And getting that reaction is in large aspect of the Jewish red caping of good, socially organizing concepts, as per the thesis.

The concept of “The Left” as a unionization of the EthnoNation, revolutionary long enough to overthrow treacherous elites is absconded by Marx to become “international workers of the world unite” in “withering away the state to create the communist utopia”…and where that did not happen, unionizations of non-White and White anti-White coalitions were formed by cultural Marxism against White Ethnonationalism. And in “liberating tolerance” (Marcuse), claiming in the name of tolerance to be intolerant of the right, The Marxists and Cultural Marxists label White Identity and Ethnonationalism as “Right Wing’ and “Far Right” … Alt Right, …Dissident Right … Neither Left Nor Right, Third Position, Baizo (White Cultural Marxists which the Chinese call ‘White Left”)….anything but White Left Ethnonationalism.

That would follow our hypothesis that Jewish group strategy seeks to rupture White group organization and defense.

Isn’t this superficial of me? Aren’t these just words?

Well, I’m sure that you will agree that words are meant to signify things, logics of meaning and action which in turn suggest how we direct behavior.

We respect and look at ordinary language as the currency by which people proceed.

We look to the wisdom of our language, to see what is meant most radically and we look to what holds up in meaning cross contextually, which we might call the “depth grammar.”

And with that, we look at what people are doing.

I am not a scientist. However, I am confident that my hypothesis will hold up, cross contextually, that in the depth grammar of leftism, is social organization by means of classification and unionization.

And this is a very important, non-Cartesian concept, for maintaining praxis.

If you look at what “Leftists” are doing, they may be seeking social justice of some kind as they conceive it, but they are not seeking “equality.”

Equality was an inarticulate part of the French Revolution’s slogan which was seized upon, (((red caped))) because it puts one in a terribly anti-social position to ague against equality. Elsewhere I explain that commensurabily incommensurability is the way to harmonize niche qualities within and between groups in service of coordination as opposed to antagonism with false, unnecessary, even dangerously misleading comparisons.

Back to what is being done with Right and Left. You say these are superficial terms and yet, since 2008, Jewry has been particularly keen to cultivate a characterology of “the left” as anti-nature, unrealistic, seeking equality and worst of all, “social justice” – why would we want that now that Jews own half the world? Lets make a deal, you right wing reactionary and liberal Whites – lets pay you off or give you whatever licentiousness you want to ignore the fact that we are all more or less indebted to our social group, aye?

We Jews are on top for our objective merit, you right wingers too, so smart, and you liberals, they are jealous of your strength and beauty, which had nothing to do with the cooperation of your people.

Join us against all that weak and resentful collectivism before they unionize and overthrow our indulgence.

Thus, I would say to White Ethnonationalists, pay careful attention to why they want you, not only identify as right, as always, but why they have stepped-up this campaign to have you arguing against the “left” since 2008. Why don’t they want you to identify as “left”, White Ethnonational Left.

Liberal and Politically Correct used to be more the terms for adversaries of ethnonationalism (implicit though ethnonationalism was for its stigma by the U.S., given its civic nationalism). It did not used to be that “the left” was on everybody’s lips as the great devil character…. not until it became necessary as social justice organization, unionization and activism became an intersectional threat to Jewry and their complicit right wing sell outs/ along with those liberals taking the licentious bribe.

But the Marxist Red Cape of “The Left” as International and The Cultural Marxist Red Cape of “The Left” as Liberal, slowly imposed a confusing, counterfeit currency to the language of Whites, which confounded their capacity to organize; a most valuable note among that counterfeit currency being deliberate confusion of “The Left” = Liberal: It is indeed liberal for Whites when international coalitions of anti-Whites are marshaled against White borders, bounds, would-be unionizations. But there in depth grammar of the left, unionization reveals the opposite of liberalism because the obvious function is to conserve the interests of what is within the union, while that which would open-up the union is liberalizing.

Tell me, if Right and Left are so meaningless semiotically, why have they wanted you to identify as Right, why have they wanted for you to view The Left as adversarial? Why do you react almost phobically to the word “left” if fit has not been weaponized against you? If you think right and left are meaningless now, why do the terms continue to be used, and why will they be used? You say nationalism versus globalism is the divide now, and we can largely agree, but do you understand that nationalism is to the left, it is a union and as such, in the relative interests of the people, not some merely objectively found and maintained phenomenon.

To the extent that our people naturally form ethnonations of their emergent qualities, that is wonderful. But there should be no objection to the unionization of the ethnonation’s borders and bounds. Furthermore, in all likelihood this hermeneutic function will be necessary for reasons already mentioned, to maintain our authentic way, our coherence, especially as our antagonists are determined to undermine our homeostasis, and because there are enough right wing elites willing to sell us out, liberals as well.

You ask, why do we have to call it “left”? The answer is because of its connotations for the foreseeable future, of unionization and corresponding means of social accountability, necessary to sustain ethnonationalism; with corresponding connotation of social justice and compassion to rouse the populace behind our ethnonational cause (as opposed to the right wing, brute facts, ‘which don’t care about your feelings”). If the unionizing function is thoroughly assimilated as being about our people – praxis – maybe one day we can drop the term White EthnoNational left; but for now, it keeps us on track. The right, on the other hand, is rife with brutal anti-social “that’s just the way it is” accounts, that rightfully turn-off the majority of our support.

The connotations of the left, viz. the White EthnoNational Left maintain a broad view of the unionized systemic, human ecology of our people. With our calibration of praxis being central, as it should be, the means of accountability to our own is established and the means for accountability to other groups as well. After all, what are we doing this for if not our people? For our children and the world they come into?

Right wing and all its variants, including third position, where they are the dominant mode, will be shown in their depth grammar, to be pursuits of facts, truth, understanding of nature, supposedly irrespective of the relevant interests of their people and accountability thereof. And where they are taken as “the way” it will be demonstrated that these are reactions, inherently unstable social reaction to rhetorical abuses in Praxis, mostly Jewish.

What these right wing truth inquiries should be, is feedback to be gauged against our praxis, to serve its homeostasis.

These reactionary positions, seeking pure warrant beyond praxis or below, in raw nature, will not serve homeostasis because they make short shrift of social accountability and the social correctability (synonymous with homeostasis) that praxis affords.

With unionization of our people we are accountable to our people, whereas with, say, Christianity, the interpretation as to what we are accountable to is unclear. …same with “laws of physics” and “nature” …while Darwinism comes close for species drive to survival, it too, can be ambiguous without the hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity.

Some will balk that paying attention to terms and proffering general frameworks is superficial, but this is to be guilty of a fundamental misunderstanding of praxis, the social world its currency that we are dealing with quite necessarily with requisite practical judgement – which Aristotle called “phronesis.”

As Aristotle observed, people are biological creatures evolved for optimal need satisfaction, who have and register reflexive systemic effects for excess and lack and for the actions of others, mammals in particular who have relative concern for their relationships, and have agency, can learn to learn, reframe their agendas hermeneutically; that social science is not like hard sciences, even less like physics than biology for the broad view of systemic maintenance. It requires rather specificatory structures: largely or partly finished frameworks slightly more general and ambiguous, but having ready understanding by the public – frameworks that can be shaped and crafted for broad perspective, not choking off the necessary imagination to transcend moment and episode into broader patterns as need be, not to preclude re-specification in precision, down to a genetic level or molecular level, as need be. And this hermeneutic capacity in liberation from mere facticity, to transcend stray moment and episode, paradoxes, strange loops, tangles, defeats, is necessary not only for individual autobiographical coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, but also for our groups.

This modesty will also invite participation and elaboration and correction in the social construction of knowledge in homeostasis of our people. It will hopefully remove the transmission model of communication, the perception that I am, or should be on Mount Sinai transmitting the ten commandments to an audience of passive receptors except for their impatiently tapping foots and brows furrowed in skeptical disdain.

Along with social constructionism and hermeneutics, speciificatory structure, invoke social correctability, the essential function of group homeostasis that we are after.

White Post Modernity is going with Whitehead’s ideas that even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis…that one cannot continually investigate everything, but must proceed taking for granted a given state of partial knowledge. That’s just one way of expressing the requirement of phronesis in praxis.

I would take it a bit further, that in some regards we will find that a modicum of ambiguity is actually helpful to grease the wheels of participation, an aspect which makes Shotter’s idea all the better for its invocation of engagement with correctability and specification, ergo the possibility of systemic homeostasis. And again, there is no denial of harder facts of biology and physics, only that insistence on at least a modicum of agency (at least as to how facts come to count). However, as I have argued elsewhere, in one of the many essays buried because I don’t love Hitler, Jesus and other Jews, that modicum of ambiguity in praxis actually affords social construction of accountability, coherence, agency, necessary to the warrant of both individual and group.

Practical judgment certainly does not make the scientist irrelevant. Even aspects of (((bracketed))) scientists can be useful, as in the case of cognitive linguist George Lakoff.

Issuing the caveat, again, that just because I find an idea useful from a person, does not mean that that I subscribe to their program and may well use next to nothing but for a few ideas in fact. Such has been the case of George Lakoff, whose idea in his book, “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind” I found both useful and neutral enough (apparently that cannot be said for later efforts of his).

Before I knew that he was Jewish or that that was an inherent problem, I saw merit in the concept that he was promoting in this book, viz, that people have the need to classify (he says categorize but, same thing) in order to make sense. He added, and they do this on a “human sized scale” – that would be emphasizing the practicality of the scale of classification. And there is an optimal level of classification. We don’t normally say ‘there’s a Irish Setter on the porch, nor do we say there is a mammal on the porch, we say that there is a dog on the porch.’

We don’t go around classifying the number of molecules in people, nor do we classify their place among the galaxy; but we will, indeed we must, as a matter of species survival, classify them according to some readily discernible species potentially competing for resource among the genus of humans.

Now, before anyone says that I was indoctrinated by a Jewish professor, the fact is that Lakoff was coming from a rival discipline, which treated communications more scientifically that my chosen discipline of interpersonal communication (I have always been looking for ideas that I could use in the interests of Whites, weighing material, rejecting some, taking some and making novel inferences – a process quite unlike what GW’s autobiography would have him believe of my biography, ‘that I have been a passive, uncritical receptacle for Marxist indoctrination’).

I went out of my way and took these little tidbits, adding what would be significant hypotheses for European survival.

My experience tells me that whatever experiments or experience that Lakoff is referring to when suggesting that humans have a cognitive need, even inborn tendency to categorize, it is true enough.. it makes sense that this capacity would be necessary in order to make sense and discern requirements for species survival.

This reinforced what I was coming to understand as the egregiously weaponized modernist, Lockeatine prohibition of classification with “civil rights” and “anti racism.”

With the inference that the capacity and need to classify remains, even with the prohibition on classifying, I drew a hypothesis that within the reflexive disorder as a result of prohibiting racial classifications, that certain default classifications, too difficult to ignore, would emerge with increased significance.

It is scientifically demonstrable that highly contrasting sights and sounds create a tropism of attention. Hence the categories/classification of gender, viz. female, and the contrast of White and black races would be reinforced as categories, especially as weaponized anti-White contingents in the PC, “discriminated against” coalition. Thus, it would tend to reinforce the coherence of their advocacy, already advantaged in the disordered circumstance for reasons we’ve noted to the detriment of White/European species.

My point is, that White Post Modernity finds use in scientific methodology; and if facts and an idea holds up, its coming from a Jewish source will of course not require its being discarded. By the same token, I would maintain the Schmittian (((brackets))) as a warning in regard to the Jewish scientist for where his allegiances are liable to take his earstwhile politically neutral ideas.

Similarly, I would not do away with critic of scientism, (((Thomas Khun)))‘s idea of paradigms, commensurability and incommensurabity as a better way of handling niche differences within and between groups, better than an across the board comparisons “equality and non-equality.” It is not that this idea cannot be misapplied – one critique that it came under from a Jewish philosopher was so concerted that it had me believe that Khun could not possibly be Jewish. The (((brackets around Khun))) would have helped. The reason for my mistaken inference was reinforced as I could see how useful Khun’s idea could be to White people.

Similarly, the )))around Gadamer((( would have prompted my realization that Gadamer wasn’t Jewish, the abuse of his ideas were Jewish. As our thesis states, Jewish interests are adept at latching onto good ideas for social organization – as in Gadamer’s elegant turn, “the prejudice against prejudice.”  But so adept are they in this red caping that you’d simply presume that hermeneutics, along with Gadamer, was Jewish and anti-Science.

Indeed, science is of assistance to identifying (((bracketry))) as through Jewish crypsis and Christian conversion. Hence the advantage to White Post Modernity in being open and ready to avail itself of Modernity and its means.

On the other hand there is the wisdom in the tradition that is our language, from ordinary language to its underwriting in depth grammar, it can provide semiotic currency to help us see through the ((the red capes))) of Post Modernity. We can be more than satisfied with the potential for warranted assertability and operational verifiabily in the specificatory structures we generate in language where it is legitimately backed currency, counterfeit red cape notes put out of circulation by participation and correctability – homeostasis of our human ecology, our people, our ethnonations, our praxis.

We understand that it is a part of Jewish group evolutionary strategy to undermine our White/European group systemic homeostasis – the thesis here is that it is done largely by red caping of concepts necessary to group homeostasis for Whites.

They altercast White identity as right wing for all its anti-social connotations. Since 2008 they’ve initiated a marketing campaign with all sorts of memes to join our anti-social, right wing reactionaries against “the left” red capes which, in depth grammar, has connotations of unionization, social justice, popularizing the moral high ground and social compassion to ground our ethnonational advocacy otherwise …all intersecting to the detriment of their niche power and influence along with complicit right wingers and liberals who do not want to conceive of themselves as accountable and indebted to our group interests.

They market a (((red cape))) characterology of “the left”, the Marixst international left and Cultural Marxist anti-White left, “THE” LEFT. It has these “warriors” who want this horrible thing, social justice – and social justice is bad for Jews, so it must be bad for Whites too? The “left” is “anti-nature” …it is unrealistic, it wants “equality”…. it is represented by deformed marginalized freaks and most importantly, it is synonymous with “liberalism.”

Of course now, this “leftist” unionization and coalition building in social advocacy, vastly distorted, still in hypothetical mode, prior to reality testing, arrayed by blue haired college undergraduates against Whites, determined to ever liberalize their boundaries, would not quite function that way in normative service of White Left EthnoNationalism… where the unionization of our people would delimit and provide accountability to the interests of our people and reality testing. Also staving off deployment of culpable exploitation over others on would-be “objective” grounds. Some suggests the Jews are wont to promote or instigate imperialist supremacism. There is evidence for it, and Abrahamism can be a vehicle. There again, why accountability to our people, to praxis and its correctability, is the better source of moral order.

Ok, so, Jewry, complicit right wingers and liberals do not want the function of Post Modernity understood properly because the centralization and unionization of praxis, between science and technology (theoria) and the arts and narrative/imaginative conceptualization (poesis), would put an end to their da-da racket, hyper-relative smoke and mirrors – where they get over, while Post Modernity would include our human ecology, facilitate the maintenance of our people, take the best of inherited ways, tradition and modernity and leave the worst behind.

They red cape hermeneutics and social constructionism, which would be of great service to this project of reconstructing the centrality of praxis and its homeostasis if understood properly as opposed to the wild distortions aimed to make these concepts repugnant to Whites.

And perched atop their 7 – 9 niches (Religion, Money, Politics, Academia, Law and Courts, Media, International Business, NGO’s, Foundations….) they want to promote the idea that they are on top strictly for their objective merit – not as a result of social constructionism and activism in their relative group interests.

This is the promotional task that Luke Ford et al have adopted. Along with Gottfried, Steve Sailer and others – they’d be happy for you to continue to misuderstand post modernity as so much hyper-relative, ironic, deconstructionist da da.

They don’t want you paying attention to the social contructionist process by which social systemic homeostasis and success comes about, they want you to pay attention to the products of that process, red caping you with the concept of objective merit to void accountability to your people and their process of homeostasis and advance.

While not everyone chases the (((Red Cape))) of (((Steve Sailer’s))) “Human BioDiversity”, some are memorized by it, drape themselves in it – at least huWhites are better than some! But Human BioDiversity is clearly supposed to be a Post Modern concept, a horizontal perspective geared to sensitize people to recognize / respect qualitative (incommensurate) niche differences in order to facilitate non-conflictual, symbiotic functioning within groups and between them, in a broad and pervasive human ecology.

Yet it was bizarrely weaponized by Sailer into a lateral, hierarchical perspective – “HBD = I.Q.” – yes, I.Q. is dangerous to Not measure for certain tasks and certain niche roles, for certain people, but wielding it as if a “good will concept” to respect natural law of biodiversity, putting it rather into modernity’s narcissistic terms of universal comparison (i.e., NOT diversity and NOT respect for different niche evolutionary qualities), with inclination for unnecessarily provocative and dangerous false comparisons, leaving you caught up in hubris where, lets say, street smart qualities are going to kick ass – but never mind, it was convenient, particularly to Ashkenazi YKW class of ©2008 (not like their high I.Q. was socially constructed); and the flatter enough liberal licence(tiousness) with their “objectivity” – “that’s just the way it is, I can…whatever”….can flatter enough elitist White right wing reactionaries, who can at least claim some prowess over the darker races, some can even join the ranks of the supreme tribe to bring light to the world!

Related: Hyperbolic over-representation of YKW (under-rep. of Whites) in Ivy League not remotely merit based

The red cape of “Equality” is chased, positioning us as callous ogres, against equality.

The red cape of “Diversity” is chased to require integration on a uniform criteria.

The red cape of “Multiculturalism is chased to require integration and Monoculturalism:

Pat Buchanan decried “the sewer of multiculturalism” and maintains that all Americans should speak English and practice Christianity. Just what we need, right?

Angela Merkel says “multiculturalism is not working.” ..is she saying “send them back” because she values the distinct genetic make-up of Germans so much? or is she making an an implicit argument against the red cape, for integration and the browning, if not full replacement of Germans?

The red cape of the social unit of analysis – sociology, the group advocacy red caped as anti-White hyper relativism – means that the social/group unit of analysis is repugnant, it is for Jews and girls. Never mind that we are under attack as a group/race and therefore it is the most important unit of analysis for us to look at.
…
The (((red capes))) of conservatism called Neo Cons and Paleocons have been discussed in various places and we’ll revisit that controlled opposition as need be.