. Well, if you can’t change, then that’s the best thing for everybody; because come what may MR is going to go through another phase of re-purposing and it must not be held back. 17
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 06 Oct 2020 05:02 | #
Again, asshole, you project the total strawman that I impose preconceived (rather than considered and tested through time, articulation of clear patterns) ideas and assumptions of an agenda of my own. It is not my subjective agenda. The subjective ego project is your thing, a product of your narcissitic personality disorder.
I do model a holistic analysis and it does represent real axial distinctions, so true that is that it simply does not matter that you deny it for your subjective conceits. It only matters in that you would try to obfuscate and misdirect that reality here, where I’ve clarified these matters, but thank goodness I am soon to be freed of your sickness.
This is only one aspect of the problem with you. Just as with my previous comment, where I observe that you took advantage of my inadvertent use of the word “elite” instead of “elitists”, you would try to say that I model divisive class warfare amidst the nation, which I never have. So in this case, you are taking advantage of something that I might have phrased better in the comment before: “A marketing campaign nudge emphasis since 2008 to divert people from left implications of unionized organization against their greater than ever hegemony at that point” Over stressing the “passing moment” of 2008 and under emphasizing the profound pattern the depth grammar of left and right that I have articulated; along with the Jewish red capes that go along. I was quite sure that you would take try to take advantage of that, as you have, while I had not clarified and articulated that a little better. Anything, anything that you can try to use against me, to misrepresent and strawman the platform that I articulate you will. And the reason is because you are an asshole with narcissistic personality disorder.
I don’t care what you say anymore, GW. You are always trying to reverse the case and say that I am the one who is behind the curve, with the shallow understanding. It is a projection.
You are a total, gaslighting liar. If nothing else I have kept the site free of Nazi sycophants, holocuast deniers, the stupid danger that goes along with such association, also free of Jewish infiltrators/subverters and Christards. But more, i have put the site on the most sophisticated and solid philosophical grounds of White/European advocacy. Just because you it serves your ego project to ignore that and to believe that the Jewish marketing program which would of course try to work against its being widely understood and accepted does not make it true.
Oh, but you have. Its over 90 percent of what you have done in your comments, including this one. It is not an accusation it is a fact, and a feature of your narcissistic personality disorder.
I was not holding back anything. Unfortunately, you were the one holding things back, and for the sake of your ego project, your autobiography as the only purveyor of worthy theory up against academic artifice…and an autobiography that you are so committed to, despite its being out of touch with reality, that it forced you to lie to no end in order to fit me into the role of your foil and misrepresent what I say with an invariable and endless succession of strawmen. Unlike you, I have the advantage of an honest man and people who care for the truth will see what I am saying, its value and purpose as opposed to your lies and self serving misrepresentations. 18
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 18 Oct 2020 05:50 | #
Let me address it then. There is left nationalism and ethnhonatoinalism when the basis of the nationalism is the union of the people - which bears the account, as opposed to some principle within, of, or beyond nature, or of an individual or small group which would be right nationalism bearing the account. I did not make up the term “left nationalism” but gleaned it from Kumiko, and it makes perfect sense to provide that form of nationalism which our enemies do not want us to have.
I Never said that it did. I’ve said to you a thousand times, and emphatically, that liberalism is that which opens bounds and borders - thus ruptures unionization. That you refuse to hear and acknowledge this - for years now - is pathological.
You are talking about your strawman here. Because I said nothing about the left or right of liberalism.
That might be an issue of my concern if I were operating within your strawman, but I’m not.
You probably think you’ve said something very good and worthwhile. It might be ok to take forays into such impractical talk of absolute purity and living on the knife-edge, but not to the exclusion of better considered philosophical priorities.
Your objection to the idea of unity goes to your reactionary grasping after pure warrant, so much so that it precludes even the modest speculation of a working hypothesis that the most rigorous scientist must bear. A reaction, which goes to your autobiography in reaction against academia, real and imaginary, such that if a good idea come into play - such as correctivity and homeostasis - you will attack it and try to say that it is somehow at odds with ‘what is’ , what is good and natural, but mostly at odds with your ego and its autobiography as the sole purveyor of worthwhile ideas.
You are only making my case. Yes, I have made sense of this. There are right wing inquiries, more concerned with objectivity, facts, nature and narrowing from group interests to individual or small group as opposed to relative social group interests.
There can be conflicts between those who value objectivity over, say, subjective and relative interests if they think their priorities transcend the interests of the group and bear no accountability, viz. to people who are concerned with the relative concerns of the group. In fact, Christianity slipped us a huge mickey on the way to infecting our people with this purity spiral against subjective and relative group interests, that now infects you to the core.
Yes, and it is a concept to remind us - correct is as it were - to come back to the world from Cartesian estrangement and to our engagement and involvements with authentic responsibilities.
This is just a philosophically inept, purity spiral, for the sake of your - as ever - jealous, misplaced competitiveness, which seeks to put yourself on the “correct” end of a false either or - which you do wherever you see a good idea that did not emanate from your armchair: correction and correctivity IS a part of homeostasis and it is not mutually exclusive to basically doing things right, from emergent properties, but it does recognize that people can go off track of a better course of action - obviously that can be the case.
GW, you are an idiot. I hold fast to what is good and valuable. It is not a “personal hermeneutic” analysis that I put forth. You try vainly to reduce the resource that I bring to bear and then try to heap insults on your stawmen as an errant ideology - ‘communicationist tools” - it seems like a Bowery interject as when he tried to say that I talk of Cartesianism as a way to insult people (a ridiculous claim), as in another example, when you tried to say that “red caping” was an insult term, or so now you try to say that I am a “communcationist” because you take these concepts personally. Ridiculous. It’s been explained to you but you but your autobiography and gargantuan, unmerited ego won’t let go of attempting to attribute an altercast to me as your foil, foolhearty academic, who passively accepted ideas from academia, rather than what is the case, as one who has inferred, deduced, weighed, considered, tested and correct applications - some ideas from academia, yes, but some concepts from erudition (another distinction that you don’t make) shaping them to national interest, but in most part, I developed these ideas outside of academia, forged in lived experience and altogether in opposition to those academics antagonistic to the interests of Europeans, their ethnonational interests. ..in spite of these academics, not beholden to them, as you invariably and stupidly try to make it seem.
GW, yours is a very uneven intelligence. The stubbornness and unwillingness to confront the truth with honesty and humility is a projection of your own disorder. You will “not play it” because your ego will not let you, while apparently keys are broken on your mental keyboard, you will not fix them you are tone deaf to the fact. I have not reinvented a whole game. I have provided a finer articulation of the western philosophical project as its task now present. I have articulated what is - and I know this because it continues to make perfect sense, despite Jewish obfuscation and the rubes who go along with their discourse parameters or in reaction (as anticipated by them). While you play a few issues very well - holding fast to emergentism, nationalism and critique of Christianity, with regard to other instruments, the ability simply isn’t there in you. Advanced Boomerism has set in and has obstructed for long enough for its sick egotistical disease. ..glad to be moving past you, for all of our sake. Post a comment:
Next entry: Is the hospitality industry driving the rise in Covid cases? None of the data says so.
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 03 Oct 2020 10:51 | #
Another attempt to get you to think your way out of this left-right trap ...
What is the arrayal of all nationalist forms between left and right, in your view (and I mean philosophically, not organisationally; so ethnic not ethno-)? I am confident you won’t produce a coherent answer. It is very far from easy to array nationalist forms along a single axis - something I have only recently been forced to concede. As you will know, our axiality is something I have thought about for a long time, for the most part trying to overcome the ideational discontinuities by positing an additional axis (say conservative ↔ progressive in distinction to a base axis of being ↔ becoming) but the more I thought about the practicalities, the more violence to forms needed to be done to force them onto the framework.
I have looked at a pyramid form, whereby ethnic nationalism sits at the base and other forms nest within its bounds and those of one another; but that suffers from the same problem of the violence required to order a strict and contiguous, multi-level nest so each form relates to the form above and below it. So I am now toying with the idea that the whole nationalist world of thought might function as a radial form, with the central, ball-like source of originating energy being ethnic. All around it are arrayed filters, each one taking the energy blasted out from the centre and transforming it according to its internal structure. Further, these filters can be conjoined according to their similarities, with different degrees of overlap. So the National Socialist filter has the fascist filter to one side conjoined to it, while on the other side is Judaism, again conjoined. Perhaps a Nietzschean filter is conjoined to both, while the NS filter connects to the fascist filter, and that to the traditionalist filter, and on the other side of that, again tangential, is the revolutionary conservative filter. One might place a Christian filter beyond the Judaic one, and somewhere separate to all of these a volkish filter and elsewhere a nativist filter ... and so forth.
The chief principle in all this is to avoid doing violence to the actual nature of each form. If they could all be fitted on a radial scheme, and I do think that is at least notionally possible, then that would satisfy me. It would, though, signal an absolute break with the standard liberal axes; and confirm the idea that we can only properly discuss the forms of either thought-world within their own axial terms.