|
|
|
Do Joel Davis and Richard Spencer Want to Suck Jewish Cock?  Joel Davis, Richard Spencer et al. in a recent podcast (not the podcasts referenced in this article).Or would they prefer to take it up the ass? We have long followed the Jewish op called “the Alt-Right”, a stewarding of Whites reacting to Political Correctness and its hyperbolic activist groups and coalitions deemed “social justice warriors.” Though these “social justice warriors”, themselves, were an anti White orchestration by Jewish academia, that is a fact glossed-over in this stewarding of Whites by contrast, broadly conducted along the crypo kosher devised platform of paleoconservativsm, but spearheaded pointedly by Paul Gottfried; who saw the need circa 2008, to head off the intersectionality of a necessarily growing consciousness that Jews were not exactly a downtrodden group, but to the contrary, occupying elite niches in society, often unjustly and wielding that power unjustly. Hence the need, from a Jewish perspective, to divert that nascent awareness, the logical counter of White unionization (a leftist thing) and coalition building; and to promote instead a characterology of “The Left” as the enemy, “Social Justice Warriors” its deluded minions. ... we don’t want any of that social justice now that Jews are on top (in more hegemony than ever) ...along with any scummy Whites who are willing to sell out to Jewish interests, now do we? No, this un-kosher intersectionality could be headed off by moving Whites from false Jewish opposition number one - NeoConservatism - and reviving false Jewish opposition number two - Paleoconserativism - updated 2.0, to appeal to a younger (and naive) audience to include a broader variety of reactionaries, not trying to fit all right wing reactionaries under one tent, but rather create a tentosphere, a loose coalition divide and conquer juggling act that could allow for Christians, Jewish right wingers, neo-Nazis and the scientistic generally, along with nutty conspiracy theorists. Membership seemed to require at least one socially stigmatizing attachment - then you could be a minor e-celebrity, arguing against “the left” and “social justice warriors”, equipped directly by Madison Ave marketing firms with memes and narratives to absolve you (and YKW) from responsibility and accountability, narratives provided for the “Alt-Right”, of pure scientific objectivity, facts of nature as the sole reason that you are on top and the sheer natural injustice of the world, the reason that you are not accountable, “the reason that things are not equal, like THE left character always unnaturally insists upon.” Richard Spencer is apparently happy to go along with the Jewish misdirection to promote the “SJW’s are the problem” meme ...take the bribe and pay off of this Jewish, Madison Ave marketing campaign, where it originated, focusing on the vastly distorted, hyperbolic anti White “social justice warrior”, really a Jewish academic creation, and talk about it instead, as if it is an organic phenomenon stemming from religious origin, ether, in order to divert Whites from organizing themselves and pursuing their social justice; which would bring into full view Jewish elite niches, their injustice along with right wing/liberal sell outs - seeing them clearly as out-groups: The Religious Origins of the SJW, NPI Radix 28 April 2020 Is it really necessary, Richard, to go along with memes convenient to (((them))), a meme like this having obviousy been put out by (((their))) Madison Ave. marketing machine? Sure, let’s be against Social Justice now that (((they))) are unjustly on top of everything and right wing sell outs like you, Richard, are perfectly willing to sell out ethnonationalism; contributing to the marketing of this meme, taking (((their))) hyperbolic, anti-White coalitions as being The thing that social justice is about, whereas “reality” and White advocacy can supposedly have no part in social justice. But then, I guess it is convenient to a blue blood like yourself, one with no character. Typical right wing, anti-social bullshit, treacherous, sell out. And about philosophy student, Joel Davis, with whom you do philosophical hangouts now… He is the one who necessitated a rebut from me for his conversation with Josh Neal. I believe the discussion between Josh Neal and Joel Davis is off line (I’ll try to find it), but Joel Davis was saying unequivocally that “Israel is our friend.” ...not that it is some kind of supremacist cluster fuck trying to extend its reach over the whole world as “the shining beacon” to the “down trodden masses” - downtrodden because the tribe blends us down and grinds us down. Joel Davis, who for some interesting reason keeps speaking of Mencius Moldbug (((Curtis Yarvin))) as if he someone authoritative to refer-to, to look up to, when in fact, Yarvin is clearly operating in Jewish interests, misdirecting Whites with his Ops, “Dark Enlightenment” and into “Neo Reaction” etc., ops focusing on co-opting STEM types especially, those who tend to be naive about the machinations as opposed to proper uses of social sciences and the humanities. Here is Joel Davis in the chat of a Paul Gottfried stream, apparently very interested in getting in with Gottfried: First, I will give you the excerpts of Joel, followed by the whole chat:
We’ve already established Right Ruminations inclinations, viewing Gottfried as someone we should be grateful for. Joel is chatting with Right Ruminations here:
Finally, Joel Davis shows how he wants to co-opt the ultimate move of left nationalism, which by his idea would include Jews:
However, Gottfried man Right Ruminations pushes back, not wanting to share the wealth, of course ..
Here is the full chat
Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 03 May 2020 09:15 | # The analysis of technology, which is really a specialised analysis of modernity, does not bear much fruit for those pondering our existential crisis. No doubt, modern industry and the life of prosperity, ease and convenience it brings forth are, in their different ways, both reductive in their human impacts. But they are secondary at most. For me, as an ethnic nationalist rather than a Marxist materialist or environmentalist, the “question” is much less about their capacity to shape than about our all too human susceptibility to immersion in the shapes they make; for confronting that susceptibility is the only modus by which freedom from both impositions, or indeed anything else, can be got. This is not a moral or social question. This is a question about a certain turn, a certain discrimination for our reality; which I believe to be the inner meaning of our politics. In other words ethnic nationalism is a politics of turning at all times and in all ages, be they technological or not, towards that which is most human in and necessitous for us. That is where any agency which belongs to the light, and which sees the good for any people, comes from. 3
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 03 May 2020 12:20 | # As I have said, Heidegger is using Aristotle’s structuring - to discuss the question concerning technology as well: in this case, using the four stage process of techne to take us from techne’s theoretical estrangement and broadly back into Praxis - whether focusing on its emergent aspect, holding fast and evincing, or its interactive aspect, hermeneutic aspect of dasein. He is asserting that we become estranged and enframed in a particular view of instrumentation and quantification typically at the stage of techne as revealing from raw natural material, and we lose sight and track - we get somehow beholden to that stage - and this inauthentic relation to technology and natural elements can enframe and conceal both essential relation and the formal telos of objects produced; concealing the natural respect for their essence, their formal qualitative delimitation as it would be anthropologically/ sociologically ennobling in praxis and fourthly, mechanistically, “pragmatically” block our personal, anthropological/sociological responsibility to manage that ideal in relation to natural essence, i.e. in praxis. Thus, while it is true that Heidegger is focused on the emergent, on allowing for the natural expression through individual relation in There-Being, he also recognizes the non Cartesian aspect of this revealing which means not only holding fast, but engagement in hermeneutic process - he is bringing us back to praxis, with a focus on emergence despite the primordial throwness of the human condition, yes, but recognizing the necessary, unavoidable engagement within praxis nevertheless - thus, while he is not focusing on the moral and the social, it is also NOT not a moral and social question. ...which “belongs to the light, and which sees the good for any people, comes from.” Which is a moral and social concern anyway… However, ethnonationalism should be good for most people and is reasonable to propose as a universal in the sense that it should be good for most people, most of the time….the best way to manage our common interests (e.g., resources/ environment); but it will not always be good for everyone. One’s inward light will not always be good for everyone - particularly not for the very selfish. The praxis of ethnonationalism is nevertheless the best way to coordinate the best interests among reasonable people; their use, enjoyment and sacral concerns among peoples with varying interests. Which aspect of this four way concern of techne that one might focus on at a given time or of a given people depends. Heidegger could take German ethnocentrism for granted. He could not take for granted their social mindedness not going rogue into “The They”, becoming inauthentic and coming unhinged as such; and hence, his focus on the natural, emergent and independent element. I do not think the problem and required emphasis of the English and White Americans is quite the same today. And I am still convinced it would have been better if Heidegger emphasized the social/historical responsibility of praxis a bit more and was able to put that across more effectively, though he did some. We need all aspects in the process, including the emergent essence, yes, but our historical group, the anthropological/sociological responsibility is more the necessary emphasis now - it entails a responsibility to protect authentic, emergent capacity. It is not mutually exclusive. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 03 May 2020 23:39 | # Daniel, your academic interests do not produce the turn to expressive ethnic nationalism. Even Heidegger’s focus on being does not produce the turn to expressive ethnic nationalism. Neither is ethnic nationalism social in origin. The blood is not a social concern. It is an instinctual concern. Likewise, the soil is not a social concern. It is an existential concern. If we were trying to produce in our people a turn to an artificial form of nationalism like Volkishness, Evolian traditionalism, or even the fascisms you might have a point about the social dimension. But we are not trying to produce these things in our people. We are operating beyond all artifice and, thus, beyond the social dimension. It is there to be ordered by a healthy people, not the other way around. It is at the end of the line, not the beginning. 5
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 03 May 2020 23:50 | # “The blood is not a social concern” That is a large part of why it cannot be relied upon, by itself, apart from that anthropocentric, sociological aspect, the wisdom of praxis’ corrective, to secure our people. Especially not when outgroups, notably YKW, know better. “Pure nature” is a guide, but only one pole of feedback to provide homesostasis on the system. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 May 2020 09:55 | # So if a homosexual squeezed your arm affectionately, looked you hard in the left eye, and insisted that “pure nature is only a guide” you would have to agree; and not only that, you would be forced by the very logic of Aristotle himself to aver, even as your interlocutor’s hand moved ever closer to your groin, that while emergence is a thing, social classification has the superior agency, and, accordingly, the “hermeneutic aspect of dasein” under the guidance of wise university lecturers in the social sciences will “correct for homeostasis”, so “leading back into praxis”? Or you might just punch the guy’s lights out, I don’t know. What do you think? 7
Posted by Millennial Warts on Mon, 04 May 2020 10:27 | # I would not punch his lights out but I would react with revulsion, stop him, reprimand him and try my best to avoid his company. My (I believe preferable) strategy owing some to socialization. However, as nature is an ecological-cybernetic balancing act, there might be some guys who would be inclined to like the homosexual advance; and it is those cases who are not harder programmed to yield to homosexual impulse that the acknowledgement of social constructionist agency shows itself most clearly important - that we of Praxis may provide agency and social accountability AGAINST homosexuality, male homosexuality especially, as opposed to the stupidity of the sheerly naturally deterministic world view (that some - perhaps you? - would like to hold rank over all academia, in jealousy of academia): a deterministic world view which can conveniently relieve homosexuals of accountability as they are “just born that way” and that is “just the way it is”, leaving them prone to translate that lack of accountability to liberal politics - e.g., “mudsharks can’t help it” and so on… Furthermore, as they don’t take on and are not encouraged on to the rigorous challenge of heterosexual relations (for the notion of determinism), they can lack empathy as to how difficult heterosexual relationships can be and there again, resign to liberalism and fail to bring to bear a critical voice of accountability to those who can be real bullies in the ranks of heterosexuality, and deprive the world of the balancing of a more normal if not gender neutral sort of person to keep in ecological balance the extremes of hyper femininity, its predilections and foibles, hyper masculinity and is predilections, and foibles. Furthermore, you have to have a certain amount of empathy for the other sex’s role in sex in order to appreciate how they can get off on it and not feel too weird about yielding human dignity to the eroticism of the animal mechanism of dominance and submission. On the other hand, also in the name of balance and taste of a fashion, there are reasons why we find the overly feminine men aesthetically repugnant (even Richard Spencer’s femininity crosses the line a bit, as far as I’m concerned). After submitting to the urge for sex (with women) and not being ridiculously aggressive (like an African is more prone to be), hogging of and abusing the lion’s share of women (as non-European, R selection hypergamy strategies would have it), a male should not be given to submission as rule - you don’t do that as a man. It is a betrayal of your masculine essence. But I think I’m marking a distinction between European masculine sublimation vs effeminacy and “universal maturity”, which veers atavistically toward African aggression, hyper assertiveness, hypergamy and R selection. And, as I’ve noted several times, pressure on young White males, especially in this disordered criteria of modernity, can cause them to do stupid things in order to prove that they are not gay; things outside the optimal parameters of European male maturity. I don’t know how Millennial Warts lives with himself, but he does, warts and all.. apparently gave them to a virgin too (unacceptable if true)... this may stem from too much “that’s just the way it is” (therefore ok) scientism circulating in Britain - London especially. DanielS Being socialized into the ecology of Praxis, I would hypothesize that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon/inclination in a very small percentage of the population; and that it has survived because it has survival value - anchors in praxis a respect for balance and empathy between genders, by occupying a gender neutral zone and a bit of cross over. Having said that, it is indeed a repugnant phenomenon for the heterosexual population - they are “queers” and the flamboyant activism and promotion of them to the general public and to children as if perfectly normal is wrong. It should be firmly discouraged while stopping short of being so inhumane as to not discreetly acknowledge that it exists in all human populations because it is a naturally occurring phenomenon, having some apparent survival value to the human ecology, manifesting a strong inclination in a small percentage of people ...which, in the non determinism of social contructionism, doesn’t insist that the inclination has to be acted upon; but if they feel it does, can elicit an account request. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 May 2020 11:21 | # I wrote this in my last essay:
In other words, Ground Zero here is continuity through differentiation from the mechanistic universe. So to speak of the essential is to speak of a bias born in - and for - continuity (which is all there is that is not, or does not lead to, extinction) and then charactered by differentiation. That is as far as we can go at present. We can, however, say that there is nothing of control in this, even over the destiny of the vita itself. I suspect, therefore, that cybernetics is grounded in a false understanding which verges on the purposive, there being famously no purpose in the transmission of genetic information. What you call Nature but is really the essential principle is the bias for continuity through differentiation. If we can at least come to an agreement on that there is hope! 9
Posted by Necessary liberation from mere facticity on Mon, 04 May 2020 14:47 | #
I’m not sure if imagination puts a limit there. Firstly it is not only a matter of differentiation from the mechanistic, but also a differentiation from arbitrary flux, the thrownness of the empirical world, as it were. Nor is it only a matter of linear continuity, but also a matter of systemic homeostasis, individual and group (and environment/habitat); And, especially since you like to speak in Heideggerian terms, it is a also an important liberation from mere facticity. This is especially important for Europeans, who are not going to necessarily appear the best and most worthy to reproduce against all competition in just any arbitrary momentary and episodic competition, but require the semi transcendence of heremeneutics in some occasions to connect to the important relational, group cultural pattern/systemic and even autobiographical level in continuity and homeostasis..
But also it is a liberation from the abuse of scientism and narrative in antagonisic hands: This liberation is important where antagonists control the narrative and can have our puerile focus on those moments and episodes where we may not be “better” and thus encourage them to breed against our interests.
I can agree that we are not fully in control, especially constrained by what we are born with, but in its amendment, in the selection of partners and having children, for example, we do have some control; and the polity, through its agreed upon rule structure, borders, birth certificates, marriage licenses, entitlements, programs and so on, would exercise some control over its population management..
I am not a cyberneticist, not an adherent. Perhaps I should not have made an offhand use of the term, as I did, in sketching an aspect of systems correction. STEM types would gravitate to the mechanistic scientism of it. But Praxis is too complicated for its mere simplicity, experiencing both limitations that cybernetics will not readily handle and liberation from its mechanism that it does not readily afford.
I better speak for myself…. Nature is what Is, and there is a matter of natural pleroma and creatura. Pleroma, the world of physics, is more straight forward cause and effect. Creatura, the biological and animal world, is more complicated in its coherence and systemic correction, especially where humans are concerned. I do believe that creatures, including humans, are naturally inclined to extend their species. However, for better and worse, with regard to human species (races) that extension of fitness is not always a naturally clean line between other species (of humans) and habitat, nor so lineally delimited (as it would be in modernist models). And some can obviously be led away to interbreeding with other species of humans, with the idea that they are increasing their personal fitness, may think they are improving ours and free to change our course, even radically, though I doubt we would agree, especially if the difference in EGI is too great. It is up to us to confirm, if not marshal this Caring for the great trajectory of our form.
But I do believe that we are in agreement, that yes, by and large, Species, that is groups, including humans, seek continuity, systemic homeostasis and extension into the future, the Care for the relational form and the trajectory of our kind. Furthermore, that is what Ought to happen.
Adding to the Millennial Warts paragraph above: But I think I’m marking a distinction between European masculine sublimation vs effeminacy and “universal maturity”, which veers atavistically toward African aggression, hyper assertiveness, hypergamy and R selection. And, as I’ve noted several times, pressure on young White males, especially in this disordered criteria of modernity, can cause them to do stupid things in order to prove that they are not gay; things outside the optimal parameters of European male maturity. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 May 2020 15:35 | # Daniel, liberation from Accident ... Happenstance ... is non-possible. Likewise liberation from the forces of Time and Entropy. Read my essay. Try to understand the limits of the event of Life, and its struggle through conflict with the latter forces to stave off extinction. Try to understand that there can be no staving off of Accident. All was mechanism before the event of Life, and eventually Life will close and mechanism will be All again. In the meantime we, being living things, struggle. That struggle is not for “homeostasis” as such. It’s a technical word you happen to think important. It would probably be better if you sympathised with your readers and said “the normative” or just “normality”. But our existential struggle is not for normality but for continuity. Men and women do not desire children ... mothers and fathers do not love their children above everything ... for normality. They do so for continuity. All living things tread the same simple, beautiful road. On “pleroma”, if you need to appeal to authority it might be better, when we are discussing ontology, to refer back to Heidegger’s distinction between the ontological and the ontic; which is more subtle and relevant than Jung via Bateson. Jung’s spirituality is not, I fear, of great moment for our race - a debate I had with Troy Southgate, a noted Jungian and Runist, many years ago (back in the days of “Synthesis, the online Journal du Cercle de la Rose”, which he ran). As I recall, I won; but perhaps it isn’t seemly to linger over the fact. Rather than trying to change the framework, which is sneaky at best, why not attempt to go beyond the point of origination of organic being, and therefore ontology, which I have identified, namely, the very moment a cellular organism sparked into being, did not extinguish in the face of Time and Entropy, but sustained. If you can get beyond that without appealing to deities (“pleroma” is a religious term), then you have done better than I. If you can’t, then join me in the hunt for a living foundation (ie, an operative order - something Heidegger, regrettably, does not supply but Salter, after his STEM fashion, does; and very interesting and enlightening it is, too). You raise an important point in respect to the human condition. But, then, that has been my most consistent theme in the sixteen years of this site’s existence, thus:
As I have tried to explain to you and to everyone who reads this blog from time to time, the foundation of “immersion ↔ appropriation” is encapsulated in the Ontological Transit. No doubt you will struggle against that argument too, when I make it shortly. It’s the wrong struggle! 11
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 04 May 2020 16:32 | #
Do you know that you constantly strawman GW? Yes, liberation from arbitrary direction of flux and misdirection is possible to an extent, sometimes to a very great extent. Examples range from diagnosis of the Frankfurt School to outer space exploration - that being a stellar example.
I Read it. I know the limitations of your thinking.
I do understand constraints, I do not now argue for, and never have argued for pure agency. And I fully acknowledge the emergent. One of the worst constraints, however, is your ceaseless strawmanning, which has obstructed ideas about two million times better than yours and increases the leg up for our antagonists and idiots who would mislead our peoples.
Straw man. I never said accident could be staved off perfectly, on the contrary, I have repeatedly called attention to the fact that the nature of Praxis is such that it is a bit too messy for that (unlike the world of pleroma) - Aristotle observed this (but I sometimes forget that you are smarter than Aristotle) - Praxis is too messy for the kind of scientistic precision that you are enamored of in your STEM predilection; but on the contrary, we who modestly accept the constraints of prediction within praxis, using more modest heuristics, working hypotheses, specificatory structures, working thus, not stubbornly against our fallibility but with it, seeing that fallibly allows for correctivity, therefore rise above skepticism and its stultification of systemic correction that you seem intent on promoting.
Well, if creatura die, especially if human creatures die, yes, it would be mechanism. 12
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 04 May 2020 17:25 | #
GW, please shut the fuck up with your jealous straw manning. People may not put it in those terms, but species, including human species struggle for homeostasis.
No, that’s a projection. You are the technocrat. A jealous one. Take heed of emergence and then realize that most else coming from GW tends to be jealousy and resentment.
I talk in terms of continuity and coherence all of the time. For those just looking on to this thread, they can go back and see that I have been talking about these things for years and GW has tried to obstruct recognition of any significance for all that time.
This is so ridiculous. I don’t know where this critique of the use of “normality” is coming from, but I do know that it is a strawman, trying to say that I am doing something with it that I am not trying to do ...just a stinking, obstructive game of one upmanship. It sucks.
Oh yeah, the only thing that matters is you and your Zen musings from your armchair. But then we look at the reality and your wonderful simple mindendes, er simplicity and ask, which continuity? Perhaps a narcissistic projection of the continuity of your jealousy, lifelong tilt against academia that requires a foil and when I don’t fit that role, requires your ceaseless strawmanning.
I prefer not to. Pleroma and Creatura is too important a distinction.
I don’t agree at all that it should be set aside or that elaborations cannot be subtle.
Why do you do this shit? I take one idea, and you act like I am or should be beholden to the whole cannon of… in this case Jung. I use almost nothing of Jung.
Congratulations, but I was not defending Jungian psychology, nor do I appreciate your misplaced competitiveness.
I am not being sneaky. If you want to be hide bound to your (lame) understanding of Heidegger, and want to follow every jot and tittle, that’s your trip.
You are accusing ME of wanting to talk endlessly about impractical shit? You made your point, carried it far down. Scientists should focus on a microscopic level ..at least from time to time. I’m not stopping you. I have more relevant, yes, more relevant things to attend to.
It is not a religious term the way I use it. I use it the way Bateson does, which is to distinguish a difference that makes a difference between the kind of necessity in the realm of physics (pleroma) and necessity the world of creatura (biology)_
I have done better than you.
I have foundation enough, and I always allow for scientists and others to increase and deepen this program. I am utterly disgusted with you GW. The years of important ideas that you, in your fucking jealousy, try to trivialize, make utterly redundant the other ...to the point where you would obstruct important ideas for all of us, simply for your egotistical competitiveness.
Oh there it is. Is that what you were waiting for when you said that one cannot go into their garage and build a religion? ...like a car engine, as if that was what I, or anyone else has ever done in generating a moral order.. with other people, as it must be and very well can be.
Oh thank you GW, I raise An important point, but of course you make it redundant.
Poetic of you, but basically understood as a point made by Heidegger in the question concerning technology.
Oh, I see. It’s me who doesn’t understand, who doesn’t appreciate what the other is saying, right?
Bullshit. You told me that I studied the wrong things too, and that was dead wrong. It’s eloquent but almost assuredly too rigid - wanting society to act like a car engine, with only one transit. Nothing new either, my communicological school would talk in terms such as enmeshment (more or less deep) in rule structures, logics of meaning and action which have various affordances and constraints, through Both Appropriation And Acting-into (and out of). Moreover, it provides rigorous means for analyzing those rule structures. Unbelievably, when I talked in terms of analyzing rule structures, diagnosing interactive entanglements, etc., you accused me of trying to control English people (while rule structures can be prescriptive, most of what I was doing was using them in descriptive terms) or you tried to say that the ideas somehow were not important. I will refrain from cursing at you again. For now. Your most important contribution is a focus on emergentism, and you refine it quite eloquently. You have some penetrating insights on Christianity, some good criticisms of Nazism, of course steadfast nationalism. Most all else from you is an expression of the most hideous jealousy. 13
Posted by Obstructing the war of position on Wed, 06 May 2020 07:28 | #
1) GW gives me no credit for processing information, whether I encounter it through intuition, experience, media, erudition or academia. For him (for the sake of his autobiography and those who egg him on), I am a mere conduit for what Jewish/Marxist university teachers say. And no matter how obviously untrue that is, he continues to make that accusation, apparently because his autobiography depends on it and he can’t bear the fact that his reaction is largely the product of deliberate instigation. Particularly, a reaction to anti-White abuse of the humanities and the stupid, encouraged reaction of Whites that they regard the humanities, such sociology, strictly as the domain of Jews. You would not think that he would be in line with people like Uh, but he is. “Don’t do any of that sociology stuff.” As I’ve said before, though it hasn’t sunk in, railing against sociology is like railing against a telescope. It is an instrument, and it happens to be as relevant an instrument as any since its unit of analysis is the group - races and nations are groups. If Jewish academics are abusing this instrument - and they are - that is all the more reason not to abandon the instrument to them. Before I am accused, again, of “walking out of a sociology lecture” and regurgitating what the Jewish / Marxist academics say, let me repeat that I have never taken a sociology class, nor was it the particular discipline of my study. I am simply not phobic to ideas that have passed its way, especially not when using them for OUR ethnonational purposes. But here is the next point 3) For that same stupid, right wing reactionary bias that Whites are encouraged to take by Jewry, STEM predilection and autobiography that requires a characterized “lefty” academic foil, GW will continue to strawman me, misconstrue what I say, try to suggest that I am anti science, or that, for example, I view Praxis as somehow opposed and apart from emergence (any reading of Aristotle will show that to be not true), apart from inborn capacity and limits, facts, evolution, nature, rigor and science generally, regarding them to be trivial concerns. That is a vast straw man. Though it was never true, GW keeps trying to altercast this Jewish provided characterology of “the left” on to me. I have always acknowledged the importance of the more concrete, ontological end, but just as with a few others who’ve been around here, the same good will does not extend to my focus, when I attend (necessarily) to the other end of the spectrum - the group, interaction, hermeneutics, the social realm. Rather than seeing a necessary complement for the defense of our people, they would try to reduce and exclude what I say, remove it as redundant, unnecessary, nonsense. And that is dumb. Very dumb. No other word for it. Let me say “has been dumb”, present perfect, on the offhand chance that one or another of them, may finally demonstrate some judgment if not decency in this regard. Fat chance, but I must allow for the possibility. ..... As a side note, I heard the neo-Nazi “Ovfuckyou” saying to Hitler apologist Claire Khaw that “Hitler was left wing.” Hitler was not left wing. Hitler had left cover, which he blew off decidedly on the night of the long knives. Hitler was right wing - with all its attendant instability, lack of social correction, unhinged, over the top reaction, in headlong penchant for myopic brutality -leading necessarily to destruction of vast swathes of European peoples - rivaling the Soviets - and again self destruction for lack of Praxis’ correctivity. We must not allow people like Claire Khaw and Ovfuckyou to associate Hitler with White Nationalism, Ethnonationalism, or “the Left” - now that Ov is going to try that stunt. Nor was Hitler a national socialist. He was an imperialist supremacist. This association with White Nationalism in some attempted redemptive fashion can only be to our detriment. I have been telling GW that this was going to happen as a result of his obstruction. That for the obstruction of proper theoretical understanding for our people, those who for all intents and purposes would serve as agents of misdirection will try to move into these positions. .. it continues to happen.
14
Posted by A profound experience of emergence on Wed, 06 May 2020 07:59 | # I was once asked to baby sit this baby for a few hours in a pinch. I tried to live with the baby crying when she started, but finally I had to change her diaper. I was reluctant and felt awkward about this especially because she was a little girl.
She did not stop crying after I removed her diaper. But after I quickly looked where the baby powder needed to go and then calmly and assuredly looked in her eyes, a complete reaction of calm and relaxation came over the baby. She seemed to sense that I was only about solving her duress. I rinsed, towel dab dried and powdered her without touching any skin directly and changed her diaper. In recounting this story to the Al-Anon group in the major trance that I will one day discuss, I broke down sobbing at the profundity of it 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 May 2020 09:40 | # I challenge you, Daniel, to listen to the opening motifs of Sibelius’s 7th Symphony in C Major and not recognise in the composer someone speaking of that same quiet, utterly guileless profundity which abides in the first weeks and months of life. And neither as adults is our own response to its expression any less guileless; for we too are reduced to complete simplicity in these moments of contact. Your tears might as easily have been for your own event of unconcealment, and for its awful, wasteful rarity; which is the condition of us all. Something quite similar, if not as absolutely human and revealing, occurs between a dog and his master. The heart-rate of both has been measured and found to calm by one another’s presence. Technically, it’s what is known as downward causation: how the world outside the organism itself generates effects within the organism. It is part of the “difficult” problem of mind and body. We do not have the answer for it today. Emergence is but one formal theory struggling, and largely failing, to supply it. 16
Posted by Steven West on Wed, 06 May 2020 13:05 | # Episode #101 ... Heidegger pt. 2 - Science and Technology He mentions a root meaning of Poesis which I had not - “to make” It seems to me, that would still go along with the arts, including narrative… ..and balancing the other end of Praxis would be the sciences, which “find and discover” DanielS 17
Posted by Teflon Non Foil on Thu, 07 May 2020 17:55 | #
GW. If things work out simply and naturally for an ethnonationalist, that’s well and good. There may even be room for the Zen master who tries to teach people how to hit these moments on the ethnonational transit as much as possible. But to make that THE program, such that it would attempt to sweep aside vital conceptual tools as if superfluous strikes me as beyond naive, but rather a corrupt motive (in this case, motivated to put aside the manifold resource that I bring to bear) and dangerous. Bateson talked about the misplaced desire to get back to the innocence of mood signs. There are inherent dangers in the persistent effort to go below the correctivity of praxis. But it also bespeaks a nasty desire (in your autobiography as an anti academic reactionary and in your business zero sum game autobiography) to try to bury as “unnecessary” the many important conceptual tools that I bring to bear, particularly for those times when interactions are not so simple and require analysis. An attempt to annihilate significance of my contribution that is evident in dozens of examples over the years and in the quotation marks here:
It’s gotten so that I have confirmation that an idea and means for addressing a problem is good and important because you will try to sweep it aside. And to repeat
Bullshit. You are struggling against me - mistakenly. I am an ethnonationalist and that is not a purely natural and linear endeavor. Sorry, it just isn’t. Praxis is not like the car engine that you work on in your garage. Nor do things always work out just fine, naturally. Where they do work out naturally for ethnonationalism, that’s fine, but obviously it has not always. My efforts are entirely consonant with ethnonationalism and you should not be struggling against them. You told me that I studied the wrong things too, and that was dead wrong.. My resources provide rigorous means for analyzing the rule structures that we are engaged in and the means to sort out entanglements thereof. I have presented these conceptual tools which you’ve tried to deride, and I will continue to use them despite your attempt to dismiss my efforts and render me as your foil, redundant of your autobiography ..at the egging-on of the scientistic, the Jews, the Nazi fuck headed and Christians. 19
Posted by Shabbos disservice on Mon, 25 May 2020 08:35 | # What they should (but don’t) say that Marcus’s critique did not say…. I.e., that the expansion of neo-liberal influence is a means by which a right wing managerial class, right wing sell outs acting in coalition with Jewish interests, could extend their administrative units internationally. Related at Majorityrights:
The 68ers of Europe, functioning under Marcus’s sway, and “free love” in the US also functioning under Marcus’s influence, were not representative of the authentic Hippie movement, which was an organic motive of White Being (Dasein) as opposed to being Drafted into the Vietnam war.
Post a comment:
Next entry: Crushing the States, Saving the Banks: The Fed’s Generous New Rules
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by The Question Concerning Technology on Sun, 03 May 2020 06:51 | #
EBL 23: Martin Heidegger “The Question Concerning Technology”
Tyler gives a solid explanation of the text, Davis actually contributes some good insight as to the remedial aims, but in the end, seeks to direct people to ‘mind their own buisness and stay in their division of labor’ while consolidating leadership under elitist and apparently kosher control.