Majorityrights News > Category: Philosophy

Warning: Third Positionism and its vulnerability with a backdoor for entryism and manipulation for its no-account foolishness.

Interventions: GOP, The Enemy of the People

DanielS:

Thamster engaged in terrible strawman misrepresentations of what is being done with pragmatism, describing it as “mere” pragmatism, and the “post modern” mere choice of identity: viz the original practicality of moral concerns is not mutually exclusive to depth of concerns nor even their idealization, sacralization and inspiration, inbornness and non-negotiableness. ....while Christianity has had great practical utility from its onset: for our enemies as a red caping of our moral order.

Thamster WitNat
Highlighted reply
Thamster WitNat

44 minutes ago (edited)
lol strawman, hardly. You are the one misrepresenting here.

I was referring to a tendency for many in the “dissident right” (if we want to go with that as a broad term) to engage in the question of religion by stating we need to either find one or create one more conducive to our politics. Packaged with that is the idea that religion serves as a survival mechanism where you pick and choose aspects of them suited to that end. The reason for this view of religion? A pragmatic concern with constructing one more in line with our politics. In other words, reducing religious truth to our own political interests. That is hardly a genuine answer to the problem but its a common one I see in these circles. Pragmatic because the question of truth is decided on by its practical implications over its absolute commitments. I am not talking about PRAGMATISM as a philosphy, I am talking about the pragmatic aim of this view in a general sense. Obviously stating that religion can have practical concerns as well as sacralization and ideaization that is non-negotiable is completely beside the point.

I also never said the postmodern “mere” choice of identity” I said this view of religion plays (broadly) within the framework of postmodernism that fascists are seemingly opposed to. Of course, for that to make sense, you would have to agree with me that the bulk of postmodernism is a continuation of modernism even if it began as a critique of it. I have expounded this view elsewhere.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
Daniel Sienkiewicz
14 minutes ago (edited)

​@Thamster WitNat

“lol strawman, hardly. You are the one misrepresenting here.

I was referring to a tendency for many in the “dissident right” (if we want to go with that as a broad term) to engage in the question of religion by stating we need to either find one or create one more conducive to our politics.”

While those on the dissident right may have a superficial idea as to the process of religion, I’m gathering that I did not misrepresent your argument, as I am satisfied that a religion, as any moral ordering, has practical matters negotiated between people at its origin.

The difference between an authentic religiosity as opposed to an affectation adopted or imposed (as in the case of Christianity) is that it emerges out of the concern to connect and hold to account a group’s systemic relations (you know the etymology re-ligia). Whereas Christianity tethers us to Noahide law, an affectation of kosher imposition, jurisdiction and expropriation.

“Packaged with that is the idea that religion serves as a survival mechanism where you pick and choose aspects of them suited to that end.”

You don’t pick and choose what has survival value to your people, but you do sacralize what is crucial and make taboo what is harmful.

“The reason for this view of religion? A pragmatic concern with constructing one more in line with our politics. In other words, reducing religious truth to our own political interests.”

In this argument you are relying too much on the word “mere”, which is the strawman element….“mere” pragmatism, “mere” politics, “mere” construction.

“That is hardly a genuine answer to the problem but its a common one I see in these circles.”

Obviously I am not going to defend people in the “dissident right” and your point is well taken regarding the adoption of Orthodox Christianity and probably in regard to some of their larpish attempts to represent pagan religions.

But the recognition of the need for a religion, to facilitate our group pattern on a semi transcendent level, beyond the unworthiness of some of our people and the imperfection of the rest of us, is necessary for many reasons, not least of which is to carry us beyond cynicism for the fact of our imperfection (to say the least).

“Pragmatic because the question of truth is decided on by its practical implications over its absolute commitments. I am not talking about PRAGMATISM as a philosphy, I am talking about the pragmatic aim of this view in a general sense.”

Let me call attention to Kant’s use of the word “practical” when discussing the topic of morality.

I’ll cop to a bit of No-true-Scotsmanning here when I suggest that it is furthermore practical to have ideals and aesthetic inspiration.

The purpose of this exercise is to relocate our agency in the service of our interests; that we can have hope to re-establish a moral order which centers the biological interest of our species. ...not so much to defend pragmatic philosophy, commendable though it is: Hilary Putnam, “the great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible.”

“Obviously stating that religion can have practical concerns as well as sacralization and ideaization that is non-negotiable is completely beside the point.”

...well, if your point is to say that people on the dissident right are prone to retain the liberal idea of shopping around, picking and choosing, yes, good point, among the several reasons that you are interesting to listen to…..

But if your point is to criticize post modern philosophy and pragmatism as they should be understood in underpinning White interests, then not besides the point.

“I also never said the postmodern “mere” choice of identity” I said this view of religion plays (broadly) within the framework of postmodernism that fascists are seemingly opposed to.”

Ok, fair enough point - If - if their understanding of postmodernity is the hyper-relative, dada deconstructionist, ironically adopted situational nonsense that its been red caped for Whites as being what “post modernity” truly is. Then agreed.

“Of course, for that to make sense, you would have to agree with me that the bulk of postmodernism is a continuation of modernism even if it began as a critique of it. I have expounded this view elsewhere.”

Not exactly. Post modern philosophy as it is misrepresented is really a continuation of modernity, its late stage fallout - misrepresented as “post modernity” since the antagonists to our interests do not want us to understand the accurate purpose of post modern performance requirements as it would facilitate our systemic survival as opposed to the ravages of modernity, its arbitrary experimentalism in promise that change necessarily leads to progress, and as opposed to maintaining traditions, where they are anachronistic and no longer serviceable..

And conversely, to be able to invoke the best of modern advance and tradition without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of lacking modern sophistication, but mostly, to be able to protect our inherited forms,  the maintained organization of which requires that post modernity be properly understood: hence why it is that our adversaries have perpetuated the hyper relative misrepresentation: they want to keep us disorganized.

EBL 31: Michel Foucault “The Birth of Biopolitics” (with Alex McNabb)

Thamster WitNat
2.96K subscribers

The EBL crew is joined by special guest Alex McNabb for a discussion of Michel Foucault’s 1978-79 series of lectures titled “The Birth of Biopolitics”. The crew examines facets of neoliberalism in the light of Foucault’s classic treatise

I stopped reading Foucault after the first book of his that I read, The History of Sexuality: The Use of Pleasure.

I was intrigued by the title, which indicated a classical Epicurean inquiry, a worthy avenue it seemed to me. However, except for the provocatively useful, but un-elaborated upon term, “bio-power”, there wasn’t much that i found to be of use in the text. On the contrary, I found him coming back repeatedly to the idea that (some) ancient Greeks (allegedly) considered homosexual pedophilia normal as transparent justification for his own predilection among this contextual relativization of history.

Even so, the term “bio-power” provides a clue as to an angle that can be used in inquiry and warning as to how it is that Africans can be a danger, i.e., not merely antagonistic, but having capacity, dangerous capability ...e.g., as a people some 200,000 years evolved prior to and thus compared to the precarious 41,000 years of European evolution.

There are several advantages to this angle which I will not elaborate on, but only add that it helps to mitigate against the Nazophiles who try to minimize black antagonism, looking upon themselves and their singular concern for the J.Q. as the ultimate in sophistication (and not naivete).

It also goes to show that sometimes a book a thousand pages long can be justified by one term or even the title.

While I had always meant to read Foucault’s most important books, Discipline and Punish and Birth of the Clinic for the provocative angles that Foucault takes on social problems, I never got around to it having been turned off enough by Foucault’s pedophilia apologetics and having read enough people quoting the texts to get the idea…

Josh Neal, Alex McNabb, Jefferson Lee and Thampster have a discussion in and about Foucault having apparently been provoked by the same term - bio-poltics/bio-power - and finding the same thing, the Foucault does not elaborate.

However, they have a decent discussion in and about what Foucault’s lecture on bio-politics does talk about - neo-liberalism…

....“the market (and its infamous ‘magic hand’) becomes the space of truth.”

....while the panel ventures some into Birth of The Clinic and Discipline and Punish.

Again, I’m not endorsing Foucault but he does provide provocative angles, prompting ways to think about power relations and their historical context in the determination of how social problems come to count.

Negotiating Moral Orders, European Post Modernity and DNA Nations

Daniel Sienkiewicz

In this stream, I will indulge in a literal stream of consciousness in order to cover the platform of European peoples advocacy that I have cultivated over the years, not particularly concerned with order of the material, as it is of a complete enough system that cris-crossing it from various angles as they emerge to my consciousness will invariably flesh out its stable reference points to provide understanding for those who can be reasoned with.

A more formal presentation can wait for another time.

I do not want to undertake a formal presentation or a pretext of rigorously ordered priority of discussion at this point as that will delay the unfolding and imparting of ideas that already have verifiable systemic coherence beneath and important messages thereby, especially for persons concerned for the defense and well being of European peoples.

...

Comments:

1) I’ll start to note some things that I’d forgotten to mention, one of them being Heidegger’s attendance to our “emergent qualities” - as individuals (and as a genetic group, by inference); which is also an anti Cartesian notion, but looked at from this angle not so much a concern for taking us out of Cartesian estrangement by directing us into interaction through Dasein (there being) but rather an emphasis on resisting Cartesian estrangement by holding fast to our inborn trajectory and following its teleological path for us rather than getting drawn into the inauthentic calling from our path by “the they” ...it would be a correction thus, to an over emphasis on social concern to the detriment of our inherited biological nature. I must credit Guessedworker for taking me to task and holding me to proper account to Heidegger’s concern for emergentism.

2) The next thing that I believe that I forgot to mention - and when you forget something in a situation like this, it tends to be something that you take for granted because its so obviously important - is the marketing campaign circa 2008 that was the Alt Right and Alt lite, as a Gottfried/Regnery NPI Spencer loosely formed political perspective/ angle / agenda - Spencer being a useful right wing elitist reactionary to front the re-branding of “Paleoconservatism”, a Paleoconservatism 2.0,  to direct not just a big tent but a tent of tents (a tentosphere) of broader based and younger reactionaries against political correctness (Frankfurt School) whose commonality was some kind of anti-social stigma.

The father of Paleoconservatism was Frank Meyer, a Jewish man, originally a Marxist, whose “paleoconservative concept” was “fusionism”, a fusion of ideas that don’t really go together, that is to say enlightenment/modernist objectivism and Judeo/Christianity. Despite the fact that these ideas don’t really go together, it was a tension of conflicting concerns that was familiar to mainstream America from the onset of the United States and was seen as a life raft for those with conservative values. Frank Meyer became the mentor of sorts to President Ronald Reagan, the first prominent paleo-con, who was joined in this ideology by Pat Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, Joe Sobran and Sam Francis.

By the 1990’s this opportunistic controlled opposition that was Paleoconservatism was out maneuvered by the other side of controlled opposition that is the Neoconservates, to make way for Israeli operation clean break to secure the realm around Israel using American military might - to create Israel friendly regimes starting with ousting Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But I digress.

By 2008 when objectivist “invisible hand” economic program by Randian devote and Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan had run the boom bust cycle to the greatest bust (theft) ever with the mortage and securities meltdown, that was when Gottfried, Horowitz et al recognized a dangerous intersectionality with the Cultural Marxism that their tribesman had been promoting through academia: They needed to make sure that European peoples didn’t make proper use of social organizing strategies via properly understood post modern and leftist socially conscientious ideas to organize as a European ethnonational left, to unionize as a bounded discreet people (forming in and out groups, the opposite of the promoted confusion of left/liberalism, and rather to conserve and and hold accountable what is within the “union”) who would then, in holding members to account, look at elites and see who was betraying them by opening their would be union bounds to scabbery (so to speak) and they would see YKW in tandem with right wing sell outs, encouraged to a no account objectivism, socially unconscientious ‘that’s just the way it is-ness’, along with liberals, incentivized in much the same way to take license to betray “union”, conservative interests, on the basis of no account pseudo objectivist, “that’s just the way it isness.”

As YKW had greater hegemony, power and influence than ever with the 2008 melt down/theft, they sought to get European reactionaries to not only identify as right, far right objectivist Cartesian reactionaries as always, but to identify as an Alternative Right, which would specialize in criticizing “THE Left”, and a characterology thereof (a character with unnatural concepts, such as the call for universal equality that it seeks to apply to nature) that is to say, to chase after the red capes of distorted and just out right anti European political correctness as it had been marshaled to this intersection by YKW interests. - Oh, “those social justice warriors” how unrealistic, we don’t want any of that social justice now that the YKW, right wing sell outs and licentious liberals have more unjust and destructive power and influence than ever!

3) Another red cape (straw man misrepresentation of a good, social organization idea for us to chase after antagonistically, against our own organizational, homeostatic interests) that I’d forgotten to mention in this discussion, is false polemic against the concept of social justice and equality with a disingenuous rebut in the form of a misrepresentative concept of “human bio diversity”, misrepresented as a lateral matter of I.Q. (how convenient for elite betrayal, just the way it is) as opposed to human bio diversity being a horizontal matter of qualitative niche evolutionary differences that ought to be respected as ecologically fitting circumstances and systems, accountable as such, and not subject to false comparisons - rather, by contrast, utilizing the concept of commensurate and incommensurate paradigms, niches that are to be respected within a paradigm as integral part of the system, not to be disparaged as unequal by false comparison on an identical functional criteria. The refrain of “incommensurabilty” would also apply between peoples/paradigms in order to show respect for niche evolutionary differences of peoples, avoiding hubris and antagonism of false comparisons.

4) Yin Yang Scorpion

Sorry I fell asleep during the last part of the stream. It was 3:30 am where I am. Very interesting stream.

Reply from Daniel Sienkiewicz

No Problem Yin Yang )  Glad you found it interesting.

5) Another paradoxic rule of modernity’s performance requirement to value the new: “be different so that you can fit in.”

6) I also should have done a better job of answering Citizen Reporter’s request to clarify what is meant by hermeneutics. It is not merely narrative form, but an interactively engaged process of inquiry which allows participants to move back and forth from broad, more imaginative, historical and systemic perspectives - not only to generate enjoyable, useful and meaningful narrative, but also to generate hypotheses which may then be moved by the circulating process of hermeneutics to more rigorous and focused verification as need be. ..but as a process of inquiry, it allows one to re engage dasein from the Cartesian estrangement.

John Mearsheimer, The Roots of Liberal Hegemony, Yale University speech, published 22 Nov 2017.

       

(17:54): I just want to be clear, that if we’re going to [be talking about] liberalism, we’re talking about at home, not liberalism abroad; and with regard to nationalism, I’m not making the argument that nationalism is this wonderful force all the time.

Okay. Roots of liberal hegemony - the talk tonight. As I said, you’ve got to start with human nature, that was my chapter two. And when you talk about human nature, really what you’re asking is, ‘what are those common traits that all individuals have in common?’

And by the way, this is something that the founding fathers of liberalism paid enormous attention-to.

I believe that if you’re going to think about liberalism and nationalism, you have to wrestle with these questions.

And there are two big questions:

1) The first question is, ‘are men and women social beings above all else or does it make more sense to emphasize their individuality? In other words, are humans fundamentally social animals, who strive hard to carve out room for their individuality, or are they individuals who form social contracts?

That’s question number one.

2) Question number two, second, have our critical faculties developed to the point where we can reach universal consensus, on what defines the good life - can we agree on first principles?

Can we use reason? Are we able to reason our way through collectively and come to meaningful agreement on the big questions about life?

Those are sort of the two big issues on the table when you think about human nature.

Now, my views on this subject are that human beings are primarily social animals. We’re born into societies. We’re born into groups; and we are heavily socialized inside those groups, both by the family and the society around us in a really big way before our individuality gets to assert itself.

I think human beings are very tribal, to put it in simplistic terms from the get go - that’s not to say that you can’t have a lot of individualism but we’re primarily social animals.

Secondly, I think it’s near impossible to reach universal consensus about questions about the good life.

I agree with Mearsheimer that socialization is primary, that we are primarily social animals. That is the human condition, should be considered the preliminary outlook and matter of negotiation - failing that sufficiently, the individual and their truth will not even survive - they become, thereby, a moot point, not even there to argue how facts count.

However, I don’t think the tribal designation is good short hand - that may have been the practical social survival unit historically, but eventually it became too small and the national social scale has become the optimal unit of survival for various practical reasons.

But coming back to the second question, of whether common grounds and recognition of the shared good between people can be established, Mearsheimer frames it wrong in the sense of looking for any sort of elaborate, universal agreement between nations.

The goal, rather, should be more modest, namely of coordination, enough recognition of common interests, self and other national interests to be able to function non conflictually.

Coordination is geared toward facilitating groups functioning in their own interests with minimal conflict as opposed to trying to achieve thorough cooperation in details that do not bear on capacity for coordination or interfere with the common good.

I do need to call your attention to the fact that there is a constellation of right wingers out there who will seize upon ANYTHING, often superficial matters, in order to distract from what I have to say (which is a coherent and complete enough platform in advocacy of European peoples; I can defend and explain anything that I say).

These people are usually antagonistic to me and the ideas that I put forth because they are committed to Christianity, to Hitler, or to the inclusion of Jews in our advocacy group..and sometimes it is reactionary scientism and egotism that has them averse to the integration of ideas which are very necessary to understand for the good of our people.

Let me say briefly, that coordination of human and pervasive ecology is a large concept which I table. Conducted according to White Post Modern understanding, it is grounds that people of any thought and decency should be able to agree upon to facilitate the survival and coordination of our distinct peoples.

However, these right wing commitments, part and parcel of modernity, run rough shod over coordination to an extent that even the most ethnocentric of tradition could never be capable of.

The first project then, getting people, Europeans anyway, especially northern Europeans, perhaps, to appreciate our social nature from the onset is somewhat difficult for the reasons that:

A) They/we are evolved somewhat more individualistically as we were more evolved against the challenges of nature rather than the challenges of other groups forcing us to band together.

B) This has been fetishized in our modernist quest for pure objective warrant and the reward of its scientific/technological yields, its grandiose moral claims beyond utility to relative social group interests, either beyond nature or in laws thereof; also tending to be narcissistically extended beyond the boundaries, discrimination and prerogatives of other groups - modernity runs rough shod over coordination for its failure to recognize differences while traditional ethnocentrism at least recognized the concept of non-natives, outsiders.

C) However, this objectivity has been somewhat spurned on by Christianity, itself introduced by YKW while the purity quest was weaponized further against Whites by YKW - exacerbated Alinsky style, viz. White Americans being instigated to live up to the anti-social (anti White social) Cartesian purity of Lockeatine individual civil rights against “racism” - i.e., prejudiced against the relative group interests of Whites, with boundaries and discrimination thereupon for Whites.

Furthermore, the Abrahamic religions tend to run rough shod over coordination as they insist upon one god, and tend to be narcissistic, disregarding the significance of national differences

D) To make matters worse, whatever socially organizing and qualitative niche advocating correctives to this universalism and individualism that were introduced through (((academia))), tended to be made didactic for Whites by being exaggerated or misrepresented so that Whites would react against the very corrective that they needed for organization and defense of their social systemic homeostasis - this is where we are at now with all this railing against “the left” and “its failure to deal with reality” its “social justice warring” and various other straw man characterizations of THE Leftist, “his call for equality”, “fifty eight genders”, trannies reading to children in libraries and in paradox to the profoundly leftist call for unionization mislabled a call for “liberalism.” This “scourge of ‘identity politics’, when we should all be American.”

There was/is a call for liberalism within the nation, in the sense of doing away with the strict aristocratic class system that England has had since 1066, but the union of England does not mean giving up its borders, it means a union of the English people, whether they had been so called aristocracy or working class.

Bateson calls this “paradigmatic conservatism” - strong borders of the group, but relative freedom of individuality as facilitated by group security. He felt, as I do, that that’s the way it should be but that the reverse is more and more the case - group borders are being forced open to run wild and individualism is getting pegged, put in a straight jacket.

.....

Mearsheimer argues against trying to impose liberal democracy - a post modern turn away from universalism well advised - as it is necessarily a failed foreign policy against staunch nationalism, but he defends “liberal democracy” as a good way of life for The US.

However, he does not observe that The U.S. has failed democratic principle in important ways - notably in the open border/ opening of group boundaries policies in exploit of the “civic nationalist” concept that his YKW people have perpetrated through power niches in cahoots with liberals/right wingers to overturn democratic will (for closed borders) ..open borders and boundaries, weakening The United States nationhood and putting The U.S. effectively, on a trajectory of non-nationhood.

Note Mearsheimer’s use of the pejorative word “purportedly” when discussing nationalist claims to distinguish their people in ways (e.g., important biological differences) requiring a nation-state to protect their differences; i.e., that they are only “purportedly” different from other people in significant ways which require national boundaries/borders to protect them.

Nevertheless, in places, Mearsheimer makes the point, quite eloquently, that people are social, very profoundly social, from the start; thus making nationalism as it protects their sociality something they care about more deeply than liberal democracy. They will defend more ardently the security, social order and stability that provides for general fairness and just recourse against the secondary priorities, bullying ‘prerogatives’ of individual liberal choice over the security of group interests. Noting our deep social nature (including Europeans) from the start is correct, and is the point of correction that Whites need to understand and prioritize as opposed to right wing reaction (itself a species of liberalism) reaction to Jewish didacticism.

READ MORE...

Euro-DNA Nations - [Part 3] healthy self-interest; reaching out to the broad Euro-populations

If our mission to defend European peoples is to be understood and appreciated properly by broad masses enough to gain strength of popularity for success, we must negotiate the common currency of our language.

However, to negotiate that common currency with successful results among the broad masses, our spokesmen and advocates must first of all be disabused of YKW misdirection of terms and concepts of group advocacy so as not to perpetuate social systemic dissolution. By disabusing corrupted terms and concepts and redeploying their corrected proper forms first of all through our spokesmen and dedicated advocates, they can reach out with greater success and popularity to our broader masses to engage in our group systemic homeostasis.

In this discussion with Ecce Lux then, I begin to feel-out a project to rescue terms and concepts that would otherwise structure social systemic homeostasis for European peoples - terms and concepts which have been misrepresented by YKW to tangle, confuse, misdirect and disrupt our group homeostasis.

Our spokesmen and dedicated advocates disabused thus of YKW corrupted terms and concepts first of all and prepared with the proper forms rather for our group homeostatic interests, they can reach out with greater success and popularity to encourage our broader masses to engage defense, fostering and advance of our group interests in coordination and harmony with other peoples - thereby increasing our chances for success as well in that occasion for both intra and intergroup conflict is reduced.

Another red cape they have Whites chasing, I forgot to mention - “equality/inequality”. The matter, rather, for paradigmatic, group management, social systemic homeostasis, is “commensurability/incommensurability”, i.e, do rule structures match and complement the paradigm or not. Casting matters in those qualitative terms allows you to harmonize both intra-group roles and niches AND intergroup relations as you are not rousing conflict and ire through false comparisons which disrespect ecological niche functions.

Eradicate Mulatto Supremacism

Bitchute File Part 1 Audio

                              Part 2a Audio                  Part 2b Audio

                      Part 2c Audio                                Part 2d Audio

      Part 3a Audio          Part 3b Audio        Part 4a Audio  Part 4b Audio