Thank the Ceaseless Fight of GW that Jerusalem NOT be Built in England’s Green and Pleasant land.

Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 20 June 2020 05:20.

Given all that we now know and see, the mass brainwashing and cultural appropriation by Zionism of English patriotism through one of the most rousing, inspiring and ostensibly patriotic English hymns, “Jerusalem”, looms horrifying - as a hymn to a false religion misdirecting English interests to our enemy, captivating the nation from its Royalty, in holy matrimony, to the commoners singing in overflow outside Westminster Abbey.

Even if the significance of what I have brought to bear has thus far been misunderstood by GW, the significance of his radically native English loyalty is not lost on me (and his resistance to my efforts perhaps partly explained); appreciated all the more as an occasion like this, the mass singing of the hymn “Jerusalem” at the Royal Wedding reveals the kind of appropriation and the daunting, egregious misdirection that it is up against.

The Royal Wedding - Jerusalem (29 April 2011)

Harry and the undifferentiating of the gentiles

We’ve discussed this before, and while I basically agreed with GW, of the song I was still captured somewhat for its beauty and inspiration, its fascinating interplay of paganism, Christianity and patriotism… such that I did not fully appreciate in this case the significance of GW’s stance against Christianity’s historically enmeshed, nefarious influence - de-ethnonationalizing, universalizing, blending away the gentile into undifferentiated mass, powerless to organize against the “chosen ones”, etc.

Commenting on GW’s post: The shaping of European altruism in left political form, part 1

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:39 | # 2

OK, back for literally a minute. Reading about the sickness of PC, here as elsewhere, why do you, GW, never weigh in on my White Zion argument (ie, that WNs of all persuasions - conservative, Christian, nationalist, pagan, NSM - will never be a majority of any sovereign polity, and thus our race is doomed unless there is some kind of emigration-ingathering so that we might attain a sovereign majority somewhere)?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:57 | # 3

I’m English, Leon.  England is Zion to me, not that I like or need Jewish symbols.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:30 | # 4

GW: I’m English, Leon.  England is Zion to me, not that I like or need Jewish symbols.

That was funny

...“And did those feet in ancient time, Walk upon England’s mountains green?”....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN11bI1_sZo

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:49 | # 5

No they didn’t, Daniel.

Let me now respond to that pithy remark with great respect.

At the time, I responded:

Posted by daniel on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:15 | # 6

GW: No they didn’t, Daniel.

That was funny too..

No, I guess not, but a good tune, rather inspirational in its own way…and I like the Blake poem as it goes back and forth from Christianity to paganism from verse to verse - it can be seen, in a sense, as urging Christians/Christianity to conform to English nationalist interests.

...but neither do I recommend that strategy. Enough middle eastern influence to sort out as it is.

You already have quite a temple mount there in the London Square Mile

Somewhat better, I did add:

Posted by daniel on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:23 | # 8

While I am seeing the humor in those few quips by GW, I must also say that I am moved by this essay. It is rather not funny - heart wrenching.

As GW values the pithy, precise and natural, let us bend our hermeneutic knee where it is due: “No they didn’t”

The lyrics to Jerusalem:

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy lamb of god
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear, oh clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Til we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.

  - William Blake

Inspiring a boomer generation with mixed and mxing messages -
Emerson, Lake and Palmer: Jerusalem.

Below the fold is the moving article of GW. And while I respect his patriotic resistance in the daunting face of such grand deception and defrauding of the English people, I must issue the caveat that his fight has been transferred mistakenly against the resource that I bring to bear. Though he does not elaborate on what he maintains to be “the left political form”, we must be assured by now that he does not mean an ethnonationalist left, but an international one.

I always take for grated the maintaining of the genus and species (thus nationalism and native national borders) where I use the term “left” to attune consciousness to our interests. For GW’s penchant for strawmanning (lets be nice for a moment and call it Socratic challenge), it has taken volumes of repetition to assert that I am not talking about Marxism/ and its internationalist, supranational leftism, which is liberal with regard to our national borders.

I should have been able to take it for granted, as I was clear that I never advocated doing away with the borders of our people, be they racial genus or national species. But given the strawmanning of my potion, I have made what I mean by White Left explicit - i.e., White Left EthnoNationalism; and I have been explicit as to why I take that position.

That’s mostly irrelevant in this moment, but for the fact that “the form of left” is mentioned in GW’s title -

The shaping of European altruism in left political form, part 1

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 25 June 2012 06:39.

Last November Daniel Sienkiewicz published an article at VoR criticising the tendency, prevalent in much WN intellectualism, to target “the left” rather than Jewish activism.  We agreed that I would reproduce the article with some minor revisions at MR and I would offer a commentary on it.  Daniel’s article will be published separately on our page immediately after this first part of my essay.  Here, I am going to put forward my own, no doubt idiosyncratic and shamelessly provocative view of the central problem here, which is the foundation of Jewish thought in the Western religious and secular intellectual canon, and the open doorway that offers Jewish ethnocentric activism.

I am English.  My beautiful, brave, precious people are, today, suffering a vast and shocking physical colonisation by, to my northern eyes, unbeautiful and utterly alien peoples.  These peoples are unadmired, unwanted and unloved by the overwhelming majority of us.  Our will in the matter is clear and is known, and is, on all historical evidential bases, perfectly justified.  But because the power of choice in the matter has been taken from us, and our dissent delegitimised, we can do absolutely nothing in our own defence.  As things stand, the colonisers will minoritise us within the normal lifespan of anyone in his or her early forties today, and beyond that tipping point lies only one foreseeable outcome for us: an increasingly dark and vertiginous descent to the hell of a despised and threatened rump minority.  My child will see the first, my unborn grandchildren the second.

By any reckoning, and notwithstanding the extended temporality of the process, this is a genocide event.  But it is a genocide that nobody is interested in talking about, which is odd because we are given to believe that the decent, educated liberal abhors genocide above all crimes, and strives mightily to eradicate it from the life of Man.  As a creature much given to moral crusades, to non-aggression and opposition to colonisations, to sniffing out any injustice, to empathising with victims, to human rights, and to peace in perpetuity you might think he would have some sympathy for the English, and for all Europe’s children who face this same terrible and final existential disaster.  But he cannot.  He just can’t do it.  Prior considerations exercise too much, in fact, vastly too much control over him.

Specifically, my people, our people, are not moral in the only way that matters to the educated liberal, that is, we hold a monopoly on “power”, from which unfair vantage point we “discriminate” on grounds of skin colour.  And that, as everybody knows, carries an ethnic death sentence in postmodernity.  No further proof of guilt required.  No circumstances excepted.  No plea of mitigation tolerated.  No reprieves granted.  Discrimination is an existential sin grounded in an “irrational fear” and “hatred” that must be wiped from this world, and can only be so by, first, mixing humanity - all of it - in the living spaces of the (non-Jewish) white of skin, of the “fearful” and “hating”, and, second, destroying their hegemony (or privilege).  This is “the good” today, and not even the fact of its Kafkaesque nature and its screamingly obvious injustice gets through to the stampeding minds of those who think this way.

We all know this.  We’ve all encountered the mind of the morally-crusading, anti-racist left-liberal many times.  In truth, of course, it is impossible for an Englishman, say, to be morally inadmissible in any way when protesting the colonisation of England. No one of European descent can be racist in the Hirschfeldian sense, can be a “hater”, can be the stripped out, inhuman cypher anti-racism fashions from us entirely for its on purposes.  We are defending our life when we defend our land, and self-defence is always a morally unimpeachable cause.  We are morally free to do all that we must to remain who we are, and Life itself commands that we do so - we do not need a moral reason to pursue our own survival.  Not even Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy interferes with the unanswerable logic, the is/must, of survival.

But it makes not a whit of difference to the leftist herd.  If it’s white it’s racist.  So the universal reflex is abuse.  It’s mechanical, it’s thought-free, it’s self-proving.  It’s extremely difficult to get them to give it up and actually think.  They don’t want to, and they don’t have any incentive to because the next auto-defence is ready in place, and it’s denialism.  They deny any colonisation and any demographic replacement.  Then, when that fails they deny the ethnic specificity of our people.  “We are all mongrels”, they will say.  In my case, I will be informed that Anglo-Saxons were immigrants just like the Somalis today, and tomorrow the Somalis will be just as English.  Finally, when that wishful thinking has also been broken in their hands, they fall back on the alround African-ness of human origins.

Apparently, they think these are killing answers.  They must tell themselves so in their sociology classes, in their social spaces and on their fora.  And it doesn’t seem to make the slightest difference to them when their treasured truths are falsified.  It is no drawback to anti-racists that their ideology is filled with inconsistencies and is wafer-thin intellectually.  It does not trouble them that it contains no positives and no functional discourse at all, actually.

What matters, as has been observed by many others, is that it functions as a religion, and certainly grips the mind with a religious intensity.  But if it is religion it is clearly one which promises a very strange personal salvation, indeed salvation through the punishment of someone else.  In other words, its modus operandum is freudian projection.

We are, then, dealing here not with a rational argument but an emotional need.  Further, it is a need that, whilst it is personal, arises out of a deep-seated, general trauma, something particular to our race and to no other races, and which, in its specifics, afflicts the educated (but none too smart) fraction.  We are, therefore, also dealing with something targeted, something communicated - a seeding of fertile soil, no doubt, but one that produces a particular animus against the self?

Perhaps the most perfect visual summation of that animus occurred when Alex Linder’s VNN crew mustered in Knoxville on May 27, 2007 to protest during the trial of those accused of the kidnap, rape, torture and killing of Christopher Newsom, 23, and Channon Christian, 21, in January of that year.  A counter-demonstration was organised by local anti-fascists, many of whom dressed as clowns in bridal white, or Southern belle white, or white anyway, apparently in parody of the Klan (the FBI stooge Hal Turner helpfully concluded his speech to the thirty or so VNN supporters by claiming that after the rally he would be driving off to meet a Klan Grand Wizard to discuss the next move).

       

This photo of Linder’s (quite unnecessary) arrest on that day perfectly juxtaposes Alex in the foreground as a clean-cut, conventional figure good-humouredly suffering the attentions of two perfectly porcine gentlemen in blue with the jeering, lunatic contingent of anti-fascists in the background.  Their desperately gleeful, grotesquely homosexual mutilation of their own whiteness is too eloquent to be a mere parody.  It is unconscious performance art.  The whole of the anti-fascist mentality is contained herein: the joy of destruction, the blind racial nihilism, the completely unexamined and stunning ugliness and unnaturalness of it all.  Here is the Universal Anti-Racist, every bit as much the stripped out, inhuman cypher that his anti-racism strives to manufacture out of us.

And that tells us something about the communication aspect of the anti-racist mentality.  These people are tools.  They have, as Alex would say, been comprehensively jewed.  There is no kinder way to put it.  They have been fed the lie.  They have been pimped for another cause.  That old piece of Soviet arrogance, “useful idiots”, does not even begin to cover it.

But I’m not content to leave it there, as Alex is, mostly.  In part 2 of this essay I will explore both halves of the problem: the making of the Universal Anti-Racist and the traumatisation of Western life which opens the door to that possibility.


* A further note: where GW invokes a critical stance toward “communication” for its “superficiality”, he is addressing a strawman in the form of the transmissions model of communication (also called the enlightenment/modernist model of communication). By important contrast, the communications perspective holds that we live in communication - it is a deep view of communication, a world view which places our concerns in their greatest relevance, with our people centrally; and with that comes a notion of necessity which bears none of the clumsy and clunky dismissal of mechanical models which botch the motive for social accountability and agency.



Comments:


1

Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 10:53 | #

Today marks the first day of summer, according to the astronomical calculation, following yesterday’s solstice. To mark the occasion, here’s an episode from the BBC’s series ‘The Celts’ (1987) “Sacred Groves”. Hot war, culture war and the seeds of our discontent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsHghGwdWNg

The series also launched the solo career of Enya, the former Clannad singer having been commissioned to write the score for the series.


2

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 19:35 | #

I recall the author and 1980s cricket-wife Frances Edmonds appearing on my TV screen one day probably thirty years ago, and delivering herself with some mirth of the observation that while women, being sensible creatures, get together socially to discuss relationships, men, when they can be bothered to get together at all, do so to exchange cold, impersonal information.  The fragrant Frances was amused by the sheer earnestness and singular dedication with which we males inform one another about our perceptions of the nature of the universe.  But it’s true, nevertheless.  This is what we do.  First, we ascertain the truth of our circumstances.  Then we relay that truth to those about us.

No doubt, from an evolutionary perspective this is a highly adaptive behaviour, wrought from the male role in hunting for food, extracting resources from the environment, and defending or advancing the interests of the group.  Within these greater tasks, communication arises as a work-tool, not as a cause in itself.  We do not communicate because we are a priori social animals.  We communicate because we are blood brothers, otherwise we have little need of it (excepting for functions akin to the Maori haka, I suppose).

First, we ascertain the truth of our circumstances.  That is the primary occupation of the male mind.


3

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:20 | #

Wrong.

Still stuck on the transmissions model.

One cannot Not communicate.


4

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:20 | #

First we ascertain the truth of our circumstance.  Meaning is prior to communication.  Meaning, however, mediates between the subject and the world.  The subject’s being-in-the-world is, therefore, prior to meaning.  This is the order of things, about which your oft-repeated dictum is properly silent.


5

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:39 | #

Wrong. Communication is not solely about meaning, it is also action.

As an example of my oft ignored (by you) perspective.

Thus, the man who jumped out of the way of a falling rock to save his individual hide in an instant is the product of that act of selection between two people who recognized the survival and viability of their partner. Their offspring’s genetics signaled (communicated) that survival instinct to jump out of the way of the falling rock. He then communicated his survival of the falling rock instant, even if only in the act of his continued survival.

One does not have to look at things this way, but they’d be reconstructing the Cartesian perspective - rationally blinding oneself to our social involvements, indebtedness and accountability - which has left us susceptible to atomization and vulnerable to the social destruction that we are experiencing.


6

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 06:26 | #

And what act in all Nature is insensate and causeless?  Which creature, however small, does not ascertain the truth of its circumstance prior to action?


7

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 07:08 | #

Ascertaining is an (inter)action, even if only neuro-sensory.


8

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 08:38 | #

Ascertaining is a far judgement from the reception of sensory data via our there-being on the knife-edge of the present moment.  You pre-judge on a snap basis and from personal need, not from the possession of an epistemological model.  This need, therefore, is leading you into the unknown.


9

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:06 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:38 | #

Ascertaining is a far judgement from the reception of sensory data via our there-being on the knife-edge of the present moment.  You pre-judge on a snap basis and from personal need, not from the possession of an epistemological model.  This need, therefore, is leading you into the unknown.

I didn’t say you prejudge on the basis of an epistemological model. You need your strawmanning, don’t YOU?

The communications perspective does not deny facts, such as instinctive survival reactions of our biology; it rather deals with the truth that these biological capacities were reproduced in the interaction of sexual union and maintained more or less in social interdependence; which will afford and constrain (provide at least a modicum of agency over) how it is that we ascertain that those brute facts come to count for us in post hoc negotiation; also affording a modicum of agency in preparation/anticipation for such instantaneous factual events as well.


10

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:31 | #

I said YOU are pre-judging on a snap basis and from personal need, Daniel.  You have entered a subject area ... epistemological foundation ... which you are ill equipped to judge, but that doesn’t stop you.  These part-useful ideas of yours do not belong, ontologically, to a politics of human difference ... to a politics which grows out of the fundamental of essence’s priorness to existence.  Your Social Man stuff grows out of the fundamental of existence’s priorness to essence (indeed, for the most part standard political thinking denies essence).

What is one to say about you?  Like some academic Dr Frankenstein, you have taken theses from your own academic history, particularly Aristotle and Shotter, and bolted them onto your instinctual nationalism.  Some of it is OK up to a point.  Some of it is less OK.  Hermeneutics is less OK.  It is an intellectual fraud, basically, imposing itself like a Johnie-come-lately on areas of life which have not the slightest need of it, and which managed perfectly well for millenia without it.  But, hey, it provided a living for a few professors.

Your observations about postmodernity are interesting as an historiographical aside.  But, actually, the whole modernity → postmodernity supposition was never significant even when it was propounded in the early 1960s.  The 19th and 20th centuries were thickly populated with attempts, both reactionary and progressive, to resolve the dilemma of modernity and technologisation.  Some sought to find a transformative human meaning in the individual life.
Some sought to cauterize “the problem” with sheer violence.  Some sought to re-shape and reform it.  Some sought to reach back and recover a bulwark from an imaginary ordered, pastoral past.  The postmodernists ... all of them hermeneutic obscurantists and lighter-than-air academic twinkle-toes, sought to over-step it (without, in my opinion, ever having the slightest evidence that such a thing is really possible).

Self-evidently, none of these ideas had the desired effect.  The historical forces at work were – and are - just too horrifically strong in their grip and too established in their inertia.  As I have said before on this site we are, in fact, passengers in a train that is barrelling down the historical grade at break-neck speed, all the while picking up momentum.  Most of the passengers are sleeping and oblivious.  But a handful of us have been woken by the buffeting motion of the carriages, and a few ... thinking nationalists, let’s call us ... have worked our way forward to the driver’s cabin to see why this is happening.  We have found no driver on the plate, and through his window we have seen to our horror that the mad machine is not, in fact, running on tracks laid in the past by some wise and benign, controlling Power, but is slamming the damned sleepers and rails down on the cold earth in front of it as it hurtles onward.  My bet at this point is that the name originally painted on the engine was Olam Ha-ba, but it has been over-painted a number of times.  Right now it probably reads Black Lives Matter.

The point, of course, is that to stop the train and save the passengers requires an immensely serious revolutionary force with iron foundations.


11

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:36 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:31 | #

I said YOU are pre-judging on a snap basis and from person need, Daniel.

And You are wrong.

I am not pre-judging on a snap basis. I have weighed and carefully considered through long experience the correct philosophical perspective for the needs of our people’s defense, GW (not for my personal need).


12

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:41 | #

GW: You have entered a subject area ... epistemological foundation ... which you are ill equipped to judge, but that doesn’t stop you.

This is a projection, GW. You are entirely out of your depth when it comes to philosophy and you should give it up. Your strawmen, whisked out in flailing jealousy against any good idea that you cannot claim as having emanated from your armchair only prove the point.


13

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:47 | #

These part-useful ideas of yours do not belong, ontologically, to a politics of human difference ...

Unlike your “ideas”, my ideas are useful. And of course I can talk about human difference.

to a politics which grows out of the fundamental of essence’s priorness to existence.

Well, you go right ahead and talk about that GW.

Your Social Man stuff

Shut up. Your boomer rheumatism has been obstruction enough.

grows out of the fundamental of existence’s priorness to essence (indeed, for the most part standard political thinking denies essence).

This is just you being an asshole, trying desperately to say that you are so “deep” (you aren’t, not philosophically) and anybody who has the courage and integrity to have philosophical relevance is “shallow” and “merely political.”

Your attempt to humiliate only reveals your puerile autobiographical jealousy and tilt against academia.

Have a glass of warm milk, a gram cracker and go to sleep. You’ll feel better.


14

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:12 | #

What is one to say about you? Like some academic Dr Frankenstein, you have taken theses from your own academic history, particularly Aristotle and Shotter, and bolted them onto your instinctual nationalism.

Nice try asshole. Try to reduce my efforts as you might in your hideous jealousy, it won’t work.

Remember how you said that Aristotle was irrelevant? That you understood Heidegger so well? Here, for one example of your devout know nothingness.

Assuredly you will try to reduce a full and working systemic world view and try to project your clunky and mechanical habits onto it, saying that I have “merely bolted” Shotter onto the world.

It matters less that it is not true, than that you would be such a piece of shit as to be so hyper competitive.

If you are not going to see that the “structure” part of “specificatory structures” can be permanent enough, then I can point to working hypotheses. If that’s doesn’t make the point, then I can move to terms of plain hypotheses…classifications, unions, taxonomies, religions, I will even humor you with talk of foundations, but I will not allow you to try to single some idea out, straw man it and try to humiliate, trivialize and dismiss the actual relevance of what I am saying.

Because the many things that I have been saying on the matters of our requirements are much more important than your totally unwarranted, gargantuan ego.

Some of it is OK up to a point.

Up to the point where it reveals that you are theoretically bereft.

Some of it is less OK.  Hermeneutics is less OK.

Are you really that stupid?

I guess that Heidegger is over your head.

It is an intellectual fraud.

No, it is not an intellectual fraud. It can be used in red caping to defraud people, but it is absolutely necessary, to wrest coherence (“authentic human existence”) from the arbitrary flux of mere facticity (just for one of the key and important features of hermeneutics).

basically, imposing itself like a Johnie-come-lately on areas of life which have not the slightest need of it,

That is an unbelievably stupid comment on your part. My remark in the sentence before rebuts you; and Heidegger and Bateson would agree with me.

and which managed perfectly well for millenia without it.

Not true. Narrative has mostly been a central component of philosophy, and when philosophy tried to get beyond the social realm, with DesCartes at its apex, it set forth some of its worst blunders of uncorrected systemic runaway for its lack of social accountability.

But, hey, it provided a living for a few professors

That’s not even an original criticism. As I have observed several times that academia is in the big business of selling talk, liberal tenured professors in a recursively reconstructing loop with paying undergraduates in perpetuity.

You know what is really sad about this particular post and your response, GW. When I try reconcile our efforts, to pay respect for your good efforts, your response is not cooperation, but to try to destroy the efforts of others, especially if they are good and important (I guess it makes you feel less special or something).


15

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:24 | #

This remark of yours shows what a horrific obstruction that you present. Obnoxious, no doubt. How much damage your obstruction will be only remains to be tallied.

GW, are you Jewish?

Your observations about postmodernity are interesting as an historiographical aside.

No, my understanding of post modernity is crucial to understand for the systemic management of a people against the ravages of modernity’s bad sides and the stultifications of tradition’s bad sides, while incorporating the good sides of both modernity and tradition (and of course having a bias to sustain our inherited forms).

 


16

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:26 | #

It’s weird that you keep talking about things when you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Even when given the correct understanding it doesn’t penetrate your skull.

But, actually, the whole modernity → postmodernity supposition was never significant even when it was propounded in the early 1960s.

Wrong. And its formulation was not worked out properly until the late 1980s


17

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:30 | #

The 19th and 20th centuries were thickly populated with attempts, both reactionary and progressive, to resolve the dilemma of modernity and technologisation.  Some sought to find a transformative human meaning in the individual life.

Some sought to cauterize “the problem” with sheer violence.  Some sought to re-shape and reform it.  Some sought to reach back and recover a bulwark from an imaginary ordered, pastoral past.

Put those remarks back on the dusty shelf that you arbitrarily plucked them from. Worthless.


18

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:37 | #

The postmodernists ... all of them.

All the ones that you have been directed to accept as “post modernists” in your passively accepted altercast.

hermeneutic obscurantists and lighter-than-air academic twinkle-toes

The ones that you identify GW, the ones that serve your autobiography as a foil to you, the dragon slayer of academic pretense and shallowness.

sought to over-step it (without, in my opinion, ever having the slightest evidence that such a thing is really possible).

Nobody that I respect attempts to “step over” concerns of biological reality, evolution, physics… as Graham Lister once remarked, “the best scientists are hermeneutecists.”


19

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:41 | #

Self-evidently, none of these ideas had the desired effect.

Red caping misrepresentation of these ideas has had the desired effect for our enemies indeed. Having you (and other reactionaries) fight against the ideas that we need most because you are chasing after their misrepresentation, like a bull to matador’s red cape.

 


20

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:44 | #

The historical forces at work were – and are - just too horrifically strong in their grip and too established in their inertia.

Maybe. Then you can decide to do nothing. But I will be preparing for contingencies with the best philosophical bearings available.

 


21

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:53 | #

As I have said before on this site we are, in fact, passengers in a train that is barrelling down the historical grade at break-neck speed, all the while picking up momentum.  Most of the passengers are sleeping and oblivious.  But a handful of us have been woken by the buffeting motion of the carriages, and a few ... thinking nationalists, let’s call us ... have worked our way forward to the driver’s cabin to see why this is happening.  We have found no driver on the plate, and through his window we have seen to our horror that the mad machine is not, in fact, running on tracks laid in the past by some wise and benign, controlling Power, but is slamming the damned sleepers and rails down on the cold earth in front of it as it hurtles onward.

It is like that but I have found my way to the drivers cabin and have seen the way to correct its course from this disastrous runaway and back into a self corrective system - to our autonomy and sovereignty.

My bet at this point is that the name originally painted on the engine was Olam Ha-ba, but it has been over-painted a number of times.  Right now it probably reads Black Lives Matter.

I basically agree with that diagnosis as to the defrauding of our autonomous system.

The point, of course, is that to stop the train and save the passengers requires an immensely serious revolutionary force with iron foundations.

Your ignoring the many important things that I say and chasing after red cape misrepsenations (while presenting strawmen as arguments against me) does not serve that end.


22

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 18:53 | #

No, I am not a thousandth of a per cent Jewish.  Are you?  No?  Well, why are you acting like one, employing the usual demonisation technique of attributing sins to me?  Why are you trying to impose upon our nationalism an ego-trip around your academic history?  Do you really suppose that you happened by sheer good fortune to stumble upon The Answer in your uni module on communicology or whatever it was?  Do you really think that you, alone among the thousands of us who have striven to appreciate the full terror of our situation, have been vouchsafed a gift from the academic gods?  Is that really likely?

It is as likely as Dr Frankenstein coming up with a Mr Universe with a 200 IQ, a twelve inch penis and a winning personality.  Come, get real.  There’s so much that is right in your worldview, but there are things which are not right; and it is time now for you to re-assess.


23

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 19:06 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 19:53 | #

No, I am not a thousandth of a per cent Jewish.  Are you?  No?  Well, why are you acting like on

I am not acting like one at all.

Employing the usual demonisation technique of attributing sins to me?

I am only responding in kind to your villification of me, misrepresenting me as your foil and the ideas that I bring with strawmen.

Why are you trying to impose upon our nationalism an ego-trip around your academic history?

I am not trying to impose upon our nationalism what you want to believe is an ego trip around my academic history. I am performing necessary correction of theoretical concepts, most of which I’ve done outside and irrespective of academia, and irrespective of your unwarranted, gargantuan ego.

Do you really suppose that you happened by sheer good fortune to stumble upon The Answer in your uni module on communicology or whatever it was?

No. I weighed and considered my world view against experience and the history of philosophy.

And your efforts to try to humiliate me in your jealousy won’t work. You are just going to have to come to terms that some things are just more important than your fucking ego.

Do you really think that you, alone among the thousands of us who have striven to appreciate the full terror of our situation, have been vouchsafed a gift from the academic gods?  Is that really likely?

I know that I make sense - cross contextually - and that any reasonable person can understand me. I also know that our enemies are dead-set on diverting and obfuscating what I say, and that they will encourage right wing reactionaries to antagonize me and what I say - whether on behalf of Jesus, Hitler, Jews, the hide-bound scientistic, the egotistical grift of nutty conspiracy theorists, petty nationalists who may not want a guy going by a Polish name getting credit for anything, especially if he sees through the blunders of daddy Adolf.


24

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 23:16 | #

No one is vilifying you, Daniel.  You are not under attack.  But your prescriptions are, of course - and then only in so much as you are being asked to see them as others see them, and realise that there might be some aspects of them which create problems.

Cross-contextualism I like:

For the purposes of this essay, we can find consonance between an ontological reading of Man’s circumstance, a second reading centered on Mind, a third centered on the physical body, and a fourth centered on human evolution, each reading opening in its own context to stations bound by their relation to one another as well as to the generative influence below, thus:

      care             identity         instinct         interest
        ↑                    ↑                  ↑                  ↑
  constitution   consciousness   brain       reproduction
        ↑                    ↑                  ↑                  ↑
  being-there         mind         organism       genotype
        ↑                    ↑                  ↑                  ↑
  ontological   epistemological   physical     evolutionary
    context           context         context         context

        ↑                    ↑                  ↑                  ↑
                    Essence of Life’s Continuity

From my Part 2 essay (which is still nowhere near finished), an inferior but only introductory linear model of ontological consonance, which will be replaced in Part 3 by a dynamic model.


25

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 00:27 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Jun 2020 18:16 | #

No one is vilifying you, Daniel.

Yes, you have. You have made me and my work the foil of your stupid, life long autobiography; and it is here for all to see through the archives for years.

You are not under attack.

Yes, I am under attack by you; and you confess the other shit heads who egg you on.

But your prescriptions are, of course - and then only in so much as you are being asked to see them as others see them, and realise that there might be some aspects of them which create problems.

No, your stupid misrepresentations of what I say is the problem; your autobiography which continually attempts to altercast me as your foil, is the problem. Your gaslighting is the problem. Your ignorance combined with gargantuan, unwarranted ego, that makes an intransigent, reactionary dupe of you, is the problem. The shit heads who egg you on, are the problem.

Cross-contextualism I like:

For the purposes of this essay, we can find consonance between an ontological reading of Man’s circumstance, a second reading centered on Mind, a third centered on the physical body, and a fourth centered on human evolution, each reading opening in its own context to stations bound by their relation to one another as well as to the generative influence below, thus:

    care         identity       instinct       interest
      ↑              ↑            ↑            ↑
  constitution   consciousness   brain     reproduction
      ↑              ↑            ↑            ↑
  being-there       mind       organism     genotype
      ↑              ↑            ↑            ↑
  ontological   epistemological   physical   evolutionary
  context       context       context       context
      ↑              ↑            ↑            ↑
              Essence of Life’s Continuity

From my Part 2 essay (which is still nowhere near finished), an inferior but only introductory linear model of ontological consonance, which will be replaced in Part 3 by a dynamic model.

Knock yourself out with this. But as you keep trying to trash what I say with your stupid strawmanning, I will continue to defend my efforts.

For example, you say, “Aristotle simply is not relevant” and then you want to tell us all about how you are the one who understands Heidegger.. .fucking idiot.

Obligatory: one of a thousand idiotic, unnecessary attempts to trash DanielS offerings
      ↑              ↑            ↑            ↑
Autobiography: “hero of common man vs pretentious humanities academic”     
      ↑              ↑            ↑            ↑

GW, you ought to be intelligent enough to see that my offerings are not mutually exclusive to what you want to do; and that you should not require me to do what you are doing with your project. But there is something very wrong with you and I realized long ago that it doesn’t have the intelligence to adapt.

I want to repeat:

There has never been ANY criticism of my work that you raise that has held up. You have been nothing but an unnecessary, unconscionable obstruction in that regard. Among your transgressions is to not see the originality of my efforts along with their crucial fit to requirement.

But you have demonstrated yourself too ignorant to even know the difference, and too selfish, your egotism hyper and misplaced in its competitiveness to give remotely proper assessment.


26

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:33 | #

Your work, Daniel, is less than you could contribute both intellectually and journalistically by an order of magnitude.  But you have satisfied yourself with what looks very like a vast act of self-justification which you treat as sacred and untouchable, and so are by no means willing to submit to criticism.  You are concerned only to ensure that it “stands up” in your own estimation; and I am sure it does.  The good stuff is very good: for example, your sturdy attack on the pretensions of the Hitler grotesques ... your generally measured take on the JQ (we can do without that damned cartoon, please) ... your emphasis on brotherhood beyond European ethnic boundaries and collaboration beyond certain racial boundaries. 

The problems arise elsewhere.  Yesterday I posted a snippet on consonance, which is from my Part 2 essay in preparation.  You did not ask why I did that.  You never ask when I do this sort of thing.  You make a defensive assumption.  You react badly.  You deride and insult and swear.  But you do then expose yourself to me, and if I was confronting an enemy who behaved this way I would use it to destroy him.

I do not want to destroy you.  Right now I want us to look at one of the more subtle problems in your thinking - on which everything else hinges, actually.  You believe that there is an isostatic mechanism, a deliverer of a process of emergence of specific properties abiding in the nature of men.  You refer to this under the rubric of homeostasis.  In other words, you discount Heideggerian enworldment (personality mechanics, basically) and do not credit that behavioural overhangs and resistances to such a return will persist or prevent change - except, perhaps, among the current ruling class.  To deal with them you employ a small number of magic phrases ... warrant, accountability, and so forth ... to suggest that the authority of the mass of suddenly awake racial brothers and sisters will impose change upon them.  But beyond what would amount to dictate by a professorial hermeneutic elite effortlessly delivering an end to the vast and incalculably powerful historical force of modernity and technologisation, Christianity, liberalism and so forth, you do not explain how the masses suddenly awake.  None of this huge nationalist endeavour has really been subjected to rigorous critique.  You just wave it all through by the simple expedient that it’s inevitable.

I have been counselling against inevitablism on this blog for years.  Yes, we are working with the grain of nature.  But we are also working against the mechanics of enworldment, which are the mechanics of modern history in their making of men and which we can see from our current dire circumstance tend to be decisive.  What does it really take to change that?  Heidegger thought it would take the re-founding the Western canon.  That, always a leisurely and accretive academic process, has not happened.  Deterioration continues.  The train of madness races onward towards its cataclism.  We nationalists, meanwhile, continue to believe that worse will be better in the end, and the inevitable will happen, and we believe it without any evidence.  We are betting everything on that belief.

So, in the light of this, what possible reason could I have, given my concern for the absence of any mechanism of emerging properties, for posting that snippet on consonance; and what bearing does it have on your own rampant inevitablism?


27

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:18 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 04:33 | #

Your work, Daniel, is less than you could contribute both intellectually and journalistically by an order of magnitude.

Fuck off, GW. We’ve established that you are not remotely capable of giving proper assessment to my efforts.

 


28

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:20 | #

But you have satisfied yourself with what looks very like a vast act of self-justification

It doesn’t even look that way. That’s what what lame strawmen you put up.

 


29

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:22 | #

which you treat as sacred and untouchable, and so are by no means willing to submit to criticism.

Not true, if your “critiques” were honest, well intentioned and on target, I would note and correct.


30

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:24 | #

You are concerned only to ensure that it “stands up” in your own estimation; and I am sure it does.

That is an egregious lie.

I am concerned for the best theoretical and practical material for the defense of European people.


31

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:25 | #

  The good stuff is very good: for example, your sturdy attack on the pretensions of the Hitler grotesques ... your generally measured take on the JQ (we can do without that damned cartoon, please) ... your emphasis on brotherhood beyond European ethnic boundaries and collaboration beyond certain racial boundaries.

All of my “stuff” is good. I would not present it, if it was not.

 


32

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:28 | #

The problems arise elsewhere.  Yesterday I posted a snippet on consonance, which is from my Part 2 essay in preparation.  You did not ask why I did that.

I do not need to be caught up into your language games. That is your trip.

I can see that it may even make a contribution to Artificial Intelligence. For actual intelligence, it will be limited.


33

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:32 | #

You never ask when I do this sort of thing.  You make a defensive assumption.

I made no remark, let alone a defensive one regarding your diagram. I said “knock yourself out” which is an idiom meaning “develop this idea to your heart’s content.”

Do you see, GW? You are deceptive.

I defended myself and my work against your actual attacks (for good reason).

 


34

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:34 | #

You react badly.  You deride and insult and swear.

I react badly when you attack badly, deride and insult, which is all you ever do and my patience with it is gone, because your bad will is abundantly in evidence.


35

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:39 | #

But you do then expose yourself to me, and if I was confronting an enemy who behaved this way I would use it to destroy him.

I do not expose myself.

Your puerile autobiography compels you to falsely attribute to me the alercast of a pretentious academic foil coming out of the humanities misdirecting European peoples from their natural interests, who needs to be debunked - everything - ostensibly on behalf of the humble, common European folk, but really on behalf of your unwarranted, gargantuan ego.

 


36

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:42 | #

I do not want to destroy you.

Yes you do, you want to annihilate my efforts because they are very good and very important and that threatens you so much that you don’t even inquire into the fact of how necessary these ideas are to grasp and how unnecessary it is for you to antagonize them.

 

 


37

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:46 | #

Right now I want us to look at one of the more subtle problems in your thinking - on which everything else hinges, actually.

First of all, your are here playing your STEM asshole game, of trying to reduce everything i say to the one problem in the circuit. Once you resolve this single problem, you have supposedly rendered me redundant.

You have attempted this enough times to make it clear that your last comment is a lie: you are indeed trying to destroy my relevance.

Fortunately for me, you cannot do it. A large reason why is because I am honest and open to correction whereas you are not.

 


38

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:58 | #

You believe that there is an isostatic mechanism, a deliverer of a process of emergence of specific properties abiding in the nature of men.  You refer to this under the rubric of homeostasis.

And as usual, you strawman with a total fucking lie.

1) I do not believe in an isostatic mechanism. My worldview has been demonstrated repeatedly to occur in interaction.

a deliverer of a process of emergence of specific properties abiding in the nature of men

Maybe you are trying to duck your foible and trying to say that I am the one who is guilty of this.

2) But no, everything that I’ve written indicates that there can be more than one if not mulitprimordial causes, our emergence occurs in interaction and is subject necessarily to correction from different sources.

You refer to this under the rubric of homeostasis.

3. The problem is GW, is that you are so rigid and your will so bad, so determined to render my efforts in the most pejorative way, that if some dictionary tells you “this is what homeostasis means” and allows you to render a straw man against what I am actually saying, that you cannot (do not want to) imagine that I am using this in different way.

When I refer to systemic homeostasis, I am talking about a self corrective system that would be effected through social accountability (obviously not an “an isostatic mechanism”), thus correctivity, thus a self corrective (homeostatic) system by definition, providing for autonomy and sovereignty.

 


39

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:04 | #

In other words, you discount Heideggerian enworldment (personality mechanics, basically) and do not credit that behavioural overhangs and resistances to such a return will persist or prevent change - except, perhaps, among the current ruling class

.

There are different personalities with different abilities and “mechanics”...and if an elite ruling class acts against our interests, that is all the more reason to provide for a system of accountability and correctability of personalities working against our group interests, by organizing our our homeostasis through the structuring of the concept of unionization.

If you want to examine different personality types, be my guest. It may be helpful, but I recognize that psychology is not the first nor most essential concern for defense of European peoples.


40

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:09 | #

To deal with them you employ a small number of magic phrases ... warrant, accountability, and so forth ...

These are not “magical” and superficial phrases that I use.

Your trying to trivialize them as such is a part of your fundamentally superficial personality.

You are a businessman. You are geared not toward mutual cooperation toward the best theory (“product”), but toward your having the product and being the sole purveyor. This superficial business model that you adhere to, requires you to try to minimize, trivialize, make redundant and unnecessary (at least in appearance if not reality - you are that shallow) the “competitor’s product/out-put/work.”


41

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:11 | #

... to suggest that the authority of the mass of suddenly awake racial brothers and sisters will impose change upon them.

It might not happen suddenly


42

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:12 | #

But beyond what would amount to dictate by a professorial hermeneutic elite effortlessly delivering an end to the vast and incalculably powerful historical force of modernity and technologisation, Christianity, liberalism and so forth.

Who the fuck said it would be effortless or even a “professional elite”?


43

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:15 | #

you do not explain how the masses suddenly awake.

Social rule and incentive structures pervade through personal psychology, to “awaken” people ..when they are untangled and ordered in our interests.


44

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:18 | #

None of this huge nationalist endeavour has really been subjected to rigorous critique.  You just wave it all through by the simple expedient that it’s inevitable.

That is flagrant lie. I have NEVER…NOT EVER claimed that it was inevitable.

In fact, that kind of thinking is exactly your stupidity that you are trying to dump on me.

And you say that your will is good to me, GW? Why are you such a fucking liar?


45

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:20 | #

I have been counselling against inevitablism on this blog for years.

And I NEVER - NOT EVER argued inevitablism, not once.


46

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:25 | #

Yes, we are working with the grain of nature.  But we are also working against the mechanics of enworldment

Correcting unnatural artifices imposed by social/theoretical structures is not outside the parameters of what I do, on the contrary.

But we are also working against the mechanics of enworldment, which are the mechanics of modern history

You are apparently too dense to understand or appreciate my proper analysis of the situation. Modernity and its weaponization creates the openings and the destruction of our system, while the YKW, sell outs, traitors, the indifferent and other antagonists, but the YKW especially impose an enworldment that is destructive to us and our systemic maintenance.

in their making of men and which we can see from our current dire circumstance tend to be decisive.

Your talking about the red caping, misrepresentation of the real possibilities of social contruction, with the idea of “making.”

What does it really take to change that?

I provide many good insights as to how to go about that, and your ignoring that can never change that fact.

Heidegger thought it would take the re-founding the Western canon.

Yes, he was taking the post modern, hermeneutic turn (and emergent turn, if you will) from modernity. But he’s not the only one, nor is it necessary to place faith in his take and concerns verbatim.

[quote}That, always a leisurely and accretive academic process, has not happened.

There have been giant steps, but they are red caped and you fall for it, classic dupe that you are.

Deterioration continues.

Beyond hosting a website on which I can post, no thanks to you otherwise. Not on anything like a theoretical level.

The train of madness races onward towards its cataclism.  We nationalists, meanwhile, continue to believe that worse will be better in the end

Worse is definitely Not necessarily better; and though I am optimistic that the C-19 border closings can prompt awareness and the BLM riots much more so, we are not prepared and your idiotic thing about natural purity has only obstructed the direly necessary preparedness for circumtances that might get much worse.

and the inevitable will happen, and we believe it without any evidence.  We are betting everything on that belief.

Speak for yourself. I have never NOT EVER bet everything on that belief.


47

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:27 | #

So, in the light of this, what possible reason could I have, given my concern for the absence of any mechanism of emerging properties, for posting that snippet on consonance; and what bearing does it have on your own rampant inevitablism?

Oh you fucking liar! Don’t you ever again dare accuse me of “inevitablism” when I have NEVER, NOT ONCE held that, let alone being “rampant” about it.


48

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:02 | #

There is no inter-action, Daniel, between two enworlded beings that does not treat of their enworldment, for they carry its product within, speak from it, are it, live it, and it lives through them, as through all the generations of men; for men are passive instruments in respect to it.  So by our enworldment, world shapes us all into itself and effortlessly checkmates those who just seek to tinker with one temporal characteristic of it.  It does not ordinarily occur to us to address it holistically.  We do not seek to interrogate its quality, for that is the quality of our mind and the Mind of the people, all of which we simply accept for what it is.

Inevitably, when we do address it we do so in a sectional way, like the pugnacious Brigitte Gabriel here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

Such sectionalism belongs to the culture of conflict which we internalised with Christianity.  So it speaks of the gravitational force of enworldment that even in passionate, truthful “inter-action” like this still there is restraint on our liberation to think and to be.


49

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:08 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:02 | #

There is no inter-action, Daniel, between two enworlded beings that does not treat of their enworldment, for they carry its product within, speak from it, are it, live it, and it lives through them, as through all the generations of men;

You make these proclamations, in this case trying to co-opt the idea that I have just put forth, that social rule structures pervade psychology, so that you can pretend that I am the one that needs some lesson on its basis. You’ve tried this kind of trick a number of times. Taking an idea that I am deploying (often taking it as a personal offense, even where it has nothing to do with you) and trying to turn it against me. You try that a lot.


50

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:10 | #

for men are passive instruments in respect to it.

Maybe and usually as it is necessary to take the general structure for granted. Which is one reason why my work in changing the structure in European interests and favor is so important.


51

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:11 | #

Daniel, your expectation of change by the means you have propounded is grounded in the “inevitability” of homeostatic reaction on a totalistic scale.  Have you not grasped this yet?


52

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:12 | #

So by our enworldment, world shapes us all into itself and effortlessly checkmates those who just seek to tinker with one temporal characteristic of it.

“Enworldment” is a problem as the YKW control it and right wingers and liberals disingenuously/naively go along.


53

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:14 | #

It does not ordinarily occur to us to address it holistically.  We do not seek to interrogate its quality, for that is the quality of our mind and the Mind of the people, all of which we simply accept for what it is.

You can pretend that you are all holistic with your new age psychology bullshit, but a really holistic world view is only going to be hindered by a focus on psychology and talk of “mind.”

 


54

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:18 | #

Inevitably, when we do address it we do so in a sectional way, like the pugnacious Brigitte Gabriel here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

Such sectionalism belongs to the culture of conflict which we internalised with Christianity.  So it speaks of the gravitational force of enworldment that even in passionate, truthful “inter-action” like this still there is restraint on our liberation to think and to be.

I’m sorry that you find the word “interaction” so problematic; then don’t use it, if you can’t see how it can operate in the interest of the kind of sectionalism which can create boundaries, accountability and coordination of interests.


55

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:21 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:11 | #

Daniel, your expectation of change by the means you have propounded is grounded in the “inevitability” of homeostatic reaction on a totalistic scale.  Have you not grasped this yet?

I have not “grasped this” because it is not true of what I say.


56

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:50 | #

“... it can operate in the interest of the kind of sectionalism which can create boundaries, accountability and coordination of interests.”

“My method will work, promise.” hasn’t worked and likely won’t work.  It isn’t optimal, strategically speaking, to keep on repeating the same (but different, doncha know) method, which always failed in the past, in the fond belief that it will succeed this time.  OK, eventually some guy hits the jackpot in any Las Vegas slots parlour.  But the house sets the value of the win.  The house never went bust because some punter fed the machine a dime and pulled the handle one mo’ time.

I am arguing that we finally read the house rule which says, “You lose.  Have a nice day, sucker.”  So, for example, we lose when we talk about “YKW” and expect it to make a difference.  We lose when talk about immigration and expect it to make a difference.  We lose (as you say yourself) when we talk about “the left” and expect it to make a difference.  We lose, we lose, we lose; because we are playing in a conflict system by the rules of conflict, and we confirm the system thereby.  We do not destroy it.  We do not destroy what we ourselves are enworlded in and, thereby, have become.

To do that we have to begin, at least, to understand it.

We might also understand our own politics, too.


57

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:03 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:50 | #

“... it can operate in the interest of the kind of sectionalism which can create boundaries, accountability and coordination of interests.”

“My method will work, promise.” hasn’t worked and likely won’t work.

Just another proclamation of yours, wishful thinking that a project (mine) won’t work even though it is logical but hasn’t been tried, has only met with your obstruction, other shit head obstruction, with Jewish (mis)guidance as such (though unrecognized by you).

 


58

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:04 | #

Homeostasis sought through inter-action is still an expectation grounded in inevitablism.  How does homeostasis emerge?  Just by your hermeneutic interpretations?  Have you even once thought about that?


59

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:05 | #

It isn’t optimal, strategically speaking, to keep on repeating the same (but different, doncha know) method, which always failed in the past, in the fond belief that it will succeed this time.

No, YOU are the one who keeps trying the same failed shit.

You are a fucking dinosaur - the stupidist kind (fucking stegosaurus).


60

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:08 | #

OK, eventually some guy hits the jackpot in any Las Vegas slots parlour.  But the house sets the value of the win.  The house never went bust because some punter fed the machine a dime and pulled the handle one mo’ time.

You are the one playing by house rules, chasing every red cape like the dupe that you are.

 


61

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:10 | #

I am arguing that we finally read the house rule which says, “You lose.  Have a nice day, sucker.”

I’ve seen the “house rules” and how they are rigged against Europeans. You don’t. You keep reacting against them and into their traps, as per their design (sucker).


62

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:11 | #

“Red cape”, like “Cartesian”, is one of your special labels.  The application of a label awards you, as it does any anti-racist, the magical power to put down your opponent without having to address the content of his thoughts.


63

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:13 | #

So, for example, we lose when we talk about “YKW” and expect it to make a difference.

It might not make a difference, but it can help perhaps in terms of algorithms, it can alleviate over use of the J word and it can indicate an antagonistic people who rightfully belong on a taken for granted level as such - “you know who.”


64

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:19 | #

I’m not finished addressing your first pile of shit and you continue to pile it on.

Are you the stupidest person in the world or what?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 08:11 | #

“Red cape”, like “Cartesian”, is one of your special labels.  The application of a label awards you, as it does any anti-racist, the magical power to put down your opponent without having to address the content of his thoughts.

Both “red cape” and “Cartesian” are not magical powers to put down an opponent, they have important structures which I have explained and which need to be understood - in the case of red caping, in terms of deception by important misrepresentation which has our people reacting against their own interests. In the case of Cartesian, a propensity which makes short shrift of accountability, rationally blinds and leaves us vulnerable for antagonistic entryism and misdirection.

Very stupid of you to suggest that I am using “shut up words” like an anti-racist.

Not remotely true. But please do shut up if you are not going to say something intelligent.


65

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:23 | #

I’ve seen the “house rules” and how they are rigged against Europeans.

You have not yet understand that you are the house.  I am the house.  We are all the house; and the only difference between our political kind and all the rest is that we have a sense that things are not right.  Earlier I talked about the “quality” of the world in which we are enculturated, because whilst enworldment itself is the inevitable estate of human beings, that quality is not a set thing.

This is a connecting point between your political aims and the foundationalism I am attempting to formalise.  Without accepting the latter, with all its consequences for what comes after, you will be floating on a raft of methods derived from uni.


66

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:26 | #

Daniel, you label that which you refuse to interrogate intellectually.  It’s lazy, and you delude yourself when you imagine it is “important”.  Calling people names is important to no living soul who has to suffer it.


67

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:28 | #

We lose (as you say yourself) when we talk about “the left” and expect it to make a difference.

I did not say that. Not at all.

I said we are being misdirected against our social systemic, homeostatic (accountable, self corrective, self governing interests) when we argue against their red cape of THE left - meaning that the left is to defined only as an internationalist, anti White left and a characterology thereof as “our adversary”, our enemy as per their design, to react to, into the inherent instability of the right (or third postionism/or neither left nor right) as the would have us in order to divert us from a concept of left ethnonationalism - to be defined by us to shore up any of those negative cliches that you would just love to dutifully attach to social systemic responsibility and accountability.


68

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:31 | #

We lose, we lose, we lose; because we are playing in a conflict system by the rules of conflict, and we confirm the system thereby.  We do not destroy it.

My rule structure is not beholden to a conflict structure. It does abide a difference and accountability structure, particularly with regard to the ethnonation (which is the class).

It is, however, prepared for conflict if brought upon us.


69

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:34 | #

We do not destroy what we ourselves are enworlded in and, thereby, have become.

Mystical words that may sound intriguing in the world of your psychobabble.

To do that we have to begin, at least, to understand it.

We might also understand our own politics, too.

I understand these things more than well enough to begin (so do most people).


70

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:35 | #

Excepting Leibniz, a Jewish contemporary of Locke who only contributed a few letters to the Western canon, how do you arrive at “the left” ... the radical revolutionary faction in the National Assembly in Paris ... as being the cape of the all-powerful Jewish conspirator?  Weren’t the parameters for the revolutionary radicals first established in Christian practise and the Catholic humanism of the middle period of the Middle Ages?  Wasn’t it Europeans who created “the left”, and Jews who began to agitate in its name only in the mid-19th century?


71

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:37 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 08:04 | #

Homeostasis sought through inter-action is still an expectation grounded in inevitablism.

No it isn’t. The idea of social accountability and correctivity maintains exactly that homeostasis is NOT inevitable; that is why it must be structured and invoked (by contrast to your doltish and dumb ontology project).

 


72

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:38 | #

Your rule structure would cause the British working man to black your eye.  You cannot free a people by applying rules from above.  You have to clear away rules for the people to free itself.


73

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:40 | #

How does homeostasis emerge?  Just by your hermeneutic interpretations?  Have you even once thought about that?

How fucking stupid are you?

How many times do I have to say that social accountability can structure a unionization of a fashion which can facilitate accountability and correctivity, thus homeostasis, a self governing system, autonomy, sovereignty.


74

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:42 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 08:23 | #

I’ve seen the “house rules” and how they are rigged against Europeans.

You have not yet understand that you are the house.  I am the house.  We are all the house; and the only difference between our political kind and all the rest is that we have a sense that things are not right.

 

I understand the rigged house rules and am outside the box, but you are indeed a part of the house rules so long as you continue to chase after their red capes like a dupe.


75

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:42 | #

So go ahead and structure and invoke homeostasis.  Ah no, you mean set rules for it, sorry.

I will, however, explain one more time that there is no mechanism by which mental properties emerge from (or indeed supervene upon) lower-order properties.  You cannot command mental properties into existence.  Something else is going on, and nobody ... absolutely nobody ... has ever known what it is.  Indeed, today, the entire body of thinkers in this field are effectively waiting for neuro-chemists to explain.  They may have to wait an extremely long time.

This does not mean that we have to give up on our goal of awakening our people.  But it does mean that facile expectations may not succeed.


76

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:50 | #

I understand the rigged house rules and am outside the box, but you are indeed a part of the house rules so long as you continue to chase after their red capes like a dupe.

No human ever born was not enworlded, except perhaps one left at some time in history on some desert island as a small child, with ample food and tools to survive into adulthood.  You weren’t that child, were you?


77

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:52 | #

Earlier I talked about the “quality” of the world in which we are enculturated, because whilst enworldment itself is the inevitable estate of human beings, that quality is not a set thing.

I have a way of talking about our circumstance which I find to make a great deal more sense than that sentence.

This is a connecting point between your political aims

If you keep trying to trivialize my philosophical platform as “political” you are not going to ingratiate yourself to me.

and the foundationalism I am attempting to formalise.  Without accepting the latter, with all its consequences for what comes after, you will be floating on a raft of methods derived from uni.

Bull, fucking, shit.

Like we need your fucking foundationalism to know what European people are and that they are under siege.

As if my philosophy isn’t deeper than yours and original in its crafting and application (not merely “derived” and political).

Do your thing, GW. You may well come up with some useful ideas. “Being of” was a nice way to characterise the stance of the emergent, but chuck your business model and its competitive trivializations, because it wholly inappropriate - just shit.


78

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:55 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 08:26 | #

Daniel, you label that which you refuse to interrogate intellectually.

That’s a lie.

It’s lazy, and you delude yourself when you imagine it is “important”.  Calling people names is important to no living soul who has to suffer it.

The ideas are important GW, sorry if your ego can’t handle that but tough shit.


79

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:56 | #

Like we need your fucking foundationalism to know what European people are and that they are under siege.

To achieve that we have to replace the formative system we call liberalism with another we call ethnic nationalism.  And to do that we do need a living and growing nationalist philosophical canon.  The world is made and re-made by ideas carried from the canon.  It cannot be made and re-made by method alone.


80

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:59 | #

As if my philosophy isn’t deeper than yours and original in its crafting and application (not merely “derived” and political).

So where is the ontology in your philosophy?


81

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:00 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 08:35 | #

Excepting Leibniz, a Jewish contemporary of Locke who only contributed a few letters to the Western canon, how do you arrive at “the left” ...

Gaslighting again. Give it a rest. I’ve explained it expensively here, there’s a whole series on Bitchute, and more.

 


82

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:02 | #

the radical revolutionary faction in the National Assembly in Paris ... as being the cape of the all-powerful Jewish conspirator?

I didn’t say that, but am I to be surprised that you would try to misrepresent and trivialize what I say? What else is new?


83

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:04 | #

“The white left” dictum is not more than a political sleight of hand which has only isolated you from other nationalists, who want nothing to do with it.


84

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:06 | #

Weren’t the parameters for the revolutionary radicals first established in Christian practise and the Catholic humanism of the middle period of the Middle Ages?  Wasn’t it Europeans who created “the left”, and Jews who began to agitate in its name only in the mid-19th century?

Yes, Europeans created the left, as I have always maintained, and typically, Jewry took the idea for social organization (and revolution as need be) and weaponized it (red caped it) against nationalism in the form of Marxism: “workers of the world unite unto the withering away of the nation state; and Cultural Marxism, anti-White unions and coalitions thereof.


85

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:10 | #

But the universalism was already there, from Constantine’s conversion onward.


86

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:15 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:38 | #

Your rule structure would cause the British working man to black your eye.

No it wouldn’t. Because he would know that I have his interests in heart and the means to their satisfaction.

You cannot free a people by applying rules from above.

This is one of your favorite lies, i.e., that I am applying rules from above and have coercive desires thereof. Rules analysis is mainly about description and sorting out of problems. It is not about forcing obedience in any unreasonable way.

You have to clear away rules for the people to free itself.

Your inability to appreciate the concept of rules as a neutral analytic device is one of your more tremendous absurdities: I’ve dealt with this absurdity before as well. I will find the most relevant article in a few.


87

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:17 | #

Incidentally, it’s not “social organisation”.  It’s ethnocentric and tribal, not social; and it is what human beings, left to themselves, naturally do.  It is not organised from above.  Were we to achieve government we would be engaged in a clearing away of the vestigial obstacles, not an imposing of a “specificatory structure” on the people.  Authority in the European racial context ... more so in the Anglo-Saxon context ... leads to the demand for freedom from authority.


88

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:20 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:42 | #

So go ahead and structure and invoke homeostasis.  Ah no, you mean set rules for it, sorry.

Oh, isn’t that clever. Then don’t use the word “homeostasis” if it steps on your techno-toes.

I will, however, explain one more time that there is no mechanism by which mental properties emerge from (or indeed supervene upon) lower-order properties.

I didn’t say that they necessarily can. Remember what I said about my perspective not denying facts - that in some case there is little to be negotiated but perhaps for how the facts come to count, and often not much negotiation at that. Get that through your head please.


89

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:21 | #

Rules are not neutral.  They are established by elites.  Human nature very much includes mate competition among males, and the struggle for status, and to maintain status.  Take it from an Englishman who knows about class structure.


90

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:24 | #

You cannot command mental properties into existence.

It is your fantasy as dragon slayer of the stereotypes characterology of “the left” that Jews have provided for you, that I expect to be able to command mental properties into existence.

Something else is going on, and nobody ... absolutely nobody ... has ever known what it is.  Indeed, today, the entire body of thinkers in this field are effectively waiting for neuro-chemists to explain.  They may have to wait an extremely long time.
This does not mean that we have to give up on our goal of awakening our people.  But it does mean that facile expectations may not succeed.

I wish them well. I have important things to do which cannot wait.

 


91

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:27 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:04 | #

“The white left” dictum is not more than a political sleight of hand which has only isolated you from other nationalists, who want nothing to do with it.

Not true. It is neither a mere political sleight of hand as I have explained in detail and it is important that nationalists not go along with the Jewish program against “the left” and to identify as right wing, third position, or take the disorganizing reaction of “neither left nor right.”

Notice in your assholishness, that you ignore the specification White EthnoNational Left, and try to tag it “the White Left” merely again.


92

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:31 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:10 | #

But the universalism was already there, from Constantine’s conversion onward.

So what? Some universals are destructive, others are benign or salutary. That’s the kind of thing that post modern sophistication is supposed to handle.

 


93

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:39 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:17 | #

Incidentally, it’s not “social organisation”.  It’s ethnocentric and tribal, not social;

Its much the same thing, just attending to different markers.

and it is what human beings, left to themselves, naturally do.

And you had the nerve to call me an “inevitabilist”?

GW, your whole jealous world view is simply geared to making any idea which looks academic and threatening to you go away.

It is not organised from above.

I didn’t say it was. This is just you trying to impose the stereotype you’ve been handed onto me.

Were we to achieve government we would be engaged in a clearing away of the vestigial obstacles, not an imposing of a “specificatory structure” on the people.

Fuck off.

The sentence above explains once again what you want to do.. “Clear away” all other peoples efforts, especially if they are good, so that you can sit in your armchair, admiring the smell of your farts.

  Authority in the European racial context ... more so in the Anglo-Saxon context ... leads to the demand for freedom from authority.

A “specificatory structrure” by definition, is not imposed upon people, let alone from above; rather it is proposed, negotiated, shaped and crafted for purpose - in this case, with other ethnonationalists.


94

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:39 | #

It is your fantasy as dragon slayer of the stereotypes characterology of “the left” that Jews have provided for you, that I expect to be able to command mental properties into existence.

Shark.  Jump.

If we do not know how to address the problem of mental properties we may well end up believing that rule-structures will work.  You couldn’t know beforehand whether you would succeed or fail.  It would be a guess.

The way to address the problem that is emergence is through consonance, in my (present) opinion.

 


95

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:44 | #

And you had the nerve to call me an “inevitabilist”?

Category error.  The explanatory power of evolutionary theory exists well outside of the problem of dealing with the modernity-techne-Christianity-liberalism historical horror-matrix.  As you know.  But we also know that the historical matrix cannot be just wished away with a bit of Darwin - Shotterite inter-active rule-setting, or whatever.


96

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:47 | #

What is “post modern sophistication”?  Who are these post modern sophicates?


97

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:48 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:21 | #

Human nature very much includes mate competition among males, and the struggle for status, and to maintain status.  Take it from an Englishman who knows about class structure.

There can be social interactive rules like that as well, which can also be more or less descriptive.

Rules are not neutral.  They are established by elites.


Oh my god.

GW. we’ve been through this before; “rules” is a term and an analytic device used often as a means to describe phenomenon or interaction.

Like Hamilton’s rule.

I know why you are attacking the concept of rules and the use of the analytic device; like all concepts you attack, you do so because it is something valuable; and worse, has been through the halls of academe, worse still, you cannot claim it as your invention and patent.


98

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:49 | #

A “specificatory structrure” by definition, is not imposed upon people, let alone from above; rather it is proposed, negotiated, shaped and crafted for purpose - in this case, with other ethnonationalists.

What happens when the ethnonationalists explain that they don’t want specificatory structures, thanks very much?  I mean, have you ever asked a typical ethnonationalist to think it all through and let you know?  If yes, did you tell them to fuck off, too?


99

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:51 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:39 | #

It is your fantasy as dragon slayer of the stereotypes characterology of “the left” that Jews have provided for you, that I expect to be able to command mental properties into existence.

Shark.  Jump.

If we do not know how to address the problem of mental properties we may well end up believing that rule-structures will work.  You couldn’t know beforehand whether you would succeed or fail.  It would be a guess.

The way to address the problem that is emergence is through consonance, in my (present) opinion.

Ok, that’s your opinion. I don’t agree. But please go to work on your psych project and put your strawmen to bed. Its a real hassle.

 


100

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:55 | #

However you define or re-define “rule”, you are still “negotiating” with the mass of the people about how they must behave.  And if it were just a matter of discreet and universal psychological or sociobiological laws you don’t need to specify them at all, do you.  You only need to clear away obstacles to them, and see how the people react.

An excellent example has occurred in Orban’s Hungary in respect to the government’s efforts to raise the fertility of the native population.  It succeeded because when the obstacles are removed men and women want to become parents.


101

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:57 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:44 | #

And you had the nerve to call me an “inevitabilist”?

Category error.  The explanatory power of evolutionary theory exists well outside of the problem of dealing with the modernity-techne-Christianity-liberalism historical horror-matrix.  As you know.  But we also know that the historical matrix cannot be just wished away with a bit of Darwin - Shotterite inter-active rule-setting, or whatever.

It is not a category error. You are trying to impose a category error for your obnoxious jealousy.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:47 | #

What is “post modern sophistication”?  Who are these post modern sophicates?

Post modern sophistication is the recognition that the rule structures and performance requirements of modernity and tradition can be highly problematic; the “sophisticated” are those who understand this and are equipped with the remedial means to protect their group and inherited forms against those negative sides of modernity while unavailing themselves of the helpful sides of modernity and tradition.


Now, have some warm milk, a gram cracker and go do sleep…. either that or go play in the street.


102

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:03 | #

What happens when the ethnonationalists explain that they don’t want specificatory structures, thanks very much?

How stupid. Then they don’t have to take them. If you are that offended by the term, “specificatory structures” then you might prefer working hypotheses, etc.

But whatever, go to work on your foundations GW. Your contentiousness is tedious and boring beyond belief. Experiencing you, the way you are, it is no wonder that England is fucked.

I mean, have you ever asked a typical ethnonationalist to think it all through and let you know?  If yes, did you tell them to fuck off, too?

Look, correcting theoretical ideas for ethnonationalism is a kind of niche endeavor; which can be offensive to macho guys or merely coming from me, if they are Hitler heads (which is not ethnonationalism) or Jesus freaks (also not) or if they want to include Jews (not our ethniew). And if anyone has tried to bullshit me the way that you do, yes, I have told them to fuck off.


103

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:05 | #

Post modern sophistication is the recognition that the rule structures and performance requirements of modernity and tradition can be highly problematic; the “sophisticated” are those who understand this and are equipped with the remedial means to protect their group and inherited forms against those negative sides of modernity while unavailing themselves of the helpful sides of modernity and tradition.

You can’t wish away the horror matrix by a bit of post modern sophistication.  This is Mary Poppins talk.  A spoonful of sugar.  For pete’s sake, in England alone we’ve got to shift perhaps up to 14 million foreigners out of the country.  Probably more in France and Germany.  In the US, whites have to carve out a homeland.  This isn’t work for poncey humanities profs who think they can deliver renewal with a bit of professorial rule-setting.  This is about the will to live and not die, and you can’t set rules for that.


104

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:10 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:55 | #

However you define or re-define “rule”, you are still “negotiating” with the mass of the people about how they must behave.

I am not defining rules, but if you are talking about non descriptive rules, but rules in the performative world….

It is not only a negotiation of how people must (obligatory) act, but also about how they cannot (prohibited) act or might (legitimate) act.

And if it were just a matter of discreet and universal psychological or sociobiological laws you don’t need to specify them at all, do you.

It depends. Sometimes you don’t need to. Sometimes you need to; some times its helpful.

Perhaps Hamilton should have said nothing when stating his rule. But it does not offend me that he has.

You only need to clear away obstacles to them, and see how the people react.

That is plain stupid.

An excellent example has occurred in Orban’s Hungary in respect to the government’s efforts to raise the fertility of the native population.  It succeeded because when the obstacles are removed men and women want to become parents.

Some rules are obstructive and should be removed, that does not mean that all rules are pernicious. GW, this is beyond stupid.

Have some warm milk, a gram cracker and go do sleep… either that or go play in the street.


105

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:18 | #

You can’t wish away the horror matrix by a bit of post modern sophistication.

Who said that I’m proposing to wish it away or that only a bit of post modern sophistication is required.

This is Mary Poppins talk. A spoonful of sugar.  For pete’s sake,

No, that is your wish, dickhead. You think that if you try to isolate and render the most trivializing interpretation of an idea that you have performed a valuable service.

What you are is an idiotic obstruction.

in England alone we’ve got to shift perhaps up to 14 million foreigners out of the country.

And its best to organize the native English in strenght before such a shift is attempted.

Probably more in France and Germany.  In the US, whites have to carve out a homeland.  This isn’t work for poncey humanities profs who think they can deliver renewal with a bit of professorial rule-setting.

It won’t happen by means of your retarded strawmanning.

This is about the will to live and not die, and you can’t set rules for that.

The will to live and die is a rule, and it is followed more or less strongly, by individuals and by group species.

Get over your jealousy, GW. How stupid that you would take offense to the concept of “rules” and try say that it is necessarily a coercive thing. You are against it because it facilitates explanatory means, it intimidates you.

Sorry, there are things that are more important than your unwarranted, gargantuan ego - mis perceiving threat as it has.


106

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:31 | #

When you are clinging to a cliff-top by your fingers your feet don’t scrabble for purchase because it is a rule.  When you find yourself shoved into a dark alleyway by some guy with a blade you don’t hand over your wallet because it is a rule.  When you are starving you don’t gorge yourself on food because it is a rule.  You are traducing the will to life.  It does not require humanities professors to pontificate on the specificatory structure for the primary will of all sentient beings.

You are seeking to impose on our nationalism a reductive and pointless piece of sophistry that nobody asked for or thinks necessary.  I think you have merely over-reached, and you can row back if your pride allows.


107

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:40 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:31 | #

When you are clinging to a cliff-top by your fingers your feet don’t scrabble for purchase because it is a rule.

It is a law (rule) of biology that one seeks to survive and a law (rule) of physics that one might fall to their death.


108

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:01 | #

When you find yourself shoved into a dark alleyway by some guy with a blade you don’t hand over your wallet because it is a rule.

Your thing against rules as an analytic/descriptive device is retarded.

But in this example, there can be both descriptive and prescriptive invoked.

Descriptive rules: Police report.

Prescriptive rule: What is generally prescribed in cultural interests

Examples -

A) English men fight back, don’t hand over their wallet.

B) English men are too intelligent to risk their lives for a few pounds and the inconvenience of having to fill out some forms.

C) English men are ashamed that they had to hand over their wallet, say that’s enough, time to take to political activism, invoke and bring into force the rule structures to get rid of this menace that brought this criminal into my encounter.

etc. etc.

When you are starving you don’t gorge yourself on food because it is a rule.

It is a rule of biology. Why can’t you understand that that my platform does not deny brutish facts? How many times til it penetrates your skull?

In some cases, at most you can negotiate is how those facts come to count. I gorged myself when I was starving whereas the anorexic girl refused to eat because she could not locate her agency amidst the strong rule structure of obligation and prohibition. So, starving herself to death was the only agentive control that she could muster for herself.

You are traducing the will to life.

You are the one traducing. You are fucking liar, totally misrepresenting me and my efforts.

It does not require humanities professors to pontificate on the specificatory structure for the primary will of all sentient beings.

We’ve got tangles and complexities that need sorting out and I’ve done a good job of it. Though I am not a professor and not pontificating; and since you have it in for Shotter, neither does he talk in terms of specificatory structures and the joint negotiation thereof as means which are negotiated apart from brute facts: again there are those three parts of social constuctionism, the last being that one has some modicum of agency as to how brute facts come to count, post hoc (thus before hand).

But that will not penetrate your skull.

You are seeking to impose on our nationalism a reductive and pointless piece of sophistry

No, I am not trying to do that and what I do is not pointless despite your obscene jealousy.

that nobody asked for or thinks necessary.

You don’t know everybody and the problems that we are up against effect me too, so I am not only do it for the English.

Our problems are not only the tangles of an anorectic girl who starves herself to death despite your naturalism; they can be complex and it takes all kinds. If you don’t like my work then attend to your own shit and leave me alone with your stupid jealousy.

I think you have merely over-reached, and you can row back if your pride allows.

Just a projection. Your criticisms have been worthless. All of them.

Dial back your unmerited, gargantuan ego.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Meet BlackRock, the New Great Vampire Squid
Previous entry: Citing risk to their business/corporate “reputation”, Network Solutions gives V-Dare 10 day notice.

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:00. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:02. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:46. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:42. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:14. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 05:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:42. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:41. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:21. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:50. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:13. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 06:26. (View)

affection-tone