This post is a work in progress.
The audience that I appeal to will share my primary concern for European peoples, where we are suffering, where we might be doing alright and how we might improve – in short, a philosophy of European interests. How we interact and get on with other peoples cannot be separated out of that concern, of course, but European philosophy, its history, progress and development is beset with distinct problems that must be resolved well enough if the dire, even lethal consequences that many of our people have already been confronted with are to be corrected; indeed, if we are not to be visited by cataclysm on the whole of our people for our errant philosophy and how it has been exploited against us. While our philosophy and attendant way of life has done many good things for ourselves and the world, the consequences of our philosophical errors and those who exploit these vulnerabilities have destructive effects to others as well, can be cataclysmic for them, as well. Hence it is time, urgent time, to get down and sort out this philosophical business and not allow interference in this concern for whatever reason antagonists may have.
When drilling down to the roots of western philosophy, in observation of its trajectory and indeed, where it has been prone to error, the classic radical starting point is with the pre-Socratics. No more formidable a thinker and no more relevant a philosopher in our European concerns than Martin Heidegger would look to the debate between Heraclitus and Parmenides to begin with; and for good reason he is far from alone in maintaining this convention.
The debate sorts out most clearly through time as a distinction between focus on patterns and thus process as opposed to permanence and thus forms. It would be wrong to state that these concerns can be distinguished and sorted perfectly from one another, at least in terms of utility. Even with the ancients, it’s more a matter of emphasis and focus; but an over-emphasis on one or the other can create problems for a people, if indeed, they are to maintain themselves as a people and not be destroyed and/or assimilated whether by other peoples or by nature sans humans.
Parmenides focus prevailed in emphasis through Plato and his forms, especially; and also through Aristotle, although there were important corrections in terms of concern for system and process through Aristotle.
It is a perfectly understandable reaction to turmoil, chaos, those antagonistic or indifferent to the form (existence) of one’s people (as the opportunistic casuistry of the Sophists rhetoric may be taken to be) to focus, perhaps over focus on the substance of form and permanence to buttress one’s kind, perhaps rigidly-so if the challenge is destructive enough.
In the limited state of communication of ancient times, Plato’s strong reaction to focus on permanence in the forms is understandable, along with his contempt for the Sophists and sophistry, their school of thought going around from city to city, teaching practical rhetoric – what Plato considered mere practical rhetoric – to look after one’s interests among the circumstance. There certainly would be, as ever, people looking to take advantage of the vicissitudes and volatile circumstance among would-be social order; hence the emphasis of the conscientious to seek a permanent realm of formal structures of the people by which they might abide above the turmoil and superior to pragmatic dishonesty in sophistry.
There was a bit of mystery, but functioning rather as a white box demonstrating “invisible” substance behind form which the Greeks observed in the phenomenon of physics shown to all school children that by holding the top of one’s straw and dunking it into water, one can draw up water with the straw, as if by magic.
Nevertheless, in the commonality of turmoil, short sighted self interest and the fragility of formal structures proposed to hold up despite proposed transcendent divorce from empirical reality emerges what remains a central concern of European philosophy; viz. how to maintain our forms.
Aristotle commenced to deal with this problem, taking the means to hold up back into empirical reality, diagnosing human nature, worse, better, optimal in function among the given turmoil, which for people groups he called Praxis. As his philosophy anchored more in nature and relative circumstance, dealing more with reality, in a word, Aristotle is generally the most respected figure, sine qua non, of European peoples.
Aristotle diagnosed human nature as biological, thus requiring optimal not maximal need satisfactions; deficiencies and excesses becoming toxic. Over focus on forms detached from interactive reality might lose track of this balance.
Nevertheless, Aristotle maintained that the formal teleology of particular species, including human teleology, would guide them in optimality of that pursuit; with that, he asks the profound question, what makes people distinctly human? and he not only describes our biological genus, but species, mammals and its distinctions, but distinguishes us further from other animals, on the basis of abilities. Are we distinctly human for our ability to run fast, for example? No. Horses can run faster.
Even so, I have diagnosed Aristotle’s diagnosis of individual human teleology to Self Actualization as being susceptible qua overly rigid teleology, needing correction with more social interactive concern for praxis at preliminary basis – central, where not foremost in a circularity of need attendance (as opposed to linearity to teleological end), despite being preferable to the corruption of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs toward Self Actualization. A bit of rigidity here in teleology was where he maintained something of a western over focus on forms in theoretical conceptual end somewhat divorced from empirical process.
However, the means for correcting this over emphasis would be importantly set forth in Aristotle’s philosophical framework, where the political and social world is preliminary (man is a social animal and without correct politics, all other philosophy is for naught) and his description of the nature of this central component – the inextricable relative engagement thereof, it’s less than perfect predictability for the reflexive effects in its interaction; thus rendering us pragmatists because we must be (Aristotle maintained that this imperfect predictability required ‘phronesis’ – practical judgment), particularly for the humanly agentive interaction of the social world – Praxis.
Praxis, the social group, was not divorced from empirical reality, nor its constituent people, of course. Not only were they biological creatures, requiring optimal not maximal need satisfaction, but they were specific biological creatures, mammals, who care deeply about relationships, requiring them, of course. But Aristotle was even more familiar to contemporary philosophical concern than that in his description of the nature of Praxis in his Nichomachean Ethics, where he diagnoses the limitations of applying pure Theory to Praxis, for the interactive nature of Praxis.
The interactive nature and concern of human relations, along with our capacity for agency and thus what our contemporaries would call “reflexive effects” (including the means to learn and learn to learn) entails the ability to change course (as “second order cybernetic systems”) from what might appear to be the next logical sequence to the purely detached observer in their Theory. Given the interactive human nature of Praxis thus, Aristotle diagnosed that unlike the realm of pure physics and its more sheer predictions that scientists may value deriving, the realm of Praxis is not a place to put too much emphasis on pure causal Theoria. Rather, we are pragmatists, to some extent, because we must be (to take a page from my teacher), having to be more modestly satisfied with working hypotheses and heuristics for what Aristotle termed “Phronesis”, i.e., practical judgement.
If these working hypotheses are indeed “working”, they will facilitate transcendence of the bad characters among praxis and the bad aspects in us all, as were are all imperfect. It will allow us to sustain the more ideal overall pattern of Praxis, and keep our focus on the fist order of philosophical concern, which is political; for in failure of adequate political philosophy to maintain praxis, all else is a moot point.
This, then, brings us to the next major philosophical question: “If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise?”
The correct answer, the White Post Modern answer, the social constructionist answer, the hermeneutecists answer, all those post modern things misrepresented by the YKW and their liberal minions in distortions which create right wing reaction in to the quest for forms beyond praxis nowadays, is to say:
While some crazy people might say that it makes no noise with no people there, most of us European peoples would say that it does make a noise, but is a meaningless question without other people to discuss it with and negotiate how this matter of physics comes to count for us.
Knowing that this social constructionist way of thinking is what people need, especially European peoples need in corrective, to maintain social group, the YKW have (((red caped))) the hell out of this and other post modern ideas in order to keep our people disorganized so that they may exercise power over us. And to date (Sept. 2021), they have been successful in maintaining these (((red cape))) misrepresentations and getting White people to react as right wingers, in ways worse, more self defeating than Plato’s impractical, formal response to the Sophists in Praxis.
But let us return then to where we, as Europeans, became susceptible to this sophistical (((red caping))) of healthy and important ideas; first setting out what that (((red caping))) is:
The basic strategy of Jewish group antagonism is to take a good idea, necessary to group defense, advocacy, homeostasis, and deploy it in the interest of non-Whites or anti-Whites; then exaggerate or reverse these advocacy concepts to the point of utter misrepresentation, absurdity, to where they are perceived as alien and repulsive to the common sensibilities of Whites, causing them to react (in white knuckle quest for unshakable foundation beyond or within non-human nature, and unwittingly beyond accountability and systemic correctivity in Praxis, as post modern ideas are conceived to provide) thus against the concept underlying this red caping and against thus, the very concepts that Whites need to understand and organize systemic homeostasis and group defense.
I can almost hear the Nordicist Europeans, Aryan aficianado’s objecting, but you are not taking into account the roots, radically ancient philosophy and religion of the Northern Europeans – Armenius!, Odin! Valhalla! all the amazing science that has come from our parts, and you talk about the Jews, didn’t we ultimately try to do something about their malinfluence?
You only talk about the Greeks and will now probably tell us something about The Romans and their most popular derivative Greek philosophies, Stoicism and Epicureanism.
I will venture that the Aryan invasions that comprise the latest movement of people into Europe who are considered European, extended the proclivities of the Northern hunter gatherers who came fist, extending some of the ideas of the Southerners where naively conducive, but mitigated some of the buffering and corrective capacities of the Middle-Eastern hunter gatherer people who came into Europe earlier, but then having vast swathes of their Y-DNA wiped out with the Aryan killing of their men and the impregnating of their women.
Considering the impact and potential exacerbating effect of Stoicism first, it was a philosophy that encouraged poised acceptance of the myriad of continencies in life, many of them bad, by taking the position that all parts of the universe constituted a complete whole, and were all necessary as such: should be accepted, even the bad, as necessary.
Kenneth Burke perfectly ridiculed this philosophy, saying, “the Stoic acceptance was an attempt to trans- substantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” Oblivious to the repugnant though it may be, it was a philosophy which one can see jibing with the conquering warrior invader Aryans, who might not wish to think too much about he reflexive effects of their warring.
The next philosophical school and influence to consider would be the Epicureans. Now then, the Epicureans were established in reaction, rejection rather, of superstition, custom, habit, mere tradition unverified by sensible utility and the means to adjudicate value; which required tracing everything to the physical realm – they coined the term “the atom” to designate the smallest physical unit of which the universe was composed – one can easily see how they stand as forerunners to the Empiricist philosophers of the Enlightenment and to empiricism more broadly.
Based on misperception in popular media who use the term epicurean as something frivolous, as in discussion of cooking shows and the like, or use the epicurean term hedonism to describe a devil-may care Dionysian indulgence in sensual pleasure, Epicureanism was a serious philosophy, with the motivations listed in the previous paragraph, and governed by a hedonism which to them meant the careful use of pleasure, a hierarchic ordering of them, prioritizing thought and contemplation as the ultimate pleasure (Thomas Jefferson considered himself an Epicurean).
It isn’t hard to imagine how this scientific anti-superstitious, anti -traditional bent would jibe with the no nonsense warring and conquest concerns of the Aryans, as their interests melded with the Romans in the south and blended keenly, extended even, the concerns of the hunter-gatherers of the North of Europe.
These philosophies and the genetics from which they derive might blend with and extend the philosophies (more like religions) and genetics of their own along with the Northern hunter gatherers with whom they intermarried, advancing them where positive, exacerbating them where negative, while their genetic predispositions might have similar positive and negative effects among the Southerners with whom they intermarried.
However, while the Greeks had their influence on the Aryans – lets call them Germanics as we move on in history – look at Heidegger’s serious consideration of the Greeks, after all – the more north you go, the more their ancient predilections and ways were holding sway uncomplicated by the Southern European Praxis. Even less complicated by Middle Eastern Praxis.
Evolved in the cold north, where the challenges were more that of nature, the weather, seasonal deprivation of food supply, need for shelter and warmth rather than danger and competition from other tribes, their concerns were more of what Clerk Maxwell called an “Augustinian devils” concern for challenges of non-human nature which do not have the ready conscious agency to change in order to stump you again once the original obstacle is solved. This Augustinian nature is by contrast to a more prominent concern among Middle Eastern tribes to attend to what Clerk Maxwell called “Manichean devils”; i.e., the trickery that human agency is capable of, to change and deceive others where their game of advantage and exploitation might be detected; a skill set in climbs where the challenge is not as much the natural elements, lack of adequate shelter and food resource year round, but rather competition from other tribes in that circumstance.
While the Israeli Mossad’s very motto, “wage war by deception” is emblematic of the increased Manichean focus, and the Islamic strategy of “taqiyya”, the art of deception, also emblematic of increased Manichean focus, the vast predominance of great scientific discoveries which Europeans, Northern European especially, but not exclusively, is emblematic of their Augustinian focus. Although the Southerners may not be quite as responsible for as many of the later scientific advances, nor has their mitigated Augustinian nature been quite so unaccustomed, quite such a naïve species in encounter with the Middle Easterners and their Manichean trickery.
One might ask, but what about the Aryan invasion of Europe from the steppes, what about the Viking invasions into other European countries, or even the Nazi invasions of other European nations? Surely you are not telling me that these were products of naïve Augustinianism. But I am saying that it follows indeed.
The Aryans could be said to be following a natural urge to conquer, more a matter of natural Augustinian might makes right than Manichean trickery of themselves or concern for potential reflexive effects of that kind.
While the Viking compulsion to set aside worldly, reflexive self interest in service of Odin and the promise of a maiden in Valhalla was more consonant with the self detached, objectivist concerns of Augustinian tests, results, pure inquiry in a word, than Manichean trickery aimed in focus on adjustment, weak, cowardly and dishonest as need be, in order to ensure the survival of one’s self and distinct kind.
And in a final example I provide of the Nazis, wielding a philosophical underpinning of might makes right, based predominantly on natural fallacy, i.e. that non-human nature below Praxis and its systemic correctivty was what the people should emulate, a trajectory for runaway rough shod over other peoples in oblivion to the inevitable reflexive effects, a naturalistic fallacy below praxis corrections only exacerbated by Himmler’s esoteric occultism above nature and Praxis.
As this German and NorthWestern European proclivity has held predominance for better and worse in Europe, so too has it held sway for better and worse elsewhere in the world where they have migrated, but especially in America where they make up the overwhelming proportion of European American demographics.
While a predilection to attend to, and indeed to be proficient in attending to Augustinian “devils”, challenges of nature, is far from something to be ashamed of – on the contrary, it is behind our scientific prowess and is the ultimate concern, if we are to survive the precarious rigors of this lonely stone in the universe, susceptible to meteors from without, super volcanoes form within, climate disaster about, oblivious population overrun among, super nova’s if nothing else – it is the proclivity behind our scientific and engineering prowess, it is also an outlook which makes us naïve, susceptible to be dupes, in a word, to the Manichean trickery of groups more dependent on their ethnocentric outlook, evolved more as they are, amidst intertribal warfare, less on the basis of “moral” communities, as Dr. Kevin MacDonald describes the northern proclivity; to form communities a bit less on the basis of clan and more on the basis of who is deemed moral in the sense of contributing either demonstration of moral trust or objective material contribution.
While the Southern and Eastern Europeans might be somewhat less naïve to the Manichean trickery, it is only somewhat less, and by no means an overall success in trajectory, as Nietzsche would point out in the crucified Jew to be worshiped as an image atop Rome, same in Eastern as in the rest of Europe. A (((red caping))) of our moral order not much less comprehensive and catastrophic in effects, at least not yet. So I will save my self righteous anger with the Germans more for the destruction of their World Wars, the “objective truths” and natural fallacy which left them “no choice” but to go over the top, beyond Praxis correctivity in that pursuit…. while more frustration and sympathy I reserve for the naïve species evolved in Sweden; subject as they are by the imposed predation of invasive, Manichean species from the Middle East and Africa.
But I exercise my anger to light up the pathways of under-deployed criticism, quite to the contrary among those concerned for European peoples, the over represented and pandered to perspective of aggrieving German and Irish demographics, with less affinity for those in the path of Hitler’s wrath in natural fallacy.
Far from trying to deny their magnificent achievements, philosophical, scientific and engineering or the survival of their ethnonational kind, I’m rather concerned to save us all, including themselves, for one thing, from the eternal Kraut; it’s well habituated logical capabilities that navigate in too much efficiency, with unanimity in rationalization of erstwhile social obstructions in Praxis, whether in justification of the destruction of Hitler’s wars one day or Merkel’s immigration policy the next. If German is likened to part of the body, it seems like the cerebral cortex, logical, producing some of our advanced human marvels, nothing we’d want to be without, but in need of the entire brain and body lest it come unhinged from corrective judgment.
Indeed, Germany, like the rest of Northern Europe could use help from the ecological buffering qualities of the Southern and Eastern nations; and this is one of problems with the ecologically imbalanced North Western European demographic of The United States, more German (by far) and Irish than any other White demographic, while the English have come in third place …all other European demographics distantly small percentages by comparison.
Nor do I have any desire to deprive Ireland of their land, people, abilities and charms. Last I heard, they were derived largely of the Basques, of the oldest Europeans there are.
Do let me get out of the rabbit hole of criticizing Germans/Germany, as having part in our destruction can be rendered for all European peoples. Unfortunately this digression is needed some as they are demographically over represented in WN reaction, quite capable of too much unanimity, prone to seek redemption of their moral status from the World Wars, prone to too much sympathy for Nazism/Hitler and to unhelpful denial to be rid of guilt for matters that could be largely dismissed as not their generation’s doing; an over pre-occupation in White advocacy now, given predominant German demographics and those who gain audience in appeal.
Most recent case in point, Apostolic Majesty here: going on about how Kaiser Germany had no choice but to carry on with the von Schlieffen Plan of invasion of France through Belgium and with it? the “necessity” of burning the ancient library of Leuven, murdering civilians, etc. (the destruction of Kalisz, Poland another incidental casualty of “logistic” necessity)? As ever, Polish nationhood seems to be a blip that makes a brief, artificial appearance on the map as a result of that horrible racist, Woodrow Wilson, after WWII.
Thus, there is no consideration that if Germany had worked out a way to respect and work with Polish nationhood and sovereignty that there would be no Eastern front overwhelmingly exposed to Russian military build up, thus requiring the hasty enactment of the von Schlieffen Plan through Belgium in hopes of quick victory over France before the Russian military build up had gone too far to take on in the east, or as another front at the same time.
The same contention would hold true for WWII. That if Germany could have truly worked with the sovereignty of European nations, especially in the east, then the alleged urgent necessity of pre-empting Russian attack could have been largely removed. I know that Apostolic Majesty knowns a great deal about history and is worth listening to, but his perspective is not beyond reproach nor that of fellow historian, Otto Pohl, who inhabited this chat approvingly; the same Otto Pohl who had the nerve to ask me how I feel about the ancient Polish capital of Poznan being “ethnically cleansed” of Germans (by borders redrawn again by Stalin) after WWII, while neo Nazi’s egged him on and called me a Pollock (when I had nothing against Otto). But I digress.
We’ll get to the problems of the other European nations, but first it is necessary to get back to our germane philosophic history.
Circling back in our hermeneutic of European philosophy, it’s history and wrong turns, it is necessary to come back to the ancient misdirection of our European people in the (((red caping))) of our moral order by Christianity.
The genesis of Christianity begins with the Roman conquest of Judea.
In fact, Christianity would be a part of one of about ten power niches making sense enough to merit a working a hypothesis apparently to be credited to Fawcett (noted by Bowery).
Having told the story several times before, I will merely adumbrate it thus:
With the Babylonian captivity, the Jews began to develop as a diaspora species, evolved to survive in niches not requiring strong native connection to the land. Whereas evolution more directly with and from the native land is called lateral transmission of evolved abilities, the evolution of cross-border capacities in diaspora, less related to the land, and more a niche function among other peoples, is called horizontal transmission.
Upon return from Babylonian captivity, the diasporic evolution moved not into direct relation to the land once again, but rather into niche capacities over the remaining population of Judea.
With the Roman conquest of Judea, the horizontal transmission of diasporic niche evolution began to be exacerbated exponentially as they were scattered among Asia Minor and Europe, beginning under Roman auspices.
Their predominance in one of the major niches, viz., Religion, was set forth as they sought to overthrow Roman control through a permutation of their Abrahamic religion – Christianity.
The Book of Revelation as the culminating text of a religion worshipping a dying Jew ought to make it plain for anyone. Whereupon Rome, the new Babylon, mother of harlots, is fallen at the end times, bringing forth the messiah in salvation of 144,000 chosen Jews and Gentiles of any which kind, no matter their nationality, mixed or otherwise. One of the most virulent aspects of this universalizing religion, what GW calls the “undifferentiated gentile”, is that native nationalists are ineffectively deracinated and de-nationalized; their genetics being of no specific concern.
So egregious a usurpation of the European moral order was this religion, that Europeans were told by it that they could not enter heaven (and presumably would go to hell) if they did not place the fictional character Jesus, the Jewish son of god, before their own family. They were told that they were committing a similar cardinal sin if they did not believe that Jesus was an actual historical figure – which he absolutely was Not. Furthermore, in Christianity’s central statement, The Sermon on The Mount, espousing the Golden Rule and a purity spiral of Moses Ten Commandments to Jewish auspices such that even if you think of breaking the ten commandments, you may as well have done it, thus they are getting into the European head, scaring the hell out of them.
But we’ve gotten ahead of ourselves. Coming back to the root problem of Christianity, as “our moral order” ….You, as a gentile, are born with original sin that can only be washed away with a pledge to the dying Jew on the cross.
First among commandments, there is only one god, the Jewish god, and you shall have no other gods before you. Tom Sunic does an excellent job of describing this affectation, as does Kumiko in an article that I published earlier in the carousel, so I will not elaborate further as the point should be clear enough. This usurpation of our moral order and its replacement with this false, misdirecting moral order – not really moral in fact, is one one of the greatest possible atrocities against our European people, with their having gotten away with it that is.
In fact, as Bowery astutely notes, the Bible and its dissemination in church was the ancient form of Media control – Media, being a second major power niche after Religion.
Centuries later, Jewish niche function would play a similar trick on through Middle-Eastern populations with another Abrahamic purity spiral held over the people, viz., Islam.
Some White Nationalist colleagues of mine, Norvin Hobbs et. al, summed it up nicely by saying that Islam would function like a sword cutting into European nations while Christianity would function like a shield protecting the Jews; although this (((red caping))) of the moral order did create a Frankenstein for the Jews in its purity spiral against their loyalists.
Besides these backlashes which I will elaborate on momentarily as a part of niche evolution through horizontal transmission, the Jews were able to sneak their influence into European peoples further by the crypsis of Christian concersion at times, and by literal evolutionary crypsis, intermarrying with gentiles enough so that it was difficult to discern them from gentiles, though the world would learn more and more that their ethnic genetic interests were different from their gentile hosts, even if they looked quite similar.
While Christianity (and later Islam) forbade usury, Judaism did not, and European leaders were easily corrupted as the Jews developed in a third most important niche – Money. With the exponential effects of usury, enlisted as lenders and tax collectors, the Jews began to consolidate the wealth of European nations to themselves while native populations would become enslaved to their vices and quick, superficial fixes.
At first flourishing in Northern Italy, their genetic trail shows them coalescing in the Rhineland of Germany to become the Ashkenazi. Highly ethnocentric, selecting for verbal I.Q. and adding International Business acumen as another niche to their diasporic capacity, Christianity became the clandestine vehicle of Jewish imperialism, backed by their other niche capacities, money, international business and media control. With that was added capacity in another niche, Law and Courts. And, of course, as they made their way in dispersal throughout Europe (whether kicked out to other nations or just migrating), they became more and more influential in Politics.
As Fawcett’s niche theory goes at this point, the native European populations eventually become aware that clandestine Jewish interests are screwing them, through converts, and they persecute the Jews through the Spanish Inquisition, through their business in vices and the consolidation of national wealth, leading to the pogroms in the east as the natives become aware, and finally, as the Jews exert more and more capacity in another niche, Academia – for example, Freudian Psychology and The Frankfurt School – adding that to their other niche capacities, the Holocaust would add yet another round of selection for Horizontal Transmission, as each of these persecutions would tend to do.
According to Horizontal Transmission Theory then, what is happening in these belated reactions and persecutions of Jews in episodes such as the Inquisition, the Pogroms and the Holocaust, is that the native European populations are killing those Jews more intermarried, situated in Europe, indeed, more accountable, while the most virulent Jews are escaping over the border to another host nation – more efficient in their virulence than ever as it has been selected for – that is Horizontal Transmission – and they go on to parasite the next host nation to death, the latest victim nation of their imperialism being The United States.
As Bowery would add, it was only with Luther’s Protestant Reformation, Gutenberg’s press and much later, the Internet, that Jewish Media control began to be mitigated somewhat. But that’s much ahead of ourselves now. Our hermeneutic of European philosophy needs to go back still, to the Enlightenment. GW makes a good observation that none of the Enlightenment figures had freed themselves of their Christian religion.
That observation then dovetails with my view on these matters. That the Enlightenment and its scientism was no mere rebirth and extension of Epicurean philosophy into Empirical philosophy, but in good part a purity spiraling reaction to the Jewish sophistry in praxis, thoroughly pervasive by then, taken for granted as the very moral order. Hence, the sort of quest for objective purity beyond the guilt trips of original sin, even “impure thoughts” of our own, and the impure sophistry, rhetoric of the Jews. As indicated before, Europeans, particularly Northern Europeans in their Augustinian evolution, were prone to this reaction for better, in scientific and engineering discovery, and worse, in losing site of their relative group interests, susceptibility to be dupes of Jewish manichean trickery, lack of accountability and thus proneness to treachery from nascent right wingers and liberals of our own.
The sine qua non of the purity spiraling reaction, of course, is with Rene Descartes; his efforts to take Christianity and the Abrahamic religion’s divorce from nature and relative interests to an objectivist extreme; pure warrant almost beyond accountability other than to say, “that’s just the way it is. No argument necessary.” This was the apex, liken it to an Archimedean point beyond nature, if you will, which set forth Modernity, all its scientific and engineering marvels,, all its destruction and roughshod over relative, ethnocentric group interests. From there, I have found it to make the best sense in our hermeneutic of European philosophy and how it has unfolded to pick up with John Locke. Locke represented the empirical side of the Cartesian divide, with an attempted purity within nature.
Now Locke understandably resented the English Aristocratic Class system instantiated with the Norman conquest of 1066. His desire to open that class boundary so that at least middle class kids could have an equal educational opportunity. This desire dovetailed nicely with his concept of empirical philosophy; that is to say, that all individuals had the same perceptions while classifications were an empirical fiction; hence the concept of individual civil rights should apply to all citizens and Aristocratic class discrimination should be abolished as pernicious fiction.
Immanuel Kant anticipated catastrophe if this empirical philosophy was carried to its logical extreme – the arbitrary destruction that would ensue without the principles and rule structuring of a moral order. in a noble effort he tried and failed to secure our moral order on universal, purely transcendent principles.
He noted three phases of morality, proceeding from common morals, in which people generally know what to do and do the right thing, abiding first principles to begin with more or less on the basis of common sense of consequences; e.g., don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery. Then a second phase operates on people, which Kant called popular philosophy. Many excuses are available for deviating from first principles; e.g., “the complex relativity of my circumstance wouldn’t let me act otherwise”, when in fact, principles could have been maintained. Another popular reason to deviate from first principles, “everybody does it.” But the mere popularity of an idea, according to Kant, does not provide sufficient reason to deviate from first principles.
Arguments on the basis of popular philosophy are usually hatched to make quick work of accountability; and I find nowadays that even more typical than relativist excuses, liberals and right wingers try to rite off their immorality as objectivist facticity, “that’s just the way it is”, in a wish to maintain that no further account is necessary.
But Kant maintains rather that if moral principles are to hold up to the misdirection of popular philosophy, they must be sufficiently founded and gauged. If geared too much in the empirical direction, as with Locke, attention runs the risk of being arbitrary. On the other hand, if principles are geared too much in the transcendent direction, they run the risk of being speculative and irrelevant. Nevertheless, as it is easier to return to sensible evidences than it is to abide and restore the credibility of an unkept principle, it is better to err in the direction of principles.
Thus, to rescue the moral order from the arbitrary trajectory and catastrophe that Lockeatine empiricism augured, Kant set about to put moral principles on universal foundations.
The most fundamental principle, unanimity, means to think in agreement with yourself. In other words, if you come to a conflict, think first of why you might be correct, not why you might be wrong. An important step in coherence, accountability , agency and warrant is set forth straight away in this principle (thus, the crucially necessary means for coordination with other individuals and groups). Although Kant was a Christian, it is important to note that you will not find this in Christianity. Furthermore, like most Catholics, Kant was not part of our teaching; in fact, I was basically taught to think in disagreement with myself. This was hell to go through.
To test the veracity of our principles, Kant asserted that one must ask the universal question of them, “can this principle be good always and, for everyone?”
In principle with regard to other people, that means treating them as ends themselves. Kant calls this, the most important principle, “good will.” Without good will, other qualities, such as beauty, fortune, intelligence, strength and power only make a person more terrible.
Despite this fine reasoning, Kant tried and failed to secure unassailable foundations of a moral order. The fundamental reason diagnosed by Heidegger, that he was still Cartesian. It would take several aspects of the post modern turn to get our moral order on track; Descartes first major critic being Vico; but we are getting way ahead of ourselves regarding a necessary White Post Modern project that’s scarcely underway, it’s having been derailed by sundry (((red capes))).
But before that even, before Kant even, Thomas Jefferson had written Locke’s anti-classificatory empirical notion of civil individual rights into the American way; an anti-classification of group species patterns that might not have been too bad if operating only on European populations in America, but nevertheless ripe as concept for anti-White weaponization by Jews in the form of “Civil Rights” legislation for blacks to violate White freedom of association; and “anti-racist” legislature, which effectively prohibited White people from rendering group classifications in their own interests and in discrimination against others, particularly against blacks, no matter how reasonable in self defense.
Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent, it is prejudice against prejudice (to coin a term from Heidegger’s student, Gadamer); and in this prohibition of classificatory discrimination (for White people, anyway) on the basis of patterns assessed detrimental to one’s kind, it is hurting and it is killing people.
And there is the matter of the French Revolution which we must back track to. A typical overstated starting point for European based scholars to assert where in history things started really going awry, it is nevertheless important to discuss; while Lockeatine anti-Classification and its (((weaponization))) in ‘Civil Rights” and “Anti-racism” is the more fruitful avenue of making sense of the catastrophic disorder that we find ourselves in the wake of modernity’s Cartesianism, since America has had the world hegemony.
Before moving on to all that, it is first necessary to ask what is a moral order at all? And what is our moral order?
There wasn’t much discussion of the matter, particularly those coming from a Catholic background, you were just supposed to obey, rather rote, according to its edicts. Thus, while I dropped serious concern of the matter once I got to teenage years, was first of us four kids to Not make my confirmation, the Sunday school, the tradition, and the lack of considered options, was enough to hold sway in taken for granted resources, still as memes buried in the back of my mind and reinforced by the culture there that that, Christianity, had prime jurisdiction over moral order; so that despite having casually renounced it as a teenager, the pressures of college, the stress of seeing the indifference to the destruction of our ethnic genetic interests sent me reeling back to search for a bedrock fundamental kind of Christianity for a time, as the only moral order that I knew of that had any sufficient consensus, until I got through undergraduate school and the pressure of being unmoored by less relevant academic concerns was off.
Still, my inquiry into Christianity was serous enough to confront the fact of the fabrication of the Bible, the artificiality of its stories, the multiple apparent authors in a book, such as its culminating text, The Revelation; and it was serious enough to confront its insufficience, and impracticality as a moral guide to say the least. I remember even as a kid the anguish I felt at having to adhere to this religion of humility and self hatred While blacks were teaching themselves and being reinforced in Media to revel in empowerment, self love, violence to others.
My inquiry and concern was serous enough to at least have had Kant pointed out to me, skimmed it enough to be clued on to pick it up again one day for at least some bearing.
And with America still not making sense, to be finally compelled to go back and pursue graduate school in what were for me, these unarticulated matters.
Hearing the late Oxford Professor, Rom Harre, use the term “moral orders” plural, of itself, as a plural term, provided an important clue to jostle the deeply taken for granted background meme of Christianity being THE moral order, with no serious options in concern of moral jurisdiction for European peoples. And to hear Harre and the communications scholars that I worked with talk in terms of moral orders being an unavoidable concern and a matter of social negotiation that you could not simply put aside, brought home the realization that negotiation of a new moral order, sufficient to look after the interests of European people would be necessary; and indeed, it is possible, despite the obstruction and what says a boomer asshole like Guessedworker – “you can’t just go into your garage and start one up.” Well, no one besides you is saying that is where and how serious moral and philosophical negotiation is conducted.
From my communications profs, I would be clued on to the idea that there is no avoiding moral orders. There has never been a pure anarchy and state of nature among humans – among us, there will always be rules governing some things that are Prohibited, some things that are Obligatory, and some things that are Legitimate. On a physical level, some things will be blocked or tangled, some things forced, some things free access
When one drops the stupid idea that moral orders necessarily come from god and are beyond human negotiation, but rather realizes, unlike the stupidity of a Guessedworker, that social negotiation is where moral orders gain adherence in determining how brute facts and beyond come to count in any relevance to begin with, one begins to take more seriously the possibility and responsibility of negotiating a new, sufficient moral order, looking at the episodic enactments vital to the survival of our genetic pattern over the aeons, historically and for our legacy, as to where to propose consensus of the sacral. And if not wanting to see your White children born into this planet of the apes hellscape isn’t incentive enough, and you feel that you need rather some distant and removed Abrahamic god, which doesn’t give a shit about our kind, then you may as well not be in on the conversation anyway.
Furthermore, one realizes unlike the boomer asshole Guessedworker and his cohorts, how necessary it is to get this project under way, to negotiate an understanding and consensus of our moral order transcendent of moment, episode, transcendent even of the hazard of close relations, to provide us rather with meaningful connection to our historical pattern, which extends into the future, in our worldly afterlife, through our legacy. This transcendent pattern, call it god and theological, if you will, is necessary not only for individuals to make sense, to establish coherence, accountability, agency, correctivity, warrant, but also necessary as such for groups of people in human and pervasive ecology; having provided thus, the crucially necessary means of coordination with other groups.
The anchoring of this moral order and transcendent realm is seen as acutely necessary to stave off demoralization in confrontation over the fact that a good percentage, if not most White people are on the bad side, and those who are on the good side, including ourselves, are flawed.
Thus we need these transcendent rule structures, such as an option for life long monogamy, not to be dismissed as “unnatural” and humanly impossible, because it is not. There is a difference between harmonizing our morals with nature as opposed to the Cartesianism of natural fallacy – differences that our White Post Modern project illustrates. To have this option treated as sacral, rather than flouted, can be crucial to stave off the kind of demoralization in its absence for decreased incentive to loyalty, leaving us vulnerable to betrayal and predation from outside groups, including having them try to impose stupid affectations, alien moral orders such as the Abrahamic, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, serving alien and indifferent ethnic genetic interests.
But neither can we fall prey to universalizing marriage and monogamy as a panacea of universal, Kantian good will. For absent borders and boundaries to sustain homeostasis of our species genetic pattern, marriage and monogamy can be like having the best berth on F. Roger Devlin’s sinking boomer ship amidst the turbulent waters of female hypergamy, puerile incitement to genetic completion, anti-racism.
While repudiating Christianity as a (((red caping))) of our moral order and not seeing any other extant religion centralizing concern for the praxis of our ethnic genetic interests, neither can I favor efforts to faithfully replicate pre-Christian, European religions. It is worthwhile to look into these religions as they must have had some things better than Christianity, that isn’t saying much and would not be hard in terms of a better fit for our interests and our place in nature. But neither should we overrate the knowledge of our forebears, the state of barbarity gave way to the affectation of Christianity for a reason; the mystery of their being buried in the far away and long ago should not confer authority, shouldn’t remove the moral and sacred realm from our agentive participation, causing us to underrate our contemporary knowledge in comparison to theirs.
But we shouldn’t overrate our intelligence either, particularly not of the boomers. While there is no place, people or person beyond morals – of one kind or another, alright – the non-Christian boomers are frequently high on the luck of their generational situation, and believe in the story of their uber-self actualization beyond socialization. So, when boomer Jim Goad, for example, thinks that when he hears the word morals that he is hearing nothing more than hypocrisy or a person trying to drag him down because they are too weak to handle the might make right of reality, what he is really revealing is that his boomer mentality has not advanced in world view beyond his puerile years when he read Nietzsche, and chased away the (((red cape))) of Christianity, believing that he had found some pure a-moral grounds or strength of uber-will within his uber-boomer self. Some puerile girls and naïve guys might find him compelling enough to reinforce this. There are persons powerfully positioned, including among the boomers, of course, to reinforce the pervasive and powerfully structured (((red cape))) and scientistic reaction to it, to our destruction in social systemic runaway.
Thus, I cannot fault myself for not having come upon the necessary moral order to replace Christianity for European peoples. It doesn’t yet exist. Only a few people have joined me so far in the project to negotiate a new one, while I have met with a lot of obnoxious antagonism from boomers and Christians in particular.
Even so, negotiating a new moral order is seen as acutely necessary when it is understood how the (((red caping))) of our moral order by Christianity, like all (((red capes))) function – to give Europeans one of two ostensible options: to acquiesce to the obsequious, self sacrificing liberal definition of what it means to be socially conscientious / or chase after the red cape in its total rejection, in this case, taking the disposition that “morality” is bunk, given the misguided idea that the (((red cape))), Christianity, represents the moral order. Then as with Nietzsche and the Nazi will to power, we are in an even more toxic and unstable position, dangerous to our neighbors in European kind and ourselves as we seek warrant below praxis, in nature or beyond it; dangerous to ourselves in this over the top oblivion to praxis systemic correctivity and the hubris that does not appreciate the capacity for reflexive learning and response among those we might harm; for the Jews as well, true – nevertheless tending as such to serve a part of their group evolutionary strategy, as this venom will tend to cull their diaspora, those more intermarried with Europeans, more wishing to be situated among them; thus looked upon by Zionists as traitors, and with the same kind of contempt that we WN look upon mudsharks – go ahead and kill them.
That is not the full dynamic, of course, only one aspect and potential lurking idea among group evolutionary strategy; but the hazards are evident for European peoples in blowback for going over the top beyond or below praxis correctivity; the loss of agency, coherence, accountability warrant, the human and pervasive ecological disaster for the crucial lack of means to coordinate with other groups and in resource management – the disaster that we are dealing with now. What the White Post Modern Project is about rectifying – correction acutely necessary, as Jewish group evolutionary strategy has red caped this along with all good and necessary post modern correctives, now having Whites largely chasing after the red capes in a broad marketing campaign of characterology rubricized as “The Left.” This has Whites fighting against misrepresentations – distortions of group advocacy and marginal compassion that would gain for us popular adherence and fervent loyalty from the desperately marginalized; instead these concerns are altercast as strictly anti White, not the coldly objective way “we do things” in concern for the unvarnished truth and demonstrable adherence to nature in will to power.”
Thus, Whites reject and fight against the underlying ideas that they need for group advocacy and defense. And they do this fooled, serving Jewish interests as the Jews are (particularly after 2008), more on top of the power niches than ever; and need Whites, where not taking the objectivist liberal position and taking the license and licentiousness to be placated in complacent, no-account indifference to their people, then as right-wingers being more strictly their identity than ever, paid-off where need be to flatter their sense of objective merit; theirs and the Jews top positions not coming about by social means and process, but from pure objective truth bearing little in the way of account, to step up their reaction against the inersectionality of leftist coalitions that Jews academia cultivated, but which now take aim as their abusive power; mostly, they do not want a White Left Ethnonationalism taking part in that aim and coalition building. That is the motivation behind their (((red caping))) of “post modernity” and “the left”.
Dennis Dale, falling on the boomer side of the generational divide, even though he is a few months younger than me, frustrated me in a chat the other day when he wasn’t understanding what I was saying (and not lately tending to be ready to appreciate intelligence in what I say), when I called attention to (((Steve Sailer’s))) (((red caping))) of HBD (Human Bio-diversity), as a lateral issue of I.Q. in order to serve Ashkenazi interests, when of course, Human Bio Diversity should be a healthy concern for qualitative niche ecological differences, which are not served well by quantitative comparisons. In the cursory situation of the chat, Dennis’ initial reaction was that I was criticizing HBD rather than the ((red caping))) of HBD, a misunderstanding probably resulting as Dennis has grown accustomed to elaborating (which he does quite eloquently) within the altercast right wing box; and having gained attention originally as a long time articulate, supportive commentator on (((Steve Sailer’s))) right wing blog.
But we aren’t ready to talk about Post Modernity just yet, what I call White Post Modernity to distinguish it from the (((red caping))) of “Post Modernity.” Before we correct misunderstandings of that hyper-relative, “ironic” da-da (((red caping))), meant to keep us from the necessary (anti-Cartesian, systemic homeostatic reconstructive) resource of Post Modernity proper, it is necessary to go back still into our hermeneutic, to where the post modern turn began.
For the hermeneuticist, critique of Descartes, the Enlightenment and ensuing Modernity, the Post Modern turn begins to take form with Giambattista Vico (1688-1744)’s classic neo-Aristotelian epistemological platform: wherein 1) Theoria, the theoretical realm of eternal verities, is dealt with through science, technology and pure reason. 2) Praxis, the social realm, is dealt with primarily through phronesis, i.e., practical judgment, and slightly more modest means of analysis, working hypotheses and heuristics, since its subject matter is changeable though agentive capacity and reflexive effects of interaction. 3. Poesis, the realm of arts, literature and drama, to be dealt with primarily through technique.
Aristotle held that Praxis, the social/political realm, was the first and most central concern for the philosopher, for if the politics were out of whack, all other philosophizing was for naught. With that, Aristotle is siding with the “a tree falling in the woods may make a noise, but if there are not people to determine how it counts then it doesn’t matter” argument, nascent to the social constructionist position; which hermeneuticists like to attribute to Vico as setting forth in his critique of Descartes and argument against him to recentralize Praxis, the people, the social group and the reality of their practical concerns of which they were no mere passive subjects, but active, creative participants.
Being of southern Italian extraction myself, from my father’s side, I like to emphasize Vico – from the Naples area – for the underrated importance of his position in European philosophical history in challenging Descartes taking the Northern European penchant for objectivism to its logical extreme, in estrangement from Praxis, from social interactive concern. This goes along with my working hypothesis that southern Europeans occupy a vital buffering function for Europeans, more ethnocentrically aware, less naïve and susceptible to be duped by Manichean trickery in the rational blindness of their Augustinian objectivist penchant. I was quite disappointed to hear someone so important to White Nationalism an Professor MacDonald say something to the effect that nothing of importance has come out of southern Europe.
Hence, I like to bring out Vico and call attention to his influential place, acknowledged by the Germans to come later to the Post Modern turn, notably Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, who brilliantly maintained that the Enlightenment of Descartes was “prejudice against prejudice;” contributing a key component to my (White Post Modern) statement:
Anti-racism is a Cartesian impossibility of prohibiting social classifications; prejudice against prejudice as such; it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.
Due to the philosophical illiteracy, particularly among the STEM boomers, I have been forced to clarify time and again that this is not a rejection of objectivist inquiry, nor even the utility of Cartesian coordinates (my microwave engineering friend told me that his field still uses them). Not even Vico renounced the Cartesian position was without utility. Rather, he maintained, along with Aristotle, that Praxis was a qualitatively different matter. I will temporarily jump ahead to my current position, to help clarify this matter to avoid misunderstanding and strawmanning.
That the delimiting classification of our social group forms what should be the central calibration of our world view; our relative interests as such provide the gauge of objectivist feedback, which is a necessary function, i.e., taking into account facts which can be either in/ or irrespective of our relative interests.
Without going too far ahead of ourselves then, the central problem for Europeans is that Modernity and the altercast White identity as right wing and corollary to objectivism (and Cartesianism beyond Praxis, beyond or within nature), in reaction to the internationalist, anti-White left’s Praxis, has both disrupted and left holes for subversion for the would-be social systemic homeostasis of our own Praxis, not only through our own historical tendency to identify as such, but also for a disingenuous marketing campaign on the part of Jewry which has augmented their association of White identity as corollary to right wing objectivism and reaction, now functioning as part of “the solution” to the problem they’ve created, i.e., chasing the (((red capes))) of “the left and post modernity.”
This is the perfect place to circle back to The French Revolution.
Now, among “conservatives”, The French Revolution is usually taken as the point at which things really started going wrong in a radically liberal way for European peoples.
I am neither, by contrast, engaging any permanent identity with the likes of Robespierre, his instrumentality in the Reign of Terror, where abstractions of universality and equality may have taken him and/or other revolutionaries beyond a reconciliation on account of the nation and its bio-systemic delimitation; even less do I defend and identify with the internationalist/anti-nationalist weaponizations by Marx in exploitation of these inarticulate abstractions. But by the same ethnonationalist token, neither, of course, will I defend and identify with the French monarchy of Marie Antoinette, the aristocracy which might defend her irresponsible reign against the common French, nor even less her internationalist ties and the abstractions which, in turn, gave pseudo justification to her position.
While I have found that following the path of Locke’s “empirical” anti-social-classificatory notion of civil individual rights as it made its way into the powers of the American constitution and finally weaponization by Jewish interests in the form of anti-White “Civil Rights” and “Anti-Racist” legislation, to make the most explanatory sense of the hegemony which conserves liberalism, I have nevertheless also found that observing the pattern beneath common usage, i.e., of terminological implication set forth in the French Revolution, makes sense both of genuine requirements of ethnonationalism as opposed to abstractive, internationalist elites, and the Marxist weaponization (((red caping))) of internationalist/anti-nationalist abstractions, the more superficial instruments, universally generic and destructive of the naïve, the would-be provisional transformative concerns of the revolutionaries until the anti-Cartesian, organic concerns of ethnonationalism were established enough to elaborate and coordinate with other ethnostates.
Through this I see, or one can see, patterns not only making consistent sense of ethnonational requirements, but also (((red caping))) misdirection thereof; and one gains a clear view of the motivations of those who do not want us to organize in systemic, ethnonational homeostasis.
“The Left and Right” terms derive, as is well known, from the French court wherein those most concerned for loyalty to the monarchy, maintenance of its power and ordering, sat to the right of the king and those most attendant to the interests of the broad populace sat to the left.
There happens through time a refinement of these positions, logic of meaning and action in what can be called a depth grammar moving through the purity spiral of Cartesian modernity:
The Right takes a trajectory, narrowing from a small group of elites, to individual, such as kings and dictators, proposed to be warranted in their elite position for objective truth, natural endowment, god’s consecration, and in the sine qua non, below or beyond human accountability even, in brute nature, abstract Cartesian principles or god beyond nature; but little in the way of social accountability beyond a wish to be done with it in saying “that’s just the way it is.”
The Left, on the other hand, is revealed through depth grammar of unionization of the broad group, but not so broad as to be without delimitated boundaries; otherwise it would not have the means to hold members to account, to hold elites to account, the whole purpose being to stave off their no account might makes right and “that’s just the way it is” objectivism. It would not be able to stave off alien imposition brought to bear by the exploitative elites in order to weaken broad solidarity; and absent the strength of broad union, they could not form coalitions with other groups against exploitative elites.
As with all good, and important ideas to social organization, thus species systemic homeostasis, the Jews red cape it. In perhaps the most importantly misdirecting red cape then, Marx takes the concept of unionization and makes it an international union – a near impossibility and contradiction to unionize the workers of the world – organized in its international interests that will see as its ultimate goal, the withering away of the state. Henceforth, the left which would be understood as the tool to unionize national boundaries and hold elites to account, is now seen as “The Left”, an internationalist, anti-White monster which does anything but hold elites to account and protect the vulnerable within a nation from exploitation, alien scabbing and other imposition.
An inarticulate abstraction held to be central to the French Revolution, namely, “equality”, really is not essential at all; and falls away as an impossibility that nobody would aspire to for its quantitative terms, as it is respect and compassion for union members, for their part however meager, their niche contributions even where not at their best, that the left resonates with the populace and gains power. But rather than being seen as falling away from the depth grammar, the Marxists have held the impossibility of equality as a red cape to the White reactionaries, who then represent themselves as assholes to the people by being “against equality.”
Europeans, in their Augustinian nature, have typically, understandably reacted in a right wing direction to the sophistry which takes advantage of Praxis ambiguity since the days of Plato.
Sophistry of the right and left was refined and extended through modernity in the (((red caping))) of Marx, to where ultimately the international Marxist and Cultural Marxist (((red caping))) have been superficially but popularly taken as representing “THE left” in a stepped-up (((marketing campaign))) that extends its ((red caping))) over all so called “Post Modernity.”
While the Europeans remain hard nosed in their fancied objectivism, concerned in their reactionaries to establish ways to trace their group as empirical, scientifically verifiable – empirical despite evidence disappearing for a moment or episode, the rogue account of an individual or couple, and despite the words which they can never trust given the Jewish proficiency in deceptive rhetoric (including Christianity) which says your group is not important if it exists at all – the hermeneuticist, Gadamer (Heidegger’s student), circled back to provide a quite valid empirical criteria for identifying borders in Praxis (despite their mystification to Cartesian blindness); i.e., by means of marginals.
Now the Jews saw this and were not going to be upstaged as the chosen, presenting themselves to the gentile world as the teachers of what compassion means in their inhumane ways in need of “healing” the “idolatry” of their ethnocentrism.
The Jews never miss an opportunity for a manichean red cape twist of a good idea that would otherwise foster social systemic health and autonomy for Europeans. Thus, the Jews seize upon Gadamer’s hermeneuticist, post modern idea to instantiate the borders of group interests through the concept of respect for marginals (everybody from time to time); being at the frontier they are on the front line of danger to the group, know where the shoe pinches, have broad perspective on the system – have a vested interest in the group’s maintenance as an empirical part of it, likely dependent upon its strength for their survival. And what do the Jews do? Of course, they red cape marginals as those outside the European/White group, who should be included for their “enrichment”; along with those Whites who are for whatever reason themselves hostile to Whites. So right wing reactionary Whites chase away the idea along with the red cape.
After thoroughly and successfully imposing a Saul Alinsky-like tactic of makng Whitey live up to its right wing, modernist, Cartesain/Lockeatine objectivist rules by means of “Civil Rights” rupture of group classification for Whites… Jewish red caping of left wing and post modern concepts would pick up and proceed largely unabated as they might otherwise ameliorate White/European ethnonationalism. The “social compassion” and coalitions of anti-White unions were fostered through the increasing power and influence of their elite niche positions, where not of their biological disposition.
Nietzsche chased away the Jewish/Christian red cape of the moral order as bunk, thus making way for the Nazis to look upon morality as bunk; and instead go with the right wing, might is right notion of trying to found their quest beyond or below correctivity and accountability in Praxis, coming unhinged and going over the top to the destruction and discredit of White/European nationalism as their term, “national socialism,” was shown to be a euphemism to gain popular adherence in mere left cover for supremacist imperialism following the night of the long knives especially, when the more socialist elements among the Nazis were murdered by Hitler’s orders.
The biological Jew also served its group evolutionary strategy, albeit not likely very consciously, as the reaction to the red caping not only served to pit and divide Europeans against one another in Darwinist struggle, but also forced Jews more benign and integrated as continental European diaspora, to pay the price as traitors to the Zionists, while the most virulent Jews made there way to new hosts in England and The United States for a another permutation of horizontal transmission. And didn’t the puerile White female, powerfully positioned by the classificatory disorder of modernity exacerbated by Hitler’s racial anarchy, just adore Hitler in this incitement to genetic competition; until perhaps the fire bombing and mass Soviet rapes.
Conceived to protect the elite Jewish position against intersectional backlash from amongst their own Politically Correct, Marxist and Cultural Marxist coalitions – anti-national, anti-elite, anti White such that Jewish crypsis did not camouflage them but only exposed them further – Jewish interests developed a marketing campaign in urgent need of a negative characterology of “The Left” as their large gain and culpability in the 2008 financial crisis (mass consolidation of state wealth and theft as the latest extension of horizontal transmission) left them exposed and absolutely in need of increase rightist/objectivist argumentation in their support.
They needed to minimize accountability to no account, right wing “that’s just the way it is” pseudo objectivity where at all possible; bribe with license and licentiousness would be White leftists to stay liberal, pay off right wingers to remain in their objectivist purity spirals beyond accountability in our Praxis; and finally, put forth a marketing campaign to designate “The” Left as the problem, with an anthropomorphized characterology, a red cape for Whites to fight against the most useful and vital tools of their organization, homeostasis and thus sovereignty.
However this red caping of “the left” was but one component of its red caping of “post modernity”, i.e., concepts meant to protect social groups (such as an ethnogroup/nation) from the ravages of Modernity and the backward traditional ethnocentrism of one’s own where it might also leave us vulnerable; as where the traditional ethnocentrisms of others are pointed with right wing imperialism and supremacism to the aim of destruction of our own people.
But rather misrepresenting these crucial ideas in a red cape purveying hyper relative, cynically ironic, shallow nonsense that the objective merit of the elite Jewish position can lead the way in debunking, providing solutions to these problems, if perhaps gaining help form Whites who may more steadfatly accept their altercast identity as right wing, if not far right, alt-right, or neither left nor right – simply anti-social and conveniently prone to disorganization or disintegration.
With identity as right wingers they may take the payoff bribe in flattery of sheer objective merit, as opposed to what luck and social indebtedness they might not rather be reminded of and accountable to, rather ascribing to themselves no account “that’s just the way it is” reasons for their fortune and lack of social responsibility.
On similar pseudo objectivist grounds, the liberals are flattered for their sense of individual objective strength and beauty, independent of their group, taking prerogative as such in the license and licentiousness granted in the no-account Twilight Zone of the (((red cape))), where the depth grammar of “the left”, its broad but delimited social unionization in defense against exploitation from narrow elite power or outside peoples, is red caped in contradiction in popular minds as “liberalism” – this (((red cape))) is a contradiction, an oxymoron (liberal = left), as a union, the essence of what is left, conserves what is within; while liberalism is about being open to, if not outright opening and/or going outside of borders and boundaries.
Nevertheless, for European peoples, for Whites, the Marxist inter/anti-national and Cultural Marxist ant-White coalitions advocated are not the White EthnoNational Left, they are liberal – dedicated to opening our boundaries and borders.
Whereas the ethnonationalist of England would indeed want to break the classificatory barrier of the Norman aristocracy with its Jewish corruptors to allow for those honorably serving the ethnonation to rise in influence against the internationalist destructors, the International Marxist and Cultural Marxists would obfuscate the actual Post Modern means to negotiate this ethnonationalist position properly, by (((red caping))) it, marketing the misrepresentation of what they need, in their Augustinian naivete and rational blindness of their purity spiral in quest to be rid of guilt and self responsibility, not seeing the manichean trick, that they are fighting against the underlying concepts that they need in following the marketing nudges to be against “the left.”
The right wing reaction into objectivist purity spiraling and scientism is understandable, particularly as managing the concept of the group requires a degree of hermeneutic sophistication lest one/or one’s people fall prey to the Lockeatine idea that it, the classification of one’s group or people, is an empirical fiction; or even an artificial “racist” construct where the difficulty of managing the Cartesian vacuum is weaponized by Jewry. One’s group is not always empirically apparent in the moment, episode, not even through close personal relations. And the difficulty of managing one’s group interests apart from one modernist Cartesian extreme or another is what the Post Modern project was conceived to deal with and what Jewish interests and those who take the pay off in one form or another don’t want European peoples to have; hence, they obfuscate the correctives of “post modernity.”
But why assign the word “left” to White EthnonNationalism, with all the associations repugnant to Whites that go along with this red caped term? I would begin by asking why not? Words and terms are fairly arbitrary in relation to that which they designate, gaining adherence as currency accepted in consensus of participation. And here those who would object have their best argument. That the common understanding of “the left” is the red cape of international Marxist coalitions and anti-White Cultural Marxist coalitions, especially with the marketing campaign against a characterology of “the left” launched and promoted in earnest beginning around 2008.
I would rebut by encouraging those concerned for White/European peoples to ask why Jews insist on altercasting White identity as right wing or far right? To take note of the obvious marketing campaign promoted to reactionaries, against a negative characterology of “the left.”
Can you imagine the inherent instability of this anti-social right wing position, bereft of social accountability and corrective homeostasis? That it serves to keep White power disorganized? Ripe for incitement to headlong, over top supremacist, imperialist reaction in divide and conquer? Repugnant to would-be popular adherence for its cold dedication to “objective” truth and not concern for relative compassion of their own people even, scaring away would-be adherents for their no account brutality?
I understand your finding even the word “left” repugnant for associations by red cape. Do you understand that’s the idea? Obfuscating misdirection from the treasure to be found in structuring through the depth grammar of that term and all misrepresentations of post modernity?
It took David, “14 Words: We Must Secure The Existence of Our People and a Future For White Children” Lane and some radicals just down stream from him to encourage the natural revulsion to the right and to become comfortable in White identity on the left – our left. You see, furthermore, the White EthnoNational Left, having been left moribund as a positon is ripe to colonize in war of postion, as we can define it for all the good the left can do in calibration of relative parts of our interest; while intelligently using our right wing fact and true verification as crucial feedback in our proper deployment of the anti-Cartesian hermeneutic process of inquiry and homeostatic correction. This is an elaboration in the rebut of why not? But still does not fully answer why attach “Left” to White Ethnonationalism?
Glad you asked…
First of all, it sorts out anti-social and misdirecting ideologies, such as Nazism and Christianity. The epistemological blunder of Nazism is sized up as mostly a natural fallacy of might makes right but combining some spooky, otherworldly shit via Himmler; either way, above or beyond the healthy, corrective praxis which a left union of the people centralizes. Christianity is sized up for its non accountability to our people in praxis: you are supposed to be accountable to this fictional Jewish god instead. No thanks. And with our union(s) delimited by our genus and species of our European peoples [called White people in diaspora for the simple reason that it would be confusing to refer to them as European there], it blocks infiltration and subversion from non-Europeans, markedly by Jews, despite their crypisis. In short, unionization and accountability thereof, blocks the myriad ways of infiltration and manipulation that right wingers are prone to, including “third positionism” as it introduces right wing elements not as mere feedback, but as part and parcel, thus a back door for instigation, entry and subversion.
Centralizing praxis, it is highly practical by definition; and with that, it is helpful in sorting out egomaniacs, narcissistic personality disorder cases like Guessedworker, who thinks the obvious and the important should be put aside for some sort of sub-social, purely natural chart, that he would purport to be foundational, a-priori all important; anything anyone else in the history of the world could only contribute trivia by contrast. So, the left being a centralization of praxis, unionizing accountability thereof is repugnant to his kind, who’s built his egomaniac autobiography chasing red capes in white knuckle scientistic reaction; a phase of reaction that normal people are able to make their way past fairly quickly; so we can leave the boomer behind with the endless gaslighting and strawmanning of his narcissistic personality disorder.
And this pragmatism underscores one of the most beautiful aspects of unionization. It does not necessarily require some sort of psychological inspiration to participate – as when Guessedworker pointed to the giddy crowds before Hitler as indication that he had something foundational to emulate (like leading Germany and Europe over the top, into catastrophe, stigmatizing ethnonationalism for generations, as it lacked correctivity as it were?). Thus, it sorts out the scientistic and those prone to the epistemic blunder of natural fallacy.
In fact, one troll put up against me, STFU James, tried to say that all my concern for White people was for naught, because most people only care about making money to take care of themselves; well, even if that’s their motivation, it would be in their interest to unionize. Though we are, of course, talking about racial unionization, as unionization of industry is an entirely different matter, apt to become obsolete, fall in line with the arguments of right wingers, whose capital, share holders, cronies and cohorts see good business opportunity to take them beyond the people and beyond the borders. Nevertheless, our union will look after profit and move into niches serving our people’s prosperity, as we are not suck with a particular business prone to obsolescence.
It sorts out obnoxious elitists like Greg Johnson over there at Counter-Currents. While a right wing identity serves Fudge Johnson’s snobbery, his penchant thereof for vertical rather than emphasizing the qualitative horizontal discrimination of race and ethnicity, leaves him susceptible to infiltration and to include misdirecting voices. Greg Johnson’s Right Wing identity and snobbish elitism along with it, is also probably why is not up to date philosophically, not philosophically great.
But I want to include this section on “why White Left EthnoNationalism” by coming back to “Why Not?” The marketing campaign that has created a common misunderstanding among White people, a most radical oxymoron that “Left = Liberal” is among the reasons to defy identity as right wing against “the left.” Moving into the moribund position of White Left Ethnonationalism affords the opportunity to define it for ourselves: we are not against private property, relatively free enterprise, wealth within reason, the paradigmatic conservatism that maintains borders and thus allows for more individual liberty within.
But having to explain so many times – because Guessedworker’s grandiose, puerile autobiography stems – STEMS – from his boomer reaction to (((red caping))); as champion of the right and the “common man” (egged on by Christians, Nazis and scientistic nerds), it depends upon the “non-empirical” red caped characterology of “the left” and the foil of academic pretense.
He’s of a generation wherein red capes of the left would have Margaret Thatcher’s statement, “there is no such thing as society” resonate, along with her (((Austrian School Objectivism))); against sociology so red caped as to have a fool like Guessedworker think that a discipline that takes the social group as its unit of analysis (and what could be more germane when analyzing racism/anti-racism) must be Jewish; like saying a telescope is Jewish, a microscope, Gentile.
Thus, for his intransigent grandiosity, in puerile, reactionary autobiography, he white knuckle clings to the grandiose illusion that only he sees the basics of who we are well enough, and a such, must forge a singular foundational response of this “ontology” not yet known sufficiently to man; only valid through his auspice, while all else is supposed to be unimportant; based on the interest of his puerile autobiography, its reaction to red caping which cannot be without the security blankets of these redcape mis-definitions – my belaboring the reason for using the term “left” in order to stave off the endless deluge of his strawmen and gaslighting to suit his autobiography has the unfortunate consequence of making it seem that my reasons are a kind of obsessive fixation, rather than practical structure maintained because it makes consistent sense.
I won’t “stand down” as he ridiculously tried to say that I should, because my terminological deployment works perfectly, like air traffic control radar tracking device, sorting out misdirection and infiltration, without doing violence to the essence of the ehtnonational project, while charting its proper course.
And here is an important point that those disinclined to the term “left” should consider, that does afford me the capacity to make consistent sense of our problems and where we we need to go in the future. But crucially, it sorts out and makes sense of work already done. Thus, if anyone has spent years of hard work and written fat books criticizing “the left”, your efforts are not rendered obsolete; it requires little more than a mental note from my part or yours that what you are talking about (that is to say, if you are a well meaning White ethnonationalist) when you say “the left” is the Marxist, international/anti-national left/ and or Cultural Marxist, anti-White Left.
Unfortunately, I might come across as ideologically obsessed for the necessity of redressing Guessedworkers’ endless strawmanning and gaslighting (which to the casual observer may have me seem like the same Leftist that GW wants me to seem like, but I doubt it); and that’s probably part of his idea, stupidly competitive businessman that he is, a boomer who had his personal needs served by Modernity and its pop psychology quest for self actualized individualism, taking for granted the fuel of traditional social order which it relied upon but destroyed with the self righteousness of its no-account, modernist oblivion, more concerned with winning that with good product if it comes from someone else; but the truth is that I am quite at ease about it; my reasons are practical – makes sense, and my terminological and conceptual deployment is not artificial nor superficial as asshole would try to make it seem; rather it stems from observations of this depth grammar making sense through cross contextual pattern.
Boomers in the STEM disciplines in particular, were susceptible to react stupidly to (((red capes))) of the humanities; and susceptible to remain intransigent in their obsolete, modernist way of doing things as they were in position to make money. And precision is a fine value for technology, but bad to over value in Praxis; bad that they dismiss the mild ambiguity of specificatory structures as a flaw in working hypotheses rather than a virtue. Hence, they remain a huge obstruction to the necessary social correctives of the Gen-Xers. The boomer self actualized individualists took for granted the social capital that set them in good stead, and wound up like a swarm of locusts devouring all social structures and resource in their path; they’ve done enough damage, they’ve been obstructive enough in their self serving myopia and naivete to the red cape; the gen-X social corrective must no longer be obstructed.
Nor should we allow this would be corrective to be re-directed in a rightward direction by Gen-X Fogies like “The Z-man” whom the astute may observe as having lifted and twisted a few of my ideas to that end: Notably here, social delimitation of the group (a function which unionization would perform), but as I develop the idea, is necessary for socialization as it structures the rigor of accountability but also facilitates imagination as such, to deploy the hermeneutic process in correctivity, i.e., homeostasis and autonomy of the group system, as it is liberated beyond mere facticity (into narrative coherence, accountability, agency, correctivity, and warrant in human and pervasive ecology, with the crucial means of coordination with other groups and management of resource thus facilitated), not always dependent upon what is empirically evident as it arbitrarily presents in the Cartesian perspective;
A liberation as such curing the anxiety gone mad in STEM boomer Guessedworker, who, in reaction to (((the casuistry of rhetorical abuses))) in Praxis, believes there is not empirical foundation enough, and that literally all people and all thought in western philosophy should be swept aside in favor of his unmerited, gargantuan ego for his grandiose “ontology” project as it wafts up from his armchair…appears as consecrated proclamations on his tablets held up, atop Mount Sanai …certainly no need to join in social construction.
Enough. Lets come back to our history of European philosophy, where it goes off course and corrective measures that have been obstructed and neglected.
To recap the major points in the line of European philosophical history to this point – to Descartes-Vico-Locke-Kant.
We began with the pre-Socratics, Heraclitus and Parmenides.
As opposed to Heraclitus focus on process Parmenides focus on forms became the dominant perspective through Plato, and it began a convention of detachment from the impure rhetorical tactics of the Sophists in Praxis.
Aristotle corrected this significantly, with his notion of teleological actualization of the nascent creature, developing as they are naturally destined in kind from seed to maturity. That is, he was bringing the form back within the scope of nature, at least. He was even advanced enough to place human self actualization within the biological and social sphere of Praxis, its interactive complexity requiring practical judgment (phronesis) to manage its optimal biological and mammalian relational requirements.
However, Aristotle’s golden mean (balance) pn Praxis was overtaken by Christianity’s “golden rule” of original sin, guilt at birth, with proof of that in your very thoughts, which could only be forgiven by subservience to Jesus the Jews, and a the reward not a good life and legacy in Praxis, but the hereafter beyond the world and its sinful impurity. It was like Platonism re-directed by rogues into a mad purity spiral beyond nature.
While the Stoics are touted by some as a school which might regain traction, I prefer to make quick work of them with Kenneth Burk’s quote:
“The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.”
The Epicurean School has more to offer in legacy, with a hierarchical use of pleasure; aversion to speculation beyond the physical world, superstition, in a word, along with aversion to mere custom and tradition out of habit which serve no testable good. While this was a more responsible philosophy than the sheer hedonism of popular understanding, as it held contemplation to be the highest pleasure, what influence it had was ripe for corruption through what influence it had (e.g., on Thomas Jefferson), as it lacked the Post Modern sophistication of integrating social responsibility.
The middle easterner’s manichean trick – Christianity – was able usurp the moral order to one that made Europeans obsequious and served Jewish interests well enough, particularly in quest to overthrow Roman rule; and for the Catholics, who mostly did not know what was in the text, but did what they were told, their peoples were more or less protected from the horizontal virulence that the Roman conquest had spread into Europe, by inoculating them as supplicant Jews, like cowpox to the smallpox of Jewish virulence, as Bowery observes; at the price of drastically limiting their thought processes.
Ultimately, Christianity would provide the vehicle for Abrahamic imperialism, with Jewish power and influence, the exponential effects of its usury along with this religious and other power niche occupation riding shotgun.
For the northern Europeans, the interaction of Christianity with their stronger Augustinian predilection to purity spiral, made for an even sharper two edged sword as they went into Martin Luther’s protestant reformation; the Gutenberg press making the obsequious purity spiral of the bible’s text available for all to see for themselves.
Where casting off Praxis thus the purity spiral did not utterly destroy individuals and cultures via Descartes socially impervious Archimedean points beyond nature and Praxis, and Locke’s attempt to cite the stamping of impressions within nature, on the mind, aside from the “non-empirical artifice of social groups” in others, such as Gregor Mendel and the objectivists/scientists set forth in the modern epoch that had its personified extreme in Descartes unfolding thereafter, scientific and engineering marvels were developed despite Christianity; but also to the hazard of many people and cultures, running roughshod over them where they would stand in the way of this objectivist world view – short on social accountability as it focused on experiment and forward progress; leaving tradition behind and society to a detached, third person behaviorist perspective at best.
Descartes first major critic, Giambattista Vico is typically considered to be a forebear of social constructionism and the post modern turn (and by that, I mean not in the red caped versions, but in the proper, White forms), as he rejected Descartes over emphasis beyond nature and praxis and sought to re-centralize praxis, the social group according to the Aristotelian framework.
Hegel tried not so much to correct but to purify the anxiety of the Cartesian quest by taking it into pursuit of foundation by dialectical process held to be moving inevitably forward; i.e., with an impervious, dehumanizing absurdity that took Marx and his mechanical adherents to be enamored of.
But from the ranks of STEM itself, Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss’s proposition of the possibility of non-Euclidean geometry cast doubt on the merit of singular devotion to the purity spiral of mathematical foundationalism.
Gauss claimed to have discovered the possibility of non-Euclidean geometries but never published it. This discovery was a major paradigm shift in mathematics, as it freed mathematicians from the mistaken belief that Euclid’s axioms were the only way to make geometry consistent and non-contradictory.
Søren Kierkegaard’s humorous but melancholy resignation to the existential situation made for one of my favorite contributions to the significance of Being, i.e., the most fundamental plank of self actualization, if you will: “Sleep is the highest genius.”
Emergentism initiated a philosophical angle that I will not relegate to the past, but rather place on footing with social costructionism as one end, the rigorous, more physically evident end of the non-Cartesian, hermeneutic process of inquiry.
It would be convenient to take pot-shots at John Stuart Mill as an early proponent of emergentism, seeing how the catastrophe of our world-wide epidemic of liberalism can stem from this ideology where not liberated itself from its rational blindness to social impact by the imagination of hermeneutics and social-constructionism, the other end of non-Cartesian inquiry.
But Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher’s early efforts to reconcile the Cartesian divide with Christianity kept it wedded to liberalism (as we all know, in Christianity, you are supposed to hate your family and love everybody else, including your enemies; that’s as liberal as it gets).
Wilhelm Dilthey would take the pursuit of hermeneutics in earnest, moving its means of inquiry, which he called the hermeneutic circle, through various disciplines and units of analysis.
Sociology
Dilthey was also interested in what some would call sociology in the 21st century, although he strongly objected to being labelled as such, as the sociology of his time was mainly that of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. He objected to their dialectical/evolutionist assumptions about the necessary changes that all societal formations must go through, as well as their narrowly natural-scientific methodology. Comte’s idea of positivism was, according to Dilthey, one-sided and misleading. Dilthey did however have good things to say about the neo-Kantian sociology of Georg Simmel, with whom he was a colleague at the University of Berlin.[31] Simmel himself was later an associate of Max Weber, the primary founder of sociological antipositivism. J. I. Hans Bakker has argued that Dilthey should be considered one of the classical sociological theorists due to his own influence in the foundation of nonpositivist verstehende sociology and the Verstehen method.
His reaction to the scientism of Auguste Comte’s logical positivism and the like was overcompensating, and his romantic emphasis unmoored interpretation from the rigors of ontology, setting forth some common abuses and misunderstandings of hermeneutics as it is supposed to function in non-Cartesian process of inquiry.
The school of Romantic hermeneutics stressed that historically embedded interpreters—a “living” rather than a Cartesian dualism or “theoretical” subject—use ‘understanding’ and ‘interpretation’ (Verstehen), which combine individual-psychological and social-historical description and analysis, to gain a greater knowledge of texts and authors in their contexts.
One can anticipate how this outlook would be convenient to sell hermeneutic bullshit in the university’s big business of selling talk a century later; incited by tenured Frankfurt Schooled professors in conversation with 18-21 year old undergraduates in perpetuity; as they are, after all, the paying customers, and the army of less talented to deploy against White interests.
Often called a critic of modernity, I am not sure that Friedrich Nietzsche was, outside of a few paragraphs saying that the strong prefer the ways of their grandfathers. He certainly did his darndest to tear down the idols of western philosophy and morality with his focus on the “who” as in who is talking?
The brilliance of Nietzsche is real, and he performed a real service in his attack on Christianity. European man needed the courage to throw off that nonsense. The problem is, he seems to be reacting like one who, in throwing off the (((red cape))) of Christianity, he considers all morality to be nonsense, something to be moved beyond, to be replaced by the will of the strong. Nietzsche says that women love his philosophy; well, not quite: puerile, unsocialized girls uncaring for the various positions arrayed in development, ready to incite genetic competition to run rough shod over human ecology, would love his philosophy. It empowers their irresponsible ignorance.
And this is toxic nonsense. As we discussed, there is no transcending morals. There will always be things that you can, must or cannot do. Furthermore, wise people and wise societies will follow Aristotle’s observation of human nature, as biological, requiring optimal not maximizing, overman needs – not on balance; and not impervious to human relations; as we are mammals.
Nietzsche admires the digestive tracts of Negroes, metaphorically speaking that is, as a people who do not belabor problems, they are quickly done with them. I do not share Nietzsche’s admiration for blacks as a model; and it speaks to a fundamental problem in his liberal perspective; it is as if a puerile girl’s perspective, ready to incite destructive genetic completion, the kind of puerile idiot that would love Hitler and natural fallacy, as the anarchic destruction will have her breeding with “the winner”; the admiring gaze always turned toward strong men, impervious, competitive, undaunted no matter what – like a thoughtless Nigger indeed, not at all with the measure of sublimation that infuses European men with genius.
Nietzsche’s perspective is like a puerile girl’s perspective if not like a homosexual in its admiration of strong, dominant men; no wonder the prissy Richard Thpenther loveth Nietzsche tho much (with his Fauthian imperialist thupremathithm, about the last thing that we need to represent ourselves when the world of people destroying Whites now are doing so feeling warranted for a history of that grandiose Abrahamic hubris).
What does a man admire in women? Rather, cooperation, thoughtfulness, someone who appreciates your sublimation and history, is concerned for our legacy, gives support, sensibility, beauty as an expression of health. Indeed there should be balance, the pragmatic functionality of men cannot be ignored. But in the disorder of modernity, as I will explain later, the female perspective and predilection has been way over represented. If society and the cause of human advance should prefer one perspective or the other, it would seem the male perspective toward females is the better value, yet where does Nietzsche express value of these things? He doesn’t.
While an obligation of Kantian duty would apply to both gender predilections, they would NOT be a matter of universal maturity (TM) but rather obligations to members of the praxis of genetic union in White Post Modern terms, and not in universal modern terms, universal maturity that would, for example, hold up the African as an admirable example of masculinity for Europeans.
Similarly, universality should not apply to rites of passage into manhood; cross cultural studies would also be a part of the post modern turn, shown in the example of Gregory Bateson’s remark that the “ignominious bullying of Naven ritual rites of passage produced harsh, overcompensating males.” This kind of universalizing which sprung an overvaluing of the female perspective is likely a part in the catastrophic world wars of Europe and civil war of America. And while Bateson was introducing cross cultural comparison and critique, he also maintained the Aristotelian Praxis, which would maintain the human concern for relations and biological need for optimal need satisfaction, not maximal, which becomes toxic.
Having said my piece in criticism of Nietzsche’s toxicity, the anti-social and irresponsible individualism to an extreme, to where his beloved overman would take a propensity for mockery as a sign of health; he is not simply destructive if looked upon as a necessary step in our history, equipped with prescient insights. When Rom Harre chides psychologists for thinking that they are drawing maps of the mind, when in fact they are drawing maps of maps; he is drawing on Nietzsche. Whole sections of Heidegger amount to a brilliant advance on a Nietzschean language game. Questions fulminating instantaneously into answers in the brilliant writing of Zarathustra are illustrative of a non-foundationalist, free and interpretive philosophy that requires courage as he maintains that none of the traditions and intellectual luminaries can be absolutely relied upon. And that is true, that is the thrownness of our condition; yet we have more resource than to leave it at just that now; especially not his idea of “eternal recurrence”, a nightmare idea if there ever was one.
At this point in our history, it appears most important to discuss the unmooring of European and American ethnonationalism.
The unmooring began as Christendom and the Abrahamic imperialist idea spread with that to the detriment of ethnonationalism; particularly in Europe. As we said, modernity had brought with it a marvel of scientific and engineering advance, but its Abrahamism and Cartesian objectivism was not particularly sensitive to the ecologies of nations which might stand in the way of what was held to be manifest destiny in limitless progress.
While I am not interested in laying guilt trips on European colonialism into the Americas and elsewhere, nor the history of European imperialism; Nor am I eager to defend it; rather, I prefer to work with it as history and work in ethnonational coordination with the diaspora Europeans in situ as they are now outside of Europe, and the European nations, as ethnonations to be protected as such. And with history in the past, I am in particular disagreement with viewpoint overly sympathetic to Germany in WWI and lamenting their defeat.
The argument that Germany had to go to war is predicated on the assumption that imperialism is necessary and the only means to acquire sufficient resource; furthermore, in the case of Germany at that time, that they were exposed to Russian military buildup in the east; this exposure, in turn, ignores the ethnonationlist positions, particularly of the nations (or would-be nations, with Frederick the Great’s imperialist aggrandizement taken for granted) between Germany and Russia: Poland, Belarus, then Part of Lithuania, Ukraine, Czech, Slovakia and so on. Ignoring these nations which would also have been interested in resisting Russian imperialism; while Kaiser Germany focused on the “necessary” expedience of the von Schlieffen plan to run rough shod over Belgium (murdering civilians, burning the ancient library of Leuven) and attack France in hopes of a quick victory there; so that they could then turn their attention Eastward (where their imperialism was destructive as was well, as in the example of Kalisz).
One might argue that England might have been better off staying out of the war; one can even ague that Europe might have been better off if Germany had been allowed to win that war. As an ethnonationalist, however, I am not sympathetic to Germany for starting and fighting that war.
Between significant proportions of German DNA in The UK and US, there’s been much massaging of nuances sympathetic to the German aggression in WWI. Not me. I’m ethnonationalist.
You may object, “but the Rothschilds” and the other YKWs behind the scenes in the upper echelons of The UK and US!” Indeed, there in imperialist, not in ethnonational interests.
Wherever the sympathy, all European sides tended to see WWI as the end of faith in Modernity’s endless progress. But not the Jewish Marxist side of the (((Russian))) revolution, of course. With Abraham in the background, it rather saw bloody wars and the destruction of European peoples as mere collateral damage; as it waved the redcape of leftism in ongoing revolution toward the inevitable rule of the internationalist workers union; while the union of the ethnonational state withering away in the wake of this “progressive” dialectic Cartesianism.
Meanwhile in the Americas, the “fruits” of Abrahamic imperialism and supremacism had come home with the importation of Negro slavery; a hubris to the ultimate detriment of colonial European and native American human ecologies (I like to note a likely contributing factor to the hubris of taking slavery for granted coming from Plato – in his reaction to sophistry – with the character, Callicles, who asks the seductively flattering question, “your slave is stronger than you, does not mean that they should rule, does it?”)
The concept of states having sovereignty was a good idea in service of human ecology, “arresting the progress of the evil, & for maintaining within their respective limits, …” as John Adams would say, as opposed to an unwieldly federal government over such vast territory as would be difficult to hold to account. However the South and the states rights position was embedded with the consequences of Ambrahamic imperialism; while it had no chance against the federalizing North, which too Locke’s individual civil rights over group classification a massive step further as it defeated the state sovereignty position, and its potential to “arrest the progress of the evil.”
One may lament that Lincoln’s sagacious wish to re-patriate Africans might have been realized; that his successor, Andrew Johnson, of the working class and its interests, knowing the hazard of blacks to normal White people, would not have been maligned and impeached; but this was not to be, as blacks had saturated the South and the Northern Whites were naïve and self righteous in their Abrahamic puritanism.
While (((Samuel Gompers))) trade unionism had much to be commended in its faith in the American nationalist context, going so far as to favor the Henry Georgist (taxation of propety sight value beyond homestead needs) means to thwart Marxist appeal; being against immigration; particularly Asian immigration; one could hardly expect him to be discriminating against Jews (save perhaps Yiddish speakers). But more importantly and germane to the American context:
Black Workers & the Unions
From the inception of the AFL in 1886, Samuel Gompers and its other leaders were committed to organizing without regard to race or religion. Ideologically Gompers never abandoned his opposition to excluding Negroes from AFL unions, but during the 1890s he apparently surrendered to the reality of racial discrimination. While emphasizing that it was good unionism to organize regardless of race, creed, or color, he finally decided that it was better to organize blacks and whites into segregated locals than not to organize at all.
But in the main, unionism was not America’s distinguishing idea of progress, which was still making its way through Locke’s Cartesian technology of individual civil rights over group classifications (a union being one such classification), blind to whatever nepotism or cronyism that may actually be helping to pull the individual’s bootstraps up in enterprise and industry.
One is likely to be able to cite this rational blindness and naivete as aiding and abetting the founding of The US Federal Reserve Bank, which facilitated the horizontal transmission of (((consolidated European money))) to combine with the (((consolidation))) of U.S. money. Last I heard, The US Treasury was composed of ten private banks, nine of them headed by Jews. And while the Balfour declaration was aimed in getting The US on side with The UK against Germany, the naivete of leaders at that point in history, to not understand that Jews would not be placated with Israel, is understandable. It would be hard to anticipate the level of malice to come, even against people who’d come to their rescue, and helped restore their ancient ethnonation.
The technology of the citizen, his rights, duties and incentives.
With the reaction to the (((red caping))) of our moral order, frequently Cartesian, if not over the top Nietzschean individualism, the technology of the individual citizen of the nation, his rights, duties and incentives were advanced over previous, more organic relations of knower to known.
While the individual citizen was incentivized to participate in a quantifying comodification of social capital and other resource, the estrangement and alienation from organic process and the correctivity of praxis relations (with Enlightenment spawned natural fallacy, such as social Darwinism) would also have him and his organic relations exploited by the powers as cannon fodder in The First Great War of Europe, a war between related species, which, in an organic sense, should have symbiotic relations.
The Western Allies victory along with industrial productivity was only taken as further justification for the commodifying and quantifying incentive structure; along with its liberalizing estrangement from organic process and relations. Thus weakening by the Lockeatine technology of individual rights, the classification of organic ties and accountability thereof.
But philosophers were left with the desperate task of making sense of the dire consequences and social costs of this technological reaction. Some doubled down in objectivism, and by way of account for negative consequences, would take the position that they were merely describing what happens by nature’s corrective way itself; thus intensifying the anti-social/organic position.
We’ve mentioned Auguste Comte’s logical positivism as one such effort in objectivism. the Vienna School of Logical Positivism would be another. Its signature text would be Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.
Although there were voices making cogent arguments that negotiations for peaceful relations made more sense for all concerned, and there were plenty of adherents to these voices, the powerful positions and compulsion of the Nietzschean, social Darwinian sorts (committing the blunder of natural fallacy, that humans were more strictly competitive, like animal species, short shrifting their human capacity for coordination and cooperation); coupled with the entangling logic of meaning and action of war – encapsulated by Bateson where he said, “the road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well” – meaning that war, particularly as it was facilitated and leveraged by industrialization, could trap peoples in the apparently necessary logic of militarization and war in response – leading to a catastrophe for the European genus and species’ and also generating powerful rhetoric for the voices of liberalization of borders and bounds against ethnonationalism; even though these arguments were fatuous, as these wars were not nationalist in provocation, but rather imperialist. And by the same token, the war created fatuous arguments for internationalization and anti-nationalization of the left, the Marxist left, which held an international union of workers, “workers of the world unite” against right wing supremacism, imperialism, and exploitation. This gained massive traction as the supposed position representing “the left.”
Meanwhile, as we’ve been saying, America’s neoliberal rupture of ethnonational classificatory bounds in favor of Lockeatine rights and impervious enterprise, fairly oblivious to the organic processes of human and pervasive ecologies, gained more traction as well.
Thus, there were powerful and destructive logics of meaning and action that were coming from “THE” Left, so called, and in rightist reaction that philosophers were having to contend with at a time when communication and the social construction of ideas was more constrained.
And while the host ethnonations were weakened in their ethnonationalism, the horizontal transmission and parasitism of the YKW was more and more powerfully positioned in niches of supreme influence; including in capacity to bribe right wingers and flatter no-account objectivism in pseudo justification of what good fortune they might have; and pander to liberals on the same objectivist grounds, with pseudo justification of license and licentiousness to violate group borders and bounds.
Principia Mathemetica, Russel and Whitehead.
Still we’ve gotten ahead of ourselves a bit with Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and the Vienna School.
Wittgenstein’s Cambridge advisor, Bertrand Russel (who looked upon Wittgenstein as his protégé) and his partner Alfred North Whitehead were grappling with how it was that they might establish a consistent mathematical foundation for philosophy some ten years, before, with their Nobel Prize winning, Principia Mathemetica.
And very much at the heart of our concern was their grappling with the problem of group classification; viz. an ancient paradox presented by the lying Cretan.
I am a liar. All Cretans are liars.
Their proposes solution was that “a class could not be a member of itself”, that there were strictly different logical levels – logical types. Russel would confess that this was “the most ad hoc thing that he’d ever had to do.” But even so, as with so many rigorous efforts to work through the Cartesian anxiety, their Analytical School did provoke some important insights, even if not quite yielding the foundations that they’d hoped for.
For example, upon the theory of logical types, Bateson developed the idea of “metacommunication”, i.e., the idea that there was a level of communication, say, tone of voice, which would indicate how the content of a message is to be contextualized. Now, it does not achieve foundation, as these different levels of contextualization still occur with in praxis and are negotiable; but that is the important point of where this inquiry led Bateson: to take psychology out of the head and into interaction with his seminal paper, “Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia.”
Bateson provides an array of examples showing that the road to hell can be paved with good and bad intentions both in ensuing paradoxes of interactive logic; particularly troublesome for humans as they are sometimes force to make a near impossible choice between relations upon which their life depends, and their capacity to assess the truth accurately – upon which their life also depends, of course. My own “Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement:” is an elaboration.
We will discuss how paradoxes of Classification are exploited by liberals and their anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-etc, a bit later, along with White Post Modern way of handling these difficulties; but first we’ve got a good bit of our history to cover just yet; beginning with Whitehead’s relevant remarks. He demonstrates nascent Post Modern Modesty (and sage advice) when he says:
“One cannot continually investigate everything; operations of thought are strictly limited (it’s another way of saying that we are pragmatists because we must be); we must rather rest content from time to time with a given state of partial knowledge.” But adding, pragmatically, “even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”
In the US, William James and John Dewey cultivated this very pragmatic acceptance as a guiding principle of their philosophy. One can reasonably argue that the Pragmatist philosophy was too focused on practical force (forward progress) by definition; and not enough concerned with prefiguratively force (historical resource); not enough with contextual force (how things count, including ideals); not enough with implicative force (the change in context, to establish new ideals); one can say that Dewey was terribly naïve in his belief that the franchise of democratic vote should be extended as broadly as possible; that it will provide the necessary correctivity.
But James and Dewey might reasonably argue that they had the general idea correct: we are pragmatists because we have to be; and as such, they can play a game of no true Scotsman and issue a little paradox of their own, claiming that “ideals are practical.” And Hilary Putnam points out a significant contribution of the pragmatists in that its correctivity combines the practical acknowledgment of fallibility without surrender to skepticism.
A bit too cute, I would agree; similar to the hypercapitalist who insists that the market is always sufficiently corrective; when obviously some adjustments are too late; as Bateson concludes, some resources should not be sacrificed on the alter of pragmatism and its instrumental experimentation. As he would provide philosophical corrective to Heidegger’s ownmost being toward death” through his NeoAritotlean concern for biology and human (mammalia) life in praxis, so too Bateson would forge correctives to the pragmatists by extending his interactive view to a concept of pervasive ecology (incl. unused potentiality for change); an excellent functional premise to incorporate into world view in a practical sense, i.e., to incorporate the praxis of human ecology into pervasive ecology, as it is always relevant (universalizable), but a practical concern , since biological systems are a matter of optimal satisfaction, not particularly about quantification and impractical quest for foundations beyond necessity – i.e., requiring but attuning concern to the necessity of practical judgement – phronesis.
At this point we need to circle back to the Tractatus, the Vienna Circle, its implications and Austrian School economics.
“Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus”, 1921, was the pompous title, for a pompous aim, from an arrogant disposition, “I consider this to be unassailable”, Wittgenstein would say, upon the completion of this text, which begins, “The world is everything that is the case.”
The Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus project had a broad goal: to identify the relationship between language and reality and to define the limits of science.
This became a touchstone for the Vienna Circle, a title assumed by those most capable and willing to take philosophy in a mathematical and scientific direction, convening with the aspiration to foundationalize it as such.
The philosophical position of the Vienna Circle was called logical empiricism (German: logischer Empirismus), logical positivism or neopositivism. It was influenced by Ernst Mach, David Hilbert, French conventionalism (Henri Poincaré and Pierre Duhem), Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Albert Einstein. The Vienna Circle was pluralistic and committed to the ideals of the Enlightenment. It was unified by the aim of making philosophy scientific with the help of modern logic. Main topics were foundational debates in the natural and social sciences, logic and mathematics; the modernization of empiricism by modern logic; the search for an empiricist criterion of meaning; the critique of metaphysics and the unification of the sciences in the unity of science.[6] – Wikipedia
While there already existed seeds and premises of anti-Cartesianism/Modernity – e.g. in Vico’s anti-Cartesian recentralization of Aristotlean Praxis, Gauss’s possibility of non-Euclidean geometry, Schleiermacher and Dilthey’s early efforts in hermeneutics; the mass catastrophe of World War I cast great doubt on its faith in inevitable progress by its means – the Vienna Circle represents well enough the last great and desperate effort in Modernist philosophy before the Post Modern/Hermeneutic turn got underway.
Got underway, that is, in the consideration of some philosophy – markedly, in Heidegger, with his clunky but creatively brilliant, endearing German way (patient, mechanical instruction without condescension) – but not getting very far into other spheres of life nor in public understanding.
Heidegger was taking his clunky first steps, himself still guilty of residual Cartesianism (as he would note Kant to be guilty of) with his metaphysics in remiss of biology and insufficient reckoning of the social interactive aspects of Praxis. We’ll need to circle back to Heidegger, because he is pivotal to the post modern turn, but not just yet.
Neils Bohr’s 1922 Nobel Prize winning inception of quantum physics, with inferences that there is no instrument keen enough to unite wave and particle, that we must also adopt a habit of complementary in our analyses, in order to deal with the open-endedness, non-summativity, and unpredictability of quantum mechanics.
Thus, Wittgenstein’s supreme confidence was already shaken, and with Kurt Gödel‘s 1930 Nobel Prize winning proof that a theory of any complexity could not be both complete and unambiguous; and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, introducing the possibility of interactive reflexive effects of observer upon observed and vis a versa; to where by time he wrote his “Philosophical Investigations” 1953, Wittgenstein was referring to The Tractatus as “not a very good book” and not so proudly referring to its author as if someone else.
Now, it is not my concern to demonstrate how well these ideas and mathematics hold up to discredit foundationalism, whether that foundation is held to be above human nature or below human nature, as humans agentive, hermeneutic capacity to reframe events offers enough in the way of human reason and motive to take the post modern, hermeneutic turn. But again, not that that particularly happened by and large in the main nor as it should have, correctively, to protect the various species/cultures of humanity – including European! – from the ravages of impervious modernity and its experimental “progress” in faith that this wreckage was the price and sign that “foundations” were at hand upon its clearing away.
For those looking for a way to understand the later Wittgenstein, I would suggest looking at his investigations as a matter of internal relation (a notion which he gleaned from continental philosophers), helpful in the suggestion that a place to re-engage in the means of orientation is ubiquitous; analogous to a landscape covered with fractal coordinates; and certain episodes can bring one back to the sense of traditions, as in a flag ceremony signifying the rallying a group together in defense. Similar as the pragmatists, he can be helpful as such; and his turning Kant on his head, advising that one look at what ordinary every people are doing (with their language as well) can provide true and useful correctives IF it becomes part of an overall hermeneutic corrective that will also refer back to principles; but I would not heed his ridiculous advice that philosophy is a pathology that requires therapy. Philosophy, rather, asks the most fundamental human question about how life is and who one thinks it should be. Wittgenstein emerged after WWI one of the riches men in Europe and his arrogant disrespect of others intellectual requirements literally ruined lives.
The Austrian School of Economics infamous “magic hand”, i.e., that market forces will be sufficiently corrective sans human intervention and explicitly social concern is an expression of this Modernist faith continued in its objectivist detachment from the relative gauge of praxis – that despite its leading figure (((Ludwig von Mises))) false friend term, “Praxeology”, short on Praxis and accountability for his methodological individualism;, i.e., the principle that subjective individual motivation explains social phenomena, rather than class or group dynamics.
Upon graduation from the University of Vienna, Friederich Hayek was hired by Ludwig von Mises as a specialist for the Austrian government working on the legal and economic details of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye.[47] Between 1923 and 1924, Hayek worked as a research assistant to Professor Jeremiah Jenks of New York University, compiling macroeconomic data on the American economy and the operations of the Federal Reserve.
On his mother’s side, Hayek was second cousin to the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.[27] His mother often played with Wittgenstein’s sisters and had known him well. As a result of their family relationship, Hayek became one of the first to read Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus when the book was published in its original German edition in 1921.[28] Although he met Wittgenstein on only a few occasions, Hayek said that Wittgenstein’s philosophy and methods of analysis had a profound influence on his own life and thought.[29] In his later years, Hayek recalled a discussion of philosophy with Wittgenstein when both were officers during World War I.[30] After Wittgenstein’s death, Hayek had intended to write a biography of Wittgenstein and worked on collecting family materials and later assisted biographers of Wittgenstein.[31] He was related to Wittgenstein on the non-Jewish side of the Wittgenstein family. Since his youth, Hayek frequently socialized with Jewish intellectuals and he mentions that people often speculated whether he was also of Jewish ancestry. That made him curious, so he spent some time researching his ancestors and found out that he has no Jewish ancestors within five generations.[32] The surname Hayek uses the German spelling of the Czech surname Hájek.[17]
While Hayek devoted a considerable amount of pulp to argue against what he called “scientism”, he failed to fully render definitive scientism, i.e., bad and misapplied sciences, and its destructive implication for society/Praxis in this epistemological blunder of misapplication, because he was not fully emancipated from the detached, Cartesian position of Austrian school economics, defending the Objectivist upshot of hyper-relativism, by treating society as if was just too complicated for much in the way of human planning; thus paying short shrift to the heuristics of what Aristotle would call phronesis, what Shotter would one day refer to as specificatory structures and their means to accountability, and what may be broadly referred to as warrantably assertable and operationally verifiable working hypotheses.
And while Hayek called himself a “subjectivist” by way of his mentor, von Mises, the detachment from social interactive accountability left his subjectivist analysis taking for granted an objectivist matrix; a line which would be picked up in Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism”, which would have been more accurately called Subjectivism as such. We’ll follow up on that line a little later as it has important implications. But we need to stick with Hayek for now as his influence was considerable and broad, particularly in inferences that he would draw from World War II, Nazism and Communist totalitarianism.
The Road to Serfdom was to be the popular edition of the second volume of Hayek’s treatise entitled “The Abuse and Decline of Reason”,[5] and the title was inspired by the writings of the 19th century French classical liberal thinker Alexis de Tocqueville on the “road to servitude”.[6] In the book, Hayek “[warns] of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning.”[7] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Hayek challenged the view, popular among British Marxists, that fascism (including Nazism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, Nazism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.
Hayek is not understanding Hitler’s epistemological blunder as one of natural fallacy, unhinged from the correctability of social praxis, thus not seeing it correctly as right wing objectivist, probably because Hayek was coming from the same objectivist perspective on the social world.
In reaction such, Hayek’s position was escalating the liberal – we’re defining liberalism as the opening of borders and bounds – the liberal position that has allowed our antagonists to aid and abet convenient right wing objectivst blindness and greed along with convenient liberal licentiousness to the systemic runaway of our praxis systems which confront us more and more catastrophically with each decade.
Add Hayek’s liberalism to the wake of Nazi Germany, with the Cold War threat of the Soviet collectivist horror, tales of Orwell and Kafka combined with The United States emerging as the most powerful nation on earth, with its central idea being Lockeatine (Cartesian) Civil individual rights, over and in rupture of group classification – weaponized (by the YKW in their verbal skill and through their niche hegemonies) as “Civil Rights” for blacks against would-be White classificatory defense; and further weaponized as “racism.” Leaving it a massive taboo, all but impossible to even think of an alternative to America’s liberalism; in fact, all “conservatism” conserved from the American premise was liberalism. Only exacerbated by Christianity’s no-account (save for Jesus), bizarre, universal liberalism and its divorce from cause and effect. Hence our disaster.
John Maynard Keynes polemic against the Versailles Treaty in The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) didn’t help a great deal to instill a balanced response to WW I. In fact, his overly German sympathetic perspective would not only play into Hitler’s hands before WW II, but into overly Nazi sympathetic elements among America’s predominantly German demographic among Whites (second most Irish, also disposed to be overly sympathetic to Germany). It has only been recently through Howard, Hastings, Strachan and MacMillan’s work that blame for the wars has been placed more where it should be, with German imperialist supremacism and military leadership; and that even in its worst aspects, the economic aspects, the Versailles Treaty was not as bad as it was presented to the public (as condemned by Keynes, while German peace terms would have been much more harsh, and presumed the continued non-existence of additional states along with the ones imperial Germany had already subsumed etc.) and even today, virtually nobody defends the historically defensible borders drawn by the Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
The Corrective White Post Modern/Hermeneutic Turn which hasn’t taken hold, largely due to the obfuscating misdirection of (((Red Caping))).
While going on to discuss the post modern turn and its (((red caping))), we will also be discussing the (((red caping))) of Modernity in “civil rights”, “progressivism”, the boomers, the NeoCon takeover and PaleoCon false opposition through Thatcher, Reagan and beyond.
World War I’s catastrophe put the kibosh on the Modernist notion of its lineal, inevitable progress, detached faith headed by technology and science. Disillusionment with the consequences for his/our peoples in the Enlightenment ideal of Cartesian detachment was the setting where Heidegger would mark the epochal Post Modern/Hermeneutic Turn in our European philosophic history. Just as with Vico, a neo-Aristotlean framework is taken by Heidegger contra Descartes.
This neo-Aristotelian framework places foundational theory (Theoria) to one side, along with its pure means, Descartes and impervious technology. To the other side is (Poesis) the arts, its technical (techne) and rhetorical means. And in contrast to the Cartesian/Modernist view, Praxis (the people group) and its means of practical judgment (phronesis) is placed in central perspective; with a radical change from Aristotle that epistemology (episteme), thinking about thinking, is embedded and generated from there; it does not belong to the first category of pure reason, but in the primordial ambiguity of Praxis which Heidegger calls the thrownness.
Heidegger has the Post Modern task at hand of helping to draw Europeans back from the Modernist/Cartesian estrangement from Praxis/and lostness in its arbitrary nature; from the destructiveness of consequent “inauthenticity” and into authenticity; which can be understood as coherence (without much violence to Heidegger’s meaning) through the embeddedness of praxis; as opposed to the Cartesian estrangement from Praxis; or incoherence in the other extreme, the arbitrary facticity of the thrownness and arbitrary concerns of “the they”, other people. His predecessors equipped him with two means to negotiate this non-Cartesian feat: one being emergentism, the other hermeneutics.
One continuously makes sense of Heidegger with this reading. With “Dasein” (there Being) he is directing attention back from the Cartesian estrangement into “MidtDasein” (Being amongst one’s people). When he talks of “holding fast” and allowing truth to be evinced as such, he is clearly talking in terms of the non-Cartesian position of emergentism and the capacities that are not directly borrowed from the social world nor contrived from theory. Where he talks of liberation from the mere, arbitrary facticity of the thrownness, he is talking about the non-Cartesian capacity of the hermeneutic circle – its historical, narrative perspectivism. When he says that thinking is more like poetry than science, he is clearly observing a correction to the Cartesian estrangement Theoria, noting that epistemology of thinking and its relevance to Praxis, is closer to Poesis, the arts. And for that thinking he observes the wisdom of the language in Praxis, the hermeneutics of its etymology, “thankian” – spread out matters of concern, wait, take to heart what is most interesting – inter-esse – i.e., most essential, and give thanks, “thankian.”
Hermeneutics:
Facts are underdetermining and can be put together or read in a myriad of ways, more or less confused or coherent, nevertheless requiring and undergoing a hermeneutic process in order to put them together for better or worse, to make good sense or not much.
This “underdetermination” by facts also applies to the individual, obviously autobiographical self having more hermeneutic leeway than the corporeal self and its emergent telos – while rejecting Cartesian reductionism, emergentism observes inborn telos and Heidegger commends holding fast to it whereupon it provides an authentic, non-arbitrary guide through the arbitrary thrownness of circumstance. But in the unavoidable engagement of our interactive circumstance (one cannot not communicate, we live in communication), we require hermeneutics to make coherent sense.
Hermeneutics also shuns the pretense of pure Cartesian inquiry. And instead embraces the distinctly human capacity for language and spatial/analytic reasoning to interactively engage a circulating process of inquiry providing narrative, analysis, conceptualization and rule structure (descriptive/interpretive and prescriptive) as afforded for the sake of rigor and imagination as need be.
It is thereby a non Cartesian process, engaged in inquiry moving in circulation as need be from the broad perspectives that analytic conceptualization, language and narrative afford, providing imagination, orientation, conceptualization of historical and broad systemic processes; and then circulating back to rigorous empirical verification as need be; managing orientation between the Cartesian extremes beyond or within nature.
As the world is both underdetermined by presenting facts and confusing in the arbitrariness of what facticity there is, we require hermeneutics in order to make sense.
This distinctly human capacity is needed in order to achieve a liberation from mere, arbitrary facticity, as Heidegger would say.
With this capacity of semi-transcendence, as it were, an individual and group narrative is able to amend, reframe, place into a new, better or more accurate context, interactive challenges, set backs, obstructions, confusions, tangles, dilemmas, paradoxes, strange and pernicious charmed loops, etc. and can instead achieve coherence, accountability, agency, correctability, thus systemic homeostasis, a viable alternative range of functional autonomy and sovereignty (which Heidegger might call “authenticity”).
Hermeneutics also provides capacity to transcend bad moments, episodes, bad relationships, flaws in ourselves, flaws others, bad people altogether among our kind, so as not to be disillusioned, skeptical of loyalty, to connect with our pattern at its ideal best.
This non-Cartesian, circulating process of inquiry is necessary for its narrative capacity to connect with our history, its perspectives and to capture the systemic breadth of group bounds, human ecology, social capital and accountability thereof, in the interest of our species and individual concerns.
Hermeneutics engagement of rule structures can be used to facilitate reconstruction of our genus and species – very important, of course, for White Nationalists – or it can be used by our enemies to misdirect and send our systems out of homeostasis into runaway dissolution. Hermeneutics is therefore crucial to get a handle on.
Hermeneutics is part of a two way process from genetic emergence and hermeneutic feedback on the biological facticity.
Hermeneutics is not anti-Science, it facilitates correctives to scientism, i.e., bad science and bad application of science. For example, where Spencer Wells of the Human Genome Project would say, “we’re all Africans under the skin”, hermeneutics would initiate critical inquiry to flesh out the significance of 40,000 years of European evolutionary differentiation that Wells’ scientism trivializes.
While it is true that Heidegger did not emphasize hermeneutics as much as he might have, as he was put off by Dilthy’s having taken the concept too far in detachment from the empirical world, it is also true that Heidegger’s metaphysic was too detached from the bio-social world of Praxis that Aristotle and Bateson would observe in nature and necessity to deal with. In fact, it is said that Heidegger had in mind a follow-up to Being and Time (which he never wrote) that would have grounded Praxis thoroughly in nature; i.e., below Praxis. How true and how far he would have attempted this foundationalism in nature is uncertain, but if he were to take it to an ontology below the correctivity of Praxis, he would have been committing the epistemic blunder of natural fallacy; the same kind which led Hitler and Nazi Germany to catastrophe. We want our praxis to be consonant and in harmony with nature, not obedient to subhuman nature, beyond accountability and correctivity.
But Heidegger is modest enough to suggest that thinking means taking what you find essential in his work, not following sheepishly, believing that you have to adhere to every jot and tittle, as the asshole Guessedworker insists that one must do. Heidegger took for granted that for the Germans of his time, social grouping was not the biggest challenge – which White |Americans cannot at all take for granted – their/his concern amidst Germans was more that they not become herd minded and lose sight of their distinctly folkish ways, individual resource and coherence. He was also concerned that too much focus on biology would be violently reductive of the manifold of emergent properties. Again, not exactly our priority concern nowadays, with the denial of biological race (for Whites) and the multifarious bullshit of red caped hermeneutics – divorced from its anti-Cartesian mandate which would otherwise have it circling back to empirical/ biological verification as need be.
While the egregious red caping of the Post Modern/Hermeneutic turn had not yet begun, Heidegger had, in his own clunky but charming German way, re-instantiated the Aristotelian framework to facilitate the White Post Modern Turn. But not to be enframed by the episteme of that framework, in a mere reactive extension of Heraclitus emphasis on process through hermeneutics, he remained critically adherent to the emergent perspective and its non-Cartesian manifold, which would yield the forms of Parmenides; i.e., individual bounds and group borders.
And Heidegger’s student, Hans-Georg Gadamer, would make pivotal contributions to the Post Modern/Hermeneutic Turn.
He made a critical contribution to the White Post Modern Turn with his remark that The Enlightenment and the Cartesian Objectivism of Modernity is “prejudice against prejudice.”
Hannah Arendt, another student of Heidegger, made the more modest but no less true claim that “the Enlightenment was far from innocent.”
From this I generate a statement against anti-racism:
Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent, it is prejudice against prejudice; viz., in pure objectivist stance of prejudice against classificatory social pattern recognition and discrimination thereupon; even where necessary to individual and human species survival; thus, it is hurting and it is killing people.
Another important contribution from Gadamer was his concept of “the marginal.” This should be of particular interest to those ethnonationalists interested in the more empirical side of the circulating hermeneutic inquiry as those on the margins of the group – which is everybody from time to time – personify an empirical frontier. There position may be valued to some extent as providing perspective on the full system; providing useful feedback as they know where the shoe pinches, where the border is being impinged upon, and it makes sense to incentivize their loyalty, as they can be in a dangerous position, susceptible to changing sides. Which, in fact, is the idea of the (((red caped))) form of this idea, exaggerated and reversed, even, as (((red caping))) does: “marginals” are not treated as those just barely within the (White) species system, but rather those outside of the White species, or Whites who have become antagonistic, who should for some reason be included.
We have to take a step back to the late 1920s, when (((Leon Trotsky))) coined the term “racisim”, further weaponizing the gentile-Christian purity spiral to a Cartesian point beyond group Praxis (for Whites), beyond nature, even. And then we’ll have to move forward to discuss once again the concept of group classification and how that is being played with in “anti-racism.”
But not just yet. We have to come back to the concept of Hermeneutics and how it was conceived as a non-Cartesian circulating process of inquiry, that might at once liberate individuals and groups from the empirical arbitrariness, the confusingness of mere facticity in the thrownness; a liberation into historical/narrative coherence; and also provide the means to negotiate, amend and transcend the paradoxes, dilemmas, confusions and so on of classificatory identity; dating back to philosophical struggles with the Cretan’s liar paradox.
As such, hermeneutics provides the narrative means to survey historical and temporal, systemic breadth beyond limitations of momentary, episodic, even close relational limitations, to establish individual and group coherence, accountability, correctivity, agency and warrant thereof, in maintenance of systemic human ecological homeostasis. With hermeneutics thus, accountability may be established to the forms generated by emergent patterns, moving gracefully (not clunkily, mother fucking sick fucking gaslighting/strawmanning narcissistic personality disorder case Guessedworker) as need be in a process of inquiry from imaginative expanse to encompass the formal breadth of the group, recognize its bounds; and back to as rigorous and microscopic an empirical verification of the pattern and holding fast to emergent qualities as need be for the sake of individual and group correctivity, i.e., systemic homeostasis, autonomy and sovereignty.
Hitler’s Nazi program is usefully looked upon as a pathological Modernist reaction to abuses in Praxis, particularly by the sophistry of Jewry in Europe and in their red caping of social unionization as internationalist through Soviet Russia. An imperialist war monger, who justified his world view on the natural fallacy of might makes right, that boundaries were determined by might, not by negotiation (a mere ruse), Hitler’s world view was unhinged of Praxis accountability and correctivity, running over the top into catastrophe for Europe; and for more ordinary Jews, who had been mixing and more situated in Europe.
The Holocaust thus exacerbated the process of horizontal transmission, as it selected for the more virulent Jews, who were able to flee over the border where they were able to establish niche predominance and parasitism over new host nations, particularly the United States [religion, money, politics, media, academia, law and courts, international business, organized crime].
And through these positions of niche power, for example in the Federal Reserve, with connections to the Rothschilds and Keynes’s friends, the Warbugs; in the Supreme Court, beginning with Brandeis and moving through Frankfurter’s manipulation fo Earl Warren’s “Activist” court, high in the purity spiral of Lockeatine Civil rights; the critical Brown vs Board of Education decision was passed; ending school segregation; then the 1964 “Civil Rights” Act was passed, preventing Whites from discriminating (in practice, against blacks especially); then through the political niche of (((Cellar and Javitz))), the 1965 Immigration and Nationalization Act was passed to open America’s borders to floods of non-Whites; in 1968, the “Fair Housing Act” was passed, preventing discrimination in terms of whom you might rent or sell property to.
And on the absurd imposition against White interests through Jewish niche virulence proceeded, with the evil law of “Disparate Impact” subjecting corporations with back breaking lawsuits if they were “insufficiently represented by blacks” on the basis of sheer lack of qualification. Then there were deals made with black “community organizers”, who hung the threat of riots over cites, and took the payoff for bust boom gentrification plans (as in Starbucks); and in culmination of the Randian objectivist false opposition line, that ran from the Austrian School through Thatcher and Reagan, a (((NeoConservatism))) hitting mere speedbumps in (((Paleoconservatism))), while Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan stimulated the magic hand of the objectivist economy, used the black community extortion of Acorn to extort banks to issue housing loans to blacks that they could not repay, while “insurance securities” were sold on these loans that could not be repaid.
* A refresher note: Both the NeoCons and the PaleoCons are Jewish (and Marxist) controlled opposition in origin. The NeoCons coming by way of Crystal and Leo Strauss, used America’s Cartesianism as a nihilistic domestic weapon, for right wing opportunists to cash in on boom and bust cycles, and war mongering upon Israeli interests, making their way through the Operation Clean Break crew – Kagan, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Netanyahu – to use the American military, now the lone superpower, upon the fall of the Soviet Union to make war on Israel’s enemies. This “conservatism”, with its nihilistic magic hand running the domestic economy under Alan Greenspan, was destined to head America’s superpower to premature end, commencing in seriously in the 2008 financial crisis.
At that point, Horowitz and Gottfried saw the need to try to revive the (((PaleoCon))) false opposition; as the destruction and profit of Jewry was all too evident from the (((NeoCons))); and they needed to stave off backlash in the form of White Left Ethnonationalism; by re-directing reaction into a new (((PaleoConservativism))) Called The Alternative Right or the Alt-right; which would be opposed to a marketed characterology of “The Left.” Now, (((PaleoConservatism))) began with (((Frank Meyer))), originally a Marxist, he conceived of (((PaleoConservatism))) as faith in America’s Cartesian principles (which are liberal) and Judeo-Christianity (Which is liberal, for Whites). Meyer was a mentor of President Reagan, whom we can say was duped as such. But PaleoConservatism is even more dangerous in a way, than Neo-Conservatism, because it uses traditional American values; and through the back doors of this Judeo-Christian Cartesianism, the tribe was able to make its way further into power, to where the (((NeoCons))) could take over in the 90s, looking after the one ethnonation that they really cared about, Israel.
With that, the PaleoCons, Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran (fired and stigmatized by useful idiot William F. Buckley) and Sam Francis were pushed aside. The new PaleCons – Alternative Right/Dissident Right – have been (((marketed as the opposition against a characterology of “the left” since 2008))).
While the Clinton Whitehouse took down the fire wall of the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing investment banking to gamble with private money; and when the housing bubble burst in 2008, do the Jewish bankers, the ring sell outs pay? Nope.
In fact, with the Jews sitting pretty, but more obviously than ever, they have got to come up with a plan so that the White masses don’t get any uppity ideas and organize/unionize as a White Ethnonational Left. Nope, Herbert Marcuse’s student, Paul Gottffried needed to revive the controlled opposition of Paleoconservatism an “Alternative Right” as opposed to a characterology of “the left” as a marketing scheme, where the red capes of leftist social advocacy are presented as a characterology of its own, supposedly opposed to ethnonationalism by definition. Thus, whereas the complaint with these Jewish sponsored unions and coalitions of anti-Whites used to be referred to as “political correctness” in the 90’s, now it was a red caped characterology of “The Left”, lest Whites get any ideas of organizing in their interests. You don’t want any of that social stuff, just ask asshole boomer GW, ‘that’s all Jewish”, as he looks over Thatcher’s shoulder while she reads Hayek; soaks in the Austrian school objectivism/subjectivism, absent the relative gauge of “society” and group interests.
International borders are opened up for the exploitation of big business and social liberals alike. And particularly after Hitler had obliged in his reactionary culling, nobody dared be associated with “racism or anti-semitism” – the Lockeatine anti-classification of civil rights was weaponized to a high, sadistic art, Alinsky style, making White men “live up to their ideal rules.”
Whereas the one up position of puerile girls, unsocialized for this weaponized modernist disordering of classificatory bounds, emerged more powerful than ever, pandered to from all directions; pandered to especially by the YKW in her subsocial penchant to incite genetic competition and act as gate keeper, only letting through men into power who would perpetuate the liberalization of borders and bounds; she thus maintain powerful position for a time to pursue the utopia, as Devlin calls it, of hypergamy; until the society begins to crumble around her for want of the stable family and society created by beta males; and starts taking down the less desirable women with it.
The black union remains enforce, as one of the few coherent groups allowed by Jewry to organize in their self interests and at the disposal of Jewry to unleash against Whites. And quite a powerful weapon too, not only protected under the rubric of “anti-racism” but adding to the biological hegemony that their much older evolution enjoys in disorder of modernity, where the protracted evaluation necessary to appreciate White talent will frequently pale in comparison to the momentary and episodic criteria which highlight black abilities; of their evolution, which has quantified and maxed out masculinity, whose higher testosterone levels and warrior gene and faster twitching muscle fibers create an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper- assertive kind of people; who have more sex partners, younger, single parent families, poverty, low time horizon, impulse control and violence. While Jewry and the liberal lackeys let through by the pandered to , subsocialized gate keepers, continue to enforce ‘anti-racism” as the incitement to genetic competition drives up their price.
Not only is the White classificatory discrimination prohibited, thus preventing White men from protecting their level of sublimation which is part and parcel of our sublimation and what distinctive greatness we posses, but the fact is, not only do we need to classify, it is virtually impossible not to cognitively classify, as noted by Lakoff in “Women, Fire and Other Dangerous Things.” The prohibition of classification combined with inability to avoid classification in order to make sense of the world, defaults defacto to another charmed loop to two classifications allowed and impossible to ignore: blacks and females; especially in juxtaposition with White women, as high contrast tropisms are more difficult to ignore; while nature abhors a vacuum, their (short term) coherent identity perpetuated and pandered to thus, she becomes more articulate and confident beyond her merit, especially with the liberal intimidation and enforcement thuggery of blacks, the cryptically camouflaged Jewish group identity ready to supply the charge of “racism” to buffer her gate keeping position. The most evil and un-American thing, she tends to make whether you’re “racist” or not a litmus test of initial interaction episodes.
Anti-racism thus, may be seen as Jewish weaponization against social organization by way of classification and discrimination thereupon by European peoples; the hosts and historical adversaries of Jews. And particularly in the American context, Jewry was able to weaponize the Lockeatine/Cartesian notion of individual rights to greatly rupture classificatory discrimination by Whites (the term is interchangeable with European, but only makes sense to use instead, when referring to Europeans outside of Europe). Absent the post modern/hermeneutic turn thus, the tribe was able to deploy and exploit the paradoxic aspect of classification.
With the charge of “racism” the accused White people are confronted by a lose-lose choice: say you don’t discriminate on the basis of race, but rather judge everyone individually, and you can be charged with being disingenuous; ignoring the pattern of historical discrimination against certain groups; On the other hand, if you say that you take this historical discrimination against certain groups into account, then you are classifying and a racist by definition. With regard to the sexes, the feminists could also deploy paradox: treat her gently, like a lady, then you could be looked upon as a condescending patriarch, who does not respect her autonomy and sovereignty; you are a “wimp” as charged. On the other hand, treat her as one of the boys and you are not respecting the special quality of her gender; you are a “pig” a male chauvinist pig as charged, only seeing the world through your male world view.
It is important to note, however, that within the disorder of modernity, that traditional females were not necessarily offering great relief, as they still tended to hold White men to the same traditional standards while the bounds that once offered some stable support to achieving the expectations of the traditional role grew more and more shaky. We’ll come back to that in a few.
And we’ll circle back to the Frankfurt school – as the horizontal transmission would takeover the niche of Academia with its critical race theory – after we’ve followed the line of feminism.
Following the Two World Wars in which millions of French men died as canon fodder, Simone de Beauvoir somehow, I don’t know how, had the nerve to publish “The Second Sex.”
As you can see, Simone de Beauvoir and her cohort Jean Paul Sartre were of Marxist orientation. Hence, they’d be in agreement as to a basic disadvantage in women’s position compared to men.
According to Marxist feminists, women’s liberation can only be achieved by dismantling the capitalist systems in which they contend much of women’s labor is uncompensated.[2] Marxist feminists extend traditional Marxist analysis by applying it to unpaid domestic labor and sex relations.
[…]
Engels rewrites a quote in this book, by himself and Marx from 1846, “The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children”, to say, “The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.”[4]
Gender oppression is reproduced culturally and maintained through institutionalized inequality. By privileging men at the expense of women and refusing to acknowledge traditional domestic labor as equally valuable, the working-class man is socialized into an oppressive structure which marginalizes the working-class woman.[2]
de Beauvoir was appraised of the classics of western philosophy, of course, and turned her critical disposition toward it, suspecting the artifice of teleology lurking behind the Cartesian quest for foundations. She was along with Sartre in turning Heidegger on his head, that we have freedom because life is open ended, not because of its delimitation in finitude.
As Hegelian logic largely structured Marxism in its rigidity, it also prompted de Beauvoir to consider the classic distinction between self assertion and self transcendence. I (and perhaps you along with me) would observe that European men do too much self transcendence and not enough self assertion; again, not that this sublimation is not without its yields, but these will begin to accrue to outsiders and result in exploitation and large destruction absent the assertion of our borders and bounds. Easier said than done. Try asserting yourself with an African and their long pre-evolution is liable to demonstrate a strong inborn penchant for self assertion, that turns out badly for you as it has for many others who proceed in direct hubris or complacency where the rubber meets the road in self assertion. Nevertheless, self assertion is the corrective trajectory for European men. de Beauvoir’s idea of freedom and liberation for women called for self transcendence; setting in motion incommensurate gender agendas of individuation.
In fact, this agenda of self transcendence for women was claimed by Howard Parshley as the inspiration for taking on the daunting task of translating the massive text into English. This was a task that he took on as a professor at the elite women’s college, Smith; which by refraction became an epicenter of American feminism and lesbianism.
Parshley expressed his perhaps most revealing personal thoughts about ”The Second Sex” in a letter to Abraham Stone, a longtime friend and co-author, with Hannah Stone, of the popular book ”A Marriage Manual.”
”I would never have undertaken the work,” he wrote Stone , ”if I had not considered its . . . main message – ‘transcendence’ for women, too – not only morally and socially desirable but also too often denied in America. For every Dr. Hannah Stone or Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt there are, I thought, millions of women to whom de B.’s descriptions of the life of ‘immanence’ – of ‘church, kitchen and children’ – are more or less completely applicable, ‘happy’ as they may be in their situation.
”I have not been too happy, myself, about the author’s treatment of family life, and I was often tempted to soften her descriptions or insert qualifying footnotes. And the same with many of her remarks about ‘conjugal’ love and so on. But I had no difficulty in thinking of many actual examples of everything she described, and I thought she was presenting a point of view that needs airing.”
”Just last night,” Parshley continued, ”I heard on Barry Gray’s WMCA midnight program a discussion of the New York system of day nurseries by the man in charge of it, and I think that there one may see a hint of what de Beauvoir has in mind, in part, when she calls for the liberation of women.”
De Beauvoir’s response to the book was contained in a letter to Blanche Knopf, which Mrs. Knopf shared with Parshley: ”I find the book superb. The translation seems excellent.” Parshley must have been exceptionally gratified.
And yet, according to Deirdre Bair, who interviewed de Beauvoir extensively for her forthcoming biography, the French writer told her she had never read the American edition. Explaining that de Beauvoir’s ”personal life was consuming her at this time,” Ms. Bair speculates that ”she probably only thumbed through the book.” And de Beauvoir’s quoted praise? ”A white lie,” says Ms. Bair.
The white lie was to remain a golden fact for Parshley. On the night of May 18, 1953, with sales of ”The Second Sex” continuing to mount, its translator participated in a Smith College Symphony Orchestra rehearsal.
De Beauvoir had turned her critical perspective to the giants of European philosophy, irrespective, apparently, of any merit they might have in that esteem
While the girls at Smith might have been at leisure and inclination to move through de Beauvoir’s text which was near a thousand pages even abridged. But it was not going to be common reading among men.
Far from the purview of European / American men were two conceptual weapons which could be alternated arbitrarily, wielded in an instant by feminists (or wielded similarly and unwittingly by neo-traditional women, for that matter), as equipped with the cynicism of these memes to dismiss, in either case, recourse to two profoundly important European moral orderings.
Most significantly, one weapon was to deride Europe’s natural Aristotelian morality, its observation of optimality and relationships as central to human nature, and another to destroy the propositions and principles initiated by the likes of Kant to gird, e.g., against arbitrary vicissitudes of empirical philosophy being taken too far – but in either case, the weapons distinguish females (including White females, of course) as having a separate moral order not beholden to White men and thus not beholden to Europeans as a system with shared social, moral capital and human ecology of millennia.
Deep within the wallowing abyss of de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex”, its talk of “sacred ministry of betrayal” (can you sing Madonna, “Like a Prayer”?) feeding extant dissatisfactions in females, lurked these weapons – far out of the casual purview of White men to apprehend from whence came what hit them and what it was about.
(((Betty Friedan))) (1963), with the modernist, “she’s just like one of the boys and, if liberated to participate, may do-so as an equal” approach to feminism, was the preeminent figure in the second wave of feminism; she took as her point of departure this line from Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, page 672:
“This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotelian morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”
My hunch that that was her source inspiration is borne-out through multiple connections.
(((Carol Gilligan))) (1982), with the neo-traditional angle focusing on qualitative differences of females, but still within the feminist framework, also took a line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure against Kantian morality – 1948, Page 681:
“She knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”
My observation that this was the source for Gilligan was confirmed by Helen Haste, a colleague of Gilligan’s at Harvard.
While there are other significant non-Jewish feminists, forebears besides de Beauvoir, it is true that de Beauvoir’s feminist philosophy has roots in Marx’s notion that marriage and patriarchy are veritable slavery – women’s “liberation requires that these institutions be overturned, a revolutionary act corresponding to liberation of all.”
The obvious fact of men being drafted to die in Vietnam – a war for no clear and present danger no less – calling into stark question the advantage of men, was a mere speedbump in the (((weaponized))) bit of modernity that was second wave feminism; as it went on to wreak havoc with the buttressing of thousands of years of European tradition and nature. Its weaponization dovetailed with the (((weaponization of civil individual rights))) against classificatory discrimination; in (((weaponized Marxist coalition))) with black biopower and hyper assertiveness; the alliance was to bolstered with homosexual advocacy to form the coalition of Political Correctness against White men spearheaded through the aforementioned Jewish power niches; notably, academia to begin with:
With this accurate understanding of what The Frankfurt School’s horizontal transmission to American academia was doing in terms of Cultural Marxism and the rough shod it was running over the interests of White men, we’re at the point in our history where I need to excavate the agenda of White male Being [Dasein/MidtDasein]; which was incommensurate to second wave feminism, and buried in the torrents of its (((weaponization and coalitions))) and the (((red caping))) of erstwhile Post Modern correctives.
Part of my task at this point is to keep this section as brief as possible, since I’ve discussed this historical section many times; nevertheless, there is this important piece of the puzzle to fit here.
With an important clue from Heidegger, that we gain perspective and coherence, part of the emergent authenticity that he talked about, by setting out the hermeneutic of ourselves, i.e., our autobiography into historical perspective – a task buttressed by the fact that the language comes into being in writing – I looked to the historical circumstance of my childhood, provoked by the conceited complaints of feminism, while men were being drafted to go die in Vietnam. How much sitting around Indian style with the hippies, being there with them in Brookdale Park, held something very appealing by contrast, that I would not want to be without.
As America was the land of opportunity, and proposed to deliver happiness through self actualization, an ancient teleological concept of Aristotle, altered in modernist pop-psychology form with the human potential movement, markedly (((Maslow)))’s “hierarchy of needs,” it made sense to me that the hippies were actually a proxy male agenda after the basic levels of the hierarchy of needs; while the feminists seemed to be after the top of the hierarchy.
De Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1948) culminated in American popular culture with Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and The Single Girl (1962) and Betty Friedan’s more academically got-up The Feminine Mystique (1963) as second wave feminism.
While popular and not pretending to be academic, Helen Gurley Brown’s book and the popular magazine, Cosmopolitan, that she parlayed with it, should not be underestimated in their (deleterious) effect. Deriving the idea from her husband, movie producer David Brown, Sex and The Single Girl is based on Soren Kierkegaard’s lament, Either/Or – you are going to suffer whatever you choose. In this case, if a single girl stays as “virginal as a Sunkist Orange” until married she will suffer. She will also suffer from sex that does not lead to loyalty and marriage, but at least she’ll have the experience and enjoyment, so her argument goes. This is a false either/or as virginity is presented as intolerable and life long monogamy is presented as near impossible on the basis of natural fallacy. There are ways that society may handle the important option for monogamy and the reality of non-monogamy, but that is a discussion for later.
Let me briefly say that the argument for female pre-marital indulgence, if not promiscuity, was usually based disingenuously on the notion of “the double standard” which was held to be “unfair.” The double standard held that while men were looked upon as sporting rogues if they pursued sex, women were looked upon as sluts if they did the same. But while that is a double standard, and men should not be beyond constraint for social effects, the general bias was fair in concept, as it is not as much of a challenge for women (because eggs and gestation are precious/ejaculation and sperm is cheap); they can be real bullies and have even more deleterious effects on society through promiscuity.
Enough about Helen Gurley Brown. While her magazine with its indexes of sexual adventure inside would be snapped up by co-eds at the check-out counter of the college book store, the far larger nodal point through classroom level academia was The Feminine Mystique.
To my theoretical delight, my working hypothesis that sense could be made of the conflicting gender agendas of individuation by placing them into Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to self actualization, was confirmed in spades.
Taking as her point of departure de Beauvoir, 1948, p. 672, “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotelian morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”…
Not only did Friedan propose in The Feminine Mystique that women needed to be liberated from the neurosis instilling constraints of their traditional gender role and be free to pursue the highest reaches of self actualization on Maslow’s hierarchy of “needs”, but Abraham Maslow was actually her teacher!
Not particularly featured by her was that in Maslow’s scheme, these higher needs unfulfilled were called “high grumbles” whereas the lower, more basic needs unfulfilled were called “low grumbles.” Pearce would make me aware of the “grumbles” bit.
Betty Friedan, as with de Beauvoir, was pretty much ignoring the sacrifices on basic levels required of men, notably the Vietnam draft in Friedan’s time; and with that, not making the inference that men being over represented as the top of the hierarchy was not only an artifact of traditional practicality in the parental division of labor, and not only an expression of a fulfillment of basic Maslowian needs. Some men ascended to the top largely as they were greatly skilled; but to some extent, over representation by men at the top was also an expression of desperation for deprivation and threat of privation of basic needs. Furthermore, traditional European society reserved some space at the top for men in compensation for their sacrifice and presumed service to the protection of their people; that their hard road would not leave them taking these matters of borders and bounds lightly and liberally.
“The ignominious bullying of Naven ritual rites of passage produced harsh, overcompensating males.” – Gregory Bateson.
And this aspect of overcompensating desperation to self actualization, which fits into the traditional come modernist paradigm, would have a reflexive effect of aberration, wreaking vast destruction on the social praxis of ethnonational Europe in the example of the Kaiser and Hitler; while in the USA, the liberal form of this Modernist, objectivist overcompensation wreaks havoc with any semblance of accountable boundaries to social praxis for White people. Particularly as the liberalism of individual rights was weaponized, not only as the sublime expression of American freedom and opportunity for men, but seen in contrast to Stalin and Hitler’s collectivism, its critique became utter taboo and difficult to articulate for men.
I had to decipher and infer the organic motive behind the hippie movement, decidedly implicitly White, as a right below rights, as Rollo May would say, from songs from the rock opera “Hair”, viz. Walking in Space, which defended the value of Being of itself as opposed to being drafted into the Vietnam war; “My Conviction” which weakly singled out the Male aspect of the rebellion, which was actually the essential aspect of the motive – the assertion of an intrinsic value to White male Being; but first of clues, “The Be-in” which inaugurated the hippie summer of love in Haight-Ashbury as semiotic of the essential motive – a reasonable attribution of intrinsic value to White men (as opposed to having to prove themselves in war representing no clear, immanent danger to their people) and securing of that basic motive along with intermediate motives/needs on the Maslowian hierarchy of needs; still not unarticulated by anyone but me, as pivotal in the central right of White survival as a species and in the interests of their systemic autonomy.
“Being” for men [Dasein/MidtDasein] was not only difficult to articulate as it ran in corrective counter to the traditional role, not only because it ran against the overcompensating modernist role, but as a motive to recover basic organicism, it was not given to analytic parsing, thus inarticulate by definition. Furthermore, it was incommensurate with the feminist agenda which was pursuing the heights, threatening to leave individual men with nothing by way of compensation; also incommensurate with traditional women, who still expected men to stoically pursue the traditional role (and woe to he, who might whine and malinger). Further, “malingering in quest of organic being was in weird, incommensurate contrast to black civil rights, which sought strait-laced “integritae”; and in dangerous incommensurate contrast with black power, which sought the top of the hierarchy and did not exactly see White male Being as their concern.
Indeed, the problem then, when White men were considered so intrinsically valueless as to be drafted into a Vietnam war which defended against no clear and present danger to him or his people, is largely the same, most essential question today: the establishment of sufficient intrinsic value to White being – the right to live, among his people, innocent until proven guilty in common parlance. But Being [Dasein/MidtDasein] for White men would be only more difficult to articulate after the sympathy of the Vietnam war was over; after that Jewish niche power and influence put its feminist, black and other grievance coalitions into overdrive against White men. This was done with the leverage of the no-account modernizing objectivism of White right wing traditionalists and liberals.
Indeed, with the gender agendas being incommensurate as they were, and women’s complaints (“grumbles”) seeming so conceited by comparison, its no wonder that more men did not go crazy in misogyny and that women did not complain more about the ones that did (because they were getting away with murder). But the reflexive effects of modernist disordering, particularly as (((weaponized))), were bad enough.
Kenneth Gergen’s scheme of the genders in four way individuating difference seems to have analytic merit under the stress of modernist disorder, with their being modernists overcompensating the traditional gender trajectory and reversing modernists of the traditional trajectory. Hippies and feminists would be reversers.
But coming back to our timeline where White right wingers and liberals were complicit as useful idiots, the YKW niches commandeered the anti-White coalitions into overdrive.
The Europeans were even more prone to misdirection from the true nature of the White male agenda for Dasein/MidtDasein, as they were not subject to authentication of motive by ownmost being toward death as the Americans were by Vietnam draft. Hence, rather than being a spokesman for the hippies, one rather wished that John Lennon would shut up. Hence the 68ers’s, Marcuse’s misdirection of “liberating tolerance”, that “free love” was an essential part of it, when in fact, free love would be in stark contrast to Being for White males. While the Jewish media portrayed the hippie era all about free love, civil rights for blacks, Marxist left politics (read radically liberal when it comes Whites, as opposed to organic folkish), when in fact, the hippies were notoriously troublesome to Marxists.
Yes, drugs were a part of the quest for White male being, and that could be a big problem when messing with the profundity of evolution; but judiciously consumed and in moderation, it is vastly better than being a turbo charged aggressor and warmonger.
Never mind, once the Vietnam war was over, the crucial motive for White male Being [Dasein/ MidtDasein] was burred, as feminism went into overdrive and in ominous foreboding of its coalition with blacks. Yes, the right wingers have their paid off motives of union busting as ever; and liberal irresponsibility is rewarded with license and licentiousness; but the YKW set the (anti-White) coalition agendas, take the initiatives, grease the palms.
In fact, 1973, when the Vietnam draft was ending, was the only year that Gloria Steinem (said to be a CIA asset) made money with MS Magazine. Meanwhile Elizabeth Holtzman, running on the Equal Rights (for women) Amendment, unseeded long term incumbent Emmanuel Cellar, notorious exponent of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act which opened America’s borders to the third world (his dirty work accomplished enough). By 1982 Carol Gilligan would make a new wave in feminism by taking another line from de Beauvior,
1948, Page 681: “She knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”
Gilligan came across as representing a Neo-Traditional aspect of feminism’ that unlike Friedan’s grumbles, the problem is that women have always, traditionally, had a different morality; the problem was not that they were not allowed to be like men, but that their different ways and morality were not represented at the elite table. While I did learn some things about female patterns, and she had me fooled as being Irish for her name, her work really amounts to a slight of hand to make excuses for women’s liberalism and departure from moral principle.
In fairness, it is harder to be a girl and woman from the standpoint of traditional morality as more or happier opportunities exist to make mistakes.
The one up position of White girls/women in partner selection emerges with increased significance within disorder of Modernity.
The U.S. became the leading world power after World War II, leading in its Modernist trajectory through the anti-classificatory forces of modernity, with Lockeatine civil individual rights over classification then (((weaponized))) over White classification as as “civil rights” and “racism.”
That was the stick of anti-classification, while the carrot was held up in the implicative force of America’s promise of the freedom to pursue happiness and be all you can be in the human potential movement with its individualist, Maslowian notion of self actualization.
But there was a dark side in the human potential movement as well, with its disordering creating reflexive effects, where stasis reaction became the brute corrective force as opposed to the homeostasis that the buttress of classificatory bounds might afford to gender relations and their negotiation of social capital. Needless to say, this does not serve to reconstruct the White Class, but further polarizes them in antipathy; and what could be more painful than to be hated by those you are born to love.
“The sacred ministry of betrayal. You will never do anything more hateful to me than I have already done to you.” – Simone de Beauvoir
The anti-social-classificatory bounding of this hyperbolic liberal situation ruptured the means of social accountability, particularly regarding long historical and protracted systemic patterns, such that White females were being solicited and pandered to more and more directly from every direction, including alien directions, and most pertinently by the interests of the YKW from their elite niches and for their purposes. With this pervasive solicitation and pandering, the one up position of White females in partner selection – “you are so wonderful, may I have a date? – re-emerges with increased significance, to where even largely unsocialized (i.e., not structured in the responsibility to their human ecology for its delimitation and potential effects on other human ecologies) puerile White females become part of a powerful gate keeping system that maintains the liberal way, only letting liberal through to power as it protects their larger than ever advantage, at least in the short term.
Again, any attempt by a White male to broach the unjust complexity of (((weaponized modernity))) can be bludgeoned from the feminist perspective with the wimp/pig paradox: treat her with deference and you are a condescending patriarch at best, who does not respect her autonomy, and more like a wimp, in a word. On the other hand, treat her as one of the boys and you are a male chauvinist pig, who does not respect the special quality of her gender. Women of a traditional gender perspective may not offer relief either, as she expects the man to perform his traditional role oblivious to the fact that the disorder of modernity does not sustain his grounds.
With conceitedness of the feminist’s high grumbles flying in the face of his low grumbles, it is only a wonder that more White men didn’t veer into insane misogyny.
The charmed loop of didactic incitement will only perpetuate the liberal runaway, as his authentic agentive distinction and alternative range of functional autonomy can be written-off not just as a wimp for doing nothing, or a pig in fighting back, but also as a dupe for putting his resources at risk in an effort to negotiate the situation; and finally a permanent puerile initiate, the abusive incitement written off as not that bad at worst, if not a necessary lesson or even the inspiration for whatever accomplishments he manages despite the paradox to his agency.
The struggle to find agency and achieve despite this will produce anti-social aberration as “success” becomes “failure” by the reflexive recontexting of the didactic incitement.
“As teachers, are we wise?” … “The ignominious bullying of Naven ritual rites of passage might produce harsh, overcompensating males” – Bateson. Indeed.
A sufficiently necessary grip (humble but confident) in practical logical tautologies is among the first things to suffer in the sarcasm and mockery of didactic incitement. The impractical speculation of Platonic forms followed by Christianity’s divorce from logical cause and effect in poorly bargained quest of innocence, self esteem and social confirmation, has been the traditional retreat, the Cartesian anxiety ensuing.
Whereas “the Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” – Kenneth Burke. Indeed.
But the insane viciousness of it; you have White girls reacting in fear of you (!), because you don’t want them opening the gates to these wild, rabid niggers. Who should be afraid of who? Stunningly insane. And they take so for granted its legitimacy that it becomes like a litmus test of initial interaction episodes. “Isn’t racism so terrible?”
As solicited she becomes more articulate, confident, more able to move into the realms of self actualization once reserved in compensation for males tougher road, and the greater respect for boundaries and borders that would instill. And as pandered to, her base, subsocialized, female as opposed to womanly instincts come to force by way of brute incitement to genetic competition; all “racists” are written off as quaint weaklings as such; none of this historic social capital stuff.
You say to me now, “oh really? White women are at such a basic advantage? What about these heroine addicted whores on skid row? My answer is that this is largely a reflexive effect of the disordering of modernity. Traditionally, a girl/woman might be violated on her basic need levels, her Being, but this was an aberration to what was considered the social norm. But precisely for the advantage of White females in modernity, for the capacity of even unsocialized, puerile females to exercise their penchant for hypergamy with brutally liberal and anti-social alpha males of any race, creating victims of single mothers and poverty, that what once was aberration becomes more common. As I said, these females are at an advantage at least in the short term in the unsocialized disorder of modernity.
Again I would argue that so do blacks have particular advantages in the breakdown of cultural patterns, where momentary and episodic evaluation of this atavistic circumstance provides more opportunity for their long pre-evolved base functioning to reproduce with their own females and with others; and if nothing else, to be fostered as a weapon to be used (by YKW and their gate keepers – puerile females, liberals and right wingers) against White men who might think of organizing in defense; while the YKW remain sufficiently organized, so not overly threatened by black biopower deployed against them.
I would not go so far as to say that there should not be such a thing as feminism for White women, to make sure that they are being treated fairly; but in this circumstance of modernity, post modernity being weaponized, and red caped (which we’ll discuss in a moment), there certainly does need to be a platform in defense of White men, as they are singled-out for attack.
The problem is that the (((red caping))) of post modernity, including the marketing campaign against a characterology of “the left”, has both obfuscated the resource to instantiate that platform properly and has created reaction back into gauche modernism or neo traditionalism oblivious to the sophistication required to negotiate this circumstance.
For example, the “manosphere” might provide articulate descriptions of female behavior within the (atavistic, less socially structured) context of modernity, where the passions of young females are unbridled to ride the cock carousel, and neither is F. Roger Devlin wrong in describing a Prado 80/20 of fertile women gathering in “hypergamy” with those 20% alpha males. It is correct to say that this is less than satisfactory for men and women both, as most men are forced out of the pairing and mating market, while many women are left single mothers where at all, as the alphas move with impunity through their pick of the day, fuck them and leave them. And they are not wrong to say that this has destructive effects for society as the alphas leave feral, undisciplined bastards, hostile deprivation and poverty in their path; where betas would have made middle class families if given the chance to marry and stay married.
The manosphere’s solution is strictly modernist in response. They describe the alpha male behavior which is so alluring to women and teach betas to imitate it in what they call “game.” They add to this some pickup techniques, and they do defend that it can be applied to an effort to pick up your one and only wife to be, but…
the fact is, that with the focus on alpha impunity, they are not focusing on care and concern to evaluate Mrs right and the health of the social circumstance around, but rather instrumentalizing the means for less responsible sex, including her use of it; and deceptive not only to her, but to his better nature, teaching R selection strategy, where his more European, K selection nature would have been supported in a traditionally society, with borders and boundaries; borders that would buttress the wonders of his more circumspect “game” and the sublime results where his manly European sublimation can flourish; were his “manning up” assessed correctly as requiring attention to group borders and bounds first; while the means to identify an appropriate woman would come after, along with a secure environment for you, her and the people structured in accountability to your interests.
For while Roger Devlin’s proposed solution of re-instantiating the propensity for marriage is undoubtedly a crucial component for the correction of societal injustice and runaway problems; a merging of both Neo-Traditional and Kantian, Modernist/universal means (“can this be good for everybody”), its like having the best berth on a sinking ship without the White Post Modern concern of centering Praxis (social group, e.g., race and ethnicity) and buttressing against the oblivious, impervious roughshod of weaponized Modernity, ravages of competing ethnocentric traditions; unionized buttressing also facilitating coordination where other ethnonations might.
I need thus to turn attention again to the post modern turn, its red caping of what I call White Post Modernity in order to distinguish and articulate the accurate original purpose of its resource – to secure social group systemic correctivity; viz. homeostasis, thus autonomy and autonomy against the impervious roughshod of modernity, ravages of competing ethnocentrisms and even obliviousness to one’s people’s humanness, albeit different humanness unrecognized by monoculturism, an implication of the “racist” charge.
With that, I want to look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Self Actualization again; and discuss how it needs to be re-tooled in order to provide a framework to negotiate race and gender relations, survival and flourishing in the necessary White Post Modern way.
Bateson commented on the liberal system and might well have been commenting on the lineal pursuit of “self actualization” with his remark:
“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns. That is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”
The reason for looking at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to self actualization at this point is because is it of central and essential concern to the direction of western civilization by way of its leading power in the United States at that point, both for the arbitrary form of this (Modernist) expression of Self Actualization and even more importantly, for the non-arbitrary aspect of individualism toward “self actualization” being a central feature in its classic, traditional form of teleological individualism in western philosophy since Aristotle – its most important and esteemed philosopher.
Indeed, the first “critique” (read, shallow, offhand dismissal and straw-manning of an unworthy critic as it did not feature his unmerited, gargantuan ego) was that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was a “garden variety” concern, completely missing the point that the arbitrary expression and “garden variety” commonness through the popular psychology of the human potential movement was not being denied, but taken as a most useful and instructive example in significant part for that arbitrariness, meaning subject to change, critique and renegotiation, while surfacing about a common understanding over the profoundly obliged and popular pattern of individualistic pursuit now culminating from a central essence of western philosophy and its classic philosophical thoughts on individualism – a pivotal aspect of all European philosophy and ways of life.
It doesn’t even matter if asshole or anybody else points to the majority of people who were paying no attention what so ever to Maslow’s version of self actualization; it provides historical occasion and framework – a specificatory structure as Shotter would say, to difference from, shape and craft – in discussion of where this western philosophy of self actualized individualism is coming from, how it is being used, where it might be going wrong, how it might be corrected.
But it is indisputable that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Self Actualization was a central aspect of second wave feminism, its definitive take on individualism by Betty Friedan through The Feminine Mystique, derived from the most influential European feminist text, de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex and its take on feminist individualism. Furthermore, that the individual freedom to pursue and accomplish all one can and “be all one can be” (a motto even taken for U.S. military recruitment), bubbling through the wildly popular human potential movement was the central appeal behind America’s claim and justification as the foremost western power. And it makes perfect sense to surmise that there was a different, unarticulated concern for males in the lower and medium level grumbles of Maslow’s hierarchy.
But finally, that the powerful allure of self actualization and direction of the idea was misguiding and compounding a deleterious implicative force on the social systemic context. … rupturing, pushing aside social systemic accountability, correctivity, homeostasis, in the self righteous, myopic quest of its popular expression, even if Maslow deigned social concern, rendering it as a secondary, “later”, medium level need and America touted its “democracy.” …and while “self actualization” becomes more and more the domain of sociopaths, the context more and more an abyss as much of human speciation and ecology heads toward systemic runaway; to where the pursuit of self actualization serves less and less an audience that can feedback appreciation and reward in their essential interests – hence, meaningless – instead a narrative trajectory largely serving the conceits of sociopaths who deserve not the esteem and reward for their irresponsibility to human ecology and its connection to pervasive ecology.
In correction of this, we need to come back to Aristotle, to where his philosophy on the matter was vastly superior; and then proceed to the White Post Modern turn, which would make further important corrections.
Observing biological nature and our human part in it, Aristotle noted that as biological creatures, we are evolved for optimal, not maximal need satisfaction; not only is deficiency toxic, but maximal excess also. This would be the first contrast with the Maslowian Hierarchy, with its singular focus on stages, once maximally satisfied, lineally sustaining the next “need” or “motive” as Maslow sometimes also referred to his proposed succession of steps to self actualization.
Aristotle would further note our further taxonomic distinction as mammals, creatures deeply dependent, involved and concerned with relationships from our birth. Whereas Maslow plucks out our physiological requirements as the basic level of need, as if we are independent from relationships from the start.
Next, Aristotle would observe that we exist in what he called Praxis, our broader social relations, demographically limited and politically looked after, if not well, then perhaps all for naught: that is why he considered political philosophy to be of first order concern. Nevertheless, humanity’s distinctive capacity for agency, to learn, to change directions (e.g., in mammalian concern for relations), the complexity of relations and reactions thus require a humbleness in concepts of analysis of individuals in praxis; i.e., a different epistemological means that he called “phronesis” – practical judgment; lets say “working hypotheses” as opposed to hard and fast lineal theory as one might hope to derive in observation of physics, like an absolute, lineal hierarchy of needs.
Thus we find in Aristotle’s description and prescriptions more in the way of constraint by which individuality would be balanced in health and responsibly related to social systemic defense from the onset. Whereas “love/belonging” and “democratic spirit” come as a midway concern to Maslow, facilitating the singularly ultimate concern of self actualization.
It would be ridiculous to play a “no true Scotsman” game with Maslow at this point, to suggest that Maslow considered democratic spirit to be expressive of self actualization. That would miss the thrust of his notion of self actualization as it made its way through the American population, where democracy operated more and more on a proposition nation; while the weaponized technology of individual “civil rights” and anti-racism rupture the buttress of classification of humans necessary to sustain the homeostasis of species and their relations through social accountability and thus individuality, its agency and self actualization.
No, Maslow’s version – and the human potential like, short on social context – would play its part in the technology of civil individual rights and anti-racism that rupture the classificatory bounds and borders that protect the White class, genus and species. If you don’t care about the human ecology of Whites, there are likely to be unpleasant consequences visited upon you and any descendants that you may have. If you do care, lets come back to Aristotle for a moment before taking the White Post Modern/Hermeneutic Turn.
Though great for his time, Aristotle’s severe ethnocentrism was liable to run into disastrous conflict with other groups; his teleological notion of individuality was not integrated enough conceptually with praxis, but also limited for its grounding in empirical rigor, lacking in the human hermeneutic capacity for imagination, different levels and orders of conceptualization – necessary, even, to transcend the flux of mere arbitrary facticity, dilemmas, paradoxes, confusing ambiguities, to provide transcendental inspiration and conceptualization over and against challenges to the individual in pursuit of self actualization and to remain abreast of the group borders and bounds that might sustain accountability, thus correctivity, systemic homeostasis, autonomy and sovereignty. His teleological compartmentalization was insufficiently cognizant of interactive contingency, including social interaction; lacking respect for contributions by many members of society, the potential interactive mutability of social roles; even going so far as to justify slavery (teleology of natural slaves); thus, he is justifiably challenged by modernity and post modernity, even if unfortunately (((red caped))) in these challenges.
These are the kinds of things that the post modern, hermeneutic turn was grappling with. Not to get stuck in Cartesian estrangement but turning perhaps first, perhaps secondly, to look at the conduct of ordinary every day people and their language; observing then that not only does principle describe typical behavior but neither does natural fallacy: people are not exactly like animals constantly in struggle for dominance, in a will to power and at war with others; in fact, if one looks around, one sees much more in the way of cooperation and coordination – coordination being the less ambitious project to get along and not interfere with one another; establishing parameters from which the cooperation of fair exchange might be negotiated.
While I’m on the matter of negotiated exchange, let me make a note of the Judeo-Christian boondoggle of the golden rule, which was bound to get Europeans screwed as it does not expect anything in return for giving; as opposed to the silver rule which the (((conceivers))) of the golden rule abide for themselves – the silver rule, in which you expect equal value in exchange.
The White Post Modern perspective would look upon the golden rule as a precursor to the Modernist/Cartesian purity spiral and take a look back to the classic, Aristotelian position on exchange to determine white it might have veered into this error.
Of course Aristotle applied his golden mean to determine competent negotiation in exchange. Minimal competence cannot judge fair value in exchange, cannot receive less than fair value without being obsequious; nor give more than fair value without being ingratiating. Satisfactory understands the fair value of exchange but cannot receive less without being obsequious or give more without being ingratiating. Optimal competence knows the fair value of exchange but can receive less than fair value without being obsequious and can give more without being ingratiating. The White Post Modern view on the circumstance would observe that given the disorder of Modernity, there does not exist the stable criteria to reliably sustain satisfactory competence; one is either minimally or optimally competent.
What are the White Post Modern Implications for Self Actualization in its classic, Aristotelian teleological variant and its lineal/modernist/Cartesian, “foundational” variant of Maslow?
Our historic, hermeneutic turn brings White gender relations into the scheme, but also something radically more fundamental.
The first order of concern in White Post Modernity is the very context of Self Actualization, not only to integrate the Aristotelian process more from its teleological myopia, instead more as it actually comes about with social interaction at least as much as inborn emergence; while restoring his biological concern for optimal, not maximal need satisfaction, and his mammalian concern in priority of relationships right from the onset.
With that we come to the fundamental aspect of The White Post Modern Turn, which is the re-centralization of Praxis, our social group, genus and species.
Its not as if there is no choice for the inquirer here. If one wants to act like it matters a great deal that a tree falling in the woods makes a noise if there are no people left to hear it, to talk about how it counts, if you want to join Hitler in his adherence to natural fallacy that has already taken us far along the path to that oblivion, you can to some extent exercise that Cartesian anxiety.
But if you are not such an idiot, you will take the White Post Modern Turn with me to look upon objective truth inquiries as feedback – important feedback regarding what is true and what we might need to know despite our subjective and relative interests – but feedback to be gauged against our relative group interests, i.e., the people concerned, accountable and amenable to correctivity in homeostasis of the social system which our forebears bequeathed us (with much sacrifice), upon which we and our legacy rely. If you are charitably concerned with others, individuals and groups, this is the way to ensure you have the means to be of help.
Hence the White Post Modern turn would look upon Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and prescribe a radical revision; viz, that absent the social relations upon which we depend – delimited by group in order to facilitate accountability for practicality’s sake, for ideological sake and just the responsibility of those who care for our genus and species – in our case, White (i.e., people of European genetics, genus and species) – occupies the most basic level of needs; in fact, its overall context; in fact, absent conversation there among, accountability thereof, all other “levels” are but molecules in space about which we are oblivious.
Again, I suppose you don’t have to care about the survival, systemic homeostasis and autonomy of our people; you can pursue your self actualization oblivious to social impact; you can throw your hands up and stand aside for the stasis of chance like a goodly detached objectivist, or irresponsible modernist jerk, as it were; but the runaway of our ruptured borders and bounds is not only an irresponsible and unnecessary destruction visited upon our human ecologies, but bespeaks the modernist roughshod over accountability, over border and boundary maintenance (the erstwhile ecology stewardship it might have facilitated) that might destroy us all. …on the way of that destruction, any meaning to your self actualization; watch, for example, as BLM tears down the statues of those once exemplars of White self actualization. Who will care about your self actualization?
Kenneth Gergen made what I found to be an insidious change to a blurb that he wrote for a social constructionist conference that I organized. He added the term “immigration flows” as if immigration was a force of nature beyond human accountability. That is very much NOT a social constructionist take on immigration; even though this was supposed to be a discussion promoting social constructionism. And his choice of the word “flows” was disturbing to me as well – how calmly soothing these waves of immigrants flow over us, almost hypnotic – you are getting sleepy White man, very sleepy…
I agree with professor MacDonald’s assessment that Jewish interests are largely intent on disrupting our borders and bounds; but in pandering to the no account objectivism that underpins right wingers and liberals both, they’ve found complicit White people, whether naïve or uncaring. The self actualization and and like anti-social individualist or narrow group interests that they imperviously pursue are an artifact of no account, Cartesian modernity.
And like all positive corrections that would be made in White Post Modernity, this too can and has been (((red caped))); i.e., accountability taken to a perversity beyond reason in the former East Germany, with its Stasi and insidious means were neighbors, families would spy upon each other. The insane environment that spawned the insane frau Merkel and her immigration policy that may well doom large swathes the European genome – forever..
By contrast, a healthy deployment of White Post Modern social accountability as optimal, would be primarily concerned with the borders. Accounts requested within, kept to a minimum. That is paradigmatic conservatism.
And traditional roles and divisions of labor would be observed as largely practical, but not unnaturally, inhumanly fixed, void of the balance, continuum and gray areas to provide the means of empathy necessary for that practicality. Still there would be recognition enough for the ecological requirement and biological profundity of disbursed niche preoccupations so that there would be respect for the value of their necessary contributions, if not holding pattern of evolutionary capital; and respect enough for human ecology so as not to burden it too much (I’m pro choice and pro death penalty because you can’t value life so much as to make it unlivable).
With this White Post Modern perspective of respecting the incommensurable quality of niche differences within the group systemic paradigm and between other groups, the insult and provocation of false comparisons are avoided. The (((red cape))) of being “against equality” and pressure to toxic, unbreathing, unbalanced and non-integrative quantification that puts us in vulnerable, dangerous hubris is put aside; as it might otherwise instigate reciprocally escalating diatribe and war. We are truly looking after the qualitative, horizontal niche concern and empathy of human biodiversity; not chasing Steve Sailer’s lateral, quantifying (((red cape))) of it to serve Ashkenazi interests, masquerading as a matter of I.Q.
This respect for niche ecology is what is behind the benign and useful idea of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” that has been (((red caped))) as world integration and world monoculturalism.
Let us address the wails of the modernist asshole, who, in service of his unmerited, gargantuan ego, would try to suggest that the White Post Modern concern is overly complicated, while he attempts in futility to get back to the innocence of animal mood signs, saying that “nativism” is not a matter of communication, while he discusses the matter with us, how? oblivious to the fact that one cannot not communicate, that we live in communication; as if we are proposing something overly complicated with the idea that we should adhere borders and boundaries for our people; and that there are antagonists who want to overcome those borders and boundaries. As if by point of fact, that many people reacting instinctively in a nativist way is problematic and renders unimportant the White Post Modern project and its correction of red caped ideas. For him, beyond a false Cartesian binary, is a wish for mutual exclusivity to service his autobiography as the one and only voice in point of the foundation; blind to the fact that he chases red capes in his “sweeping aside” of all that “academic” “political” “mere philosophical” (name his strawman of the day) stuff …that does not flatter him in his boomer armchair with his convenient, pop-psychological zen beyond words…. a red cape thrown by Wittgenstein if ever; you, White man, don’t want any of those critical words, any of that intellectualism, any of that philosophy now that its been thoroughly weaponized against you for several decades now, do you?
But nativism is a stable, universalizable criteria and foundation, no? I won’t add to our enemies steady stream of arguments against its being stable enough to be a serviceable criteria – (even if not thoroughly universalizable, as that would be deleteriously Cartesian; e.g. what of the ice age covering England, what then? – as the second most important concern of the English, e.g.
Nor will I compound our enemies argument that as our people had once migrated to what we now consider to be our native lands, and even more profoundly, as we can in fact interbreed with all people on earth, that there is no foundational distinction to the native; no, I would not contribute to their argument; but would rather point to lines that distinguish our species as agreed upon in social construction indeed, reveling in the agency that affords us in attributing how these easily discernible facts come to count for us, and with that agency, locate accountability, coherence, correctivity, systemic homeostasis, autonomy, warrant of sovereignty.
And I would invite those with half a wit beyond the boomer’s reaction to the (((red capes))) of post modernity, to examine with us still further where post modernity was coming from to begin with in order to protect native, traditional cultures and profound, inherited forms against the ravages of modernity; and ethnocentrisms less naively blinded to their interests and advantages.
Exceedingly important though territory is, particularly that with which our mutations are evolved, not a tertiary concern, lets not get stuck, fixed a la Descartes on one place to our potential ultimate detriment. Lets rather find how philosophy of good will toward our people, White Post Modern philosophy, would look after the vital concern of our native lands while managing the dynamics of our group systems; handling the Cartesian anxiety that leaves us prone to hostile maneuvers as it occurs in reaction to modernity’s ravages, hostile etihnocentrisms and red caped post modernity.
The White Post Modern/Hermeneutic Turn to the communications perspective, the interactional view, social consructionism proper.
Central to the Cartesian anxiety which would seek for foundations beyond the substantial warrant already to be found in patterns that abound as opposed to anti-racism (anti-group classification, at least for White people), is the apparent lack of absolute and pure empirical fact of group classificatory bounds and borders; a thin wedge and anxiety in reaction that has been exploited by YKW in red caping.
As we’ve noted already, John Locke declared social classifications a non-empirical fiction that needed to give way to individual civil rights, as all people have the same sense impressions. A Cartesian technological rupturing of social classifications of pattern of connection that would be exploited by the YKW (the temporary gaps and exceptions to patterns being treated as all important), in weaponizations aimed against Whites in their Cartesian purity spiral – “the civil rights act” 1964 and “anti-racism.”
Wittgenstein made and abandoned his attempt at a foundational language scheme in the Tractatus. The Vienna School of logical positivism followed suit but also ran up against its limitations, finding that there was no avoiding some use of metaphor; words always having at least three components, a ‘signifier’ – the form which the sign takes; the ‘signified’ – the concept it represents; and its modifying context.
A sign must have both a signifier and a signified. You cannot have a totally meaningless signifier or a completely formless signified.
In the Analytic school, J. L. Austin would observe that not all language refers to concrete truth and facts like 1 + 1 = 2; but rather acts to determine how matters come to count: “I take you to be my wife” is not describing the world, it is changing the world. “Christening this ship the S.S. White Separatism” if you don’t have a ship nor the authority to confer this designation, and you have not christened a ship. But under certain conditions, that speech act will change the world. The same holds true with the speech act, “I hereby proclaim the union of unions, White genus and species.”
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 04:48 | #
The fortune of the boomer’s position will apparently not allow them to see the lesson in what is required in responsibility, the social corrective, as their good fortune allows them to prefer focus, for their ego’s sake, on what they’ve done by themselves and ignore their social indebtedness – worse, subscribe to the likes of “Uh”, in chasing after the Jewish (((redcaping))) of sociology, its eminently relevant unit of analysis, the group (i.e., species systemic) – along with chasing after and away the (((red caped)), eminently relevant resource of post modernity proper, social constructionism, hermeneutics; chasing away these resources as properly understood and necessary to White homeostasis, with its governance though the emergent communications perspective; and its advance over the transmissions model of communication, which von Forester discusses in his statement that I will post below.
I have become reluctant to introduce this kind of thing here because GW is not honestly concerned for understanding and will treat this rather as an executive toy to display his superiority and to feed his ego, only able to see it from his boomer perspective as a perspective that has been exploited by Jewry, not seeing the neglect of what is being suggested here – that Europeans need to take responsibility for social construction and advocacy – to take the post modern turn from Cartesian estrangement and its vulnerability / mechanism as opposed to the exploitation of and from others, as it were.
But since James invoked one of his teachers, Heinz von Foerster, I wanted to add this little tidbit…
While both Heinz von Foerster and Bateson were a bit more sympathetic to the mechanics of sheer cybernetics, they are both pointing the way to social constructionism and aware of its necessity for the European perspective in order to introduce homeostasis, systemic corrective for the species.
Commenting on Gregory Bateson’s “metalogues”, Heinz von Forester would make the case thus:
What is language? Or better, what is “language”? Whatever is asked here, it is language that we need for the answer. Hence, if we did not know the answer, how could we have asked the question in the first place? And if indeed we did not know it, what will an answer be like that answers itself?
How would a dictionary handle this case that is so different from most others? At the instant it is to tell what is language, it must turn mute for reasons we know now well. I am particularly curious how my favorite dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, would do it. After the entry “language” will it leave, say, two inches of blank space? Or will it have a small mirror pasted at this place so that I can see my own puzzled face? Or what?
Apparently the editors decided against employing such warnings. After an account of the noises (or scribbles) associated with language spoken (or written) they adopted the following definition:
The transmission of meaning, feeling, or intent by significance of act or manner.
If one had no idea about “meaning”, “feeling” or “intent”, one could think of these nouns to stand for some sort of commodity that could be packaged and transmitted. (In fact this seems to become now a popular belief. Take for instance, “information processing,” “information storage and retrieval” and other ailing metaphors). Hence I was going to check on “meaning.” I get:
meaning (me ning) n. 1. that which is signified by something; what something represents; sense; import; semantic content: “Pending a satisfactory explanation of the notion of meaning, linguists in the scientific field are in a situation of not knowing what they are talking about.” (Willard V. Quine)
This precisely was (and approximately still is) the state of affairs when Gregory Bateson and a small group of people sensed that certain pathological disorders of an individual could be treated to linguistic pathologies of this individual’s social environment and that these disorders resisted all orthodox approaches because the attempted therapies themselves suffered from the same linguistic pathologies.
To me it seems that the crucial step toward the success of Bateson and his co-workers was that at the outset they rejected a terminology that would admit notions of “transport”, “transfer”, “transmission”, “exchange” etc. in an epistemology of communication and instead returned at once to communication’s underlying process, namely, to interaction.
Shifting attention from a specific to a more general form of behavior, and, at the same time, brushing aside the semanticists problem of “meaning” seems, at first glance, to be trivial and naïve.
Not so!
There is indeed a fundamental difference between the orthodox and the interactional view, a difference Bateson must have seen very early and which he put in various ways in his many writings. Let me demonstrate this, and the power of this view, on one of Bateson’s charming vignettes called Metalogues, fictitious (or perhaps not so fictitious after all) conversations of a father (I hear Bateson talking) with his inquisitive daughter. Here is the one entitled:
What is Instinct?
D. Daddy, what is instinct?
If I had to answer this question, I may have been easily seduced—as perhaps many among us —to come up with sort of a lexical definition: “Instinct is the innate aspect of behavior that is not learned, is complex, etc…..” Bateson, however, ignores semantic links (they can be found easily somewhere else) and alerts us to the, shall I say, strategic, political, functional, “interactional” consequences when “instinct” is evoked in a conversation. Thus father replies:
F. An instinct, my dear, is an explanatory principle.
I like to refer to this contextual somersault as “The Batesonian shift from Semantic to Functional Significance.” Of course, it does not satisfy Daughter.
D. But what does it explain?
F. Anything—almost Anything at all. Anything that you want it to explain.
I wish to invite the reader to reflect for a moment what it means to arrive at something that explains “almost everything.” Does something that explains anything explain anything at all? Perhaps there is nothing that explains anything? What has Daughter to say about that explanatory principle that explains almost anything?
D. Don’t be silly. It doesn’t explain gravity.
Excellent! How will father get out of this?
F. No. But that is because nobody wants “instinct’ to explain gravity. If they did, it would explain it. We could simply say that the moon has an instinct whose strength varies inversely at the square of the distance.
D. But that’s nonsense, Daddy.
F. Yes, surely. But it was you who mentioned “instinct,’ not I.
Okay, so father got himself out alright. However, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to two points: (1) in contrast to the great didactic dialogues of our literary heritage, for instance, the Socratic dialogues, or Galilei’s Dialoghi (delle nueve scienze) etc., etc., in which the partners mutually support one another by assent, confirmation, complement, agreement, etc., (semantic continuity), this metalogue, by kicking the semantics around, thrives on a personal involvement (functional continuity); (2) explanations—should we like to have one—are in the descriptive domain.” ….“we could simply say that the moon….” More of this later. Right now, lets hear Daughter again:
D. All right—but then what does explain gravity?
F. Nothing my dear, because gravity is an explanatory principle.
D. Oh.
Who would not join in Daughter’s exasperated “Oh”? But she recovers quickly and I shall not interrupt now the fast exchange that follows, I only ask the reader to contemplate the profound consequences of Bateson’s insistence on seeing explanations, hypotheses, etc., purely in the descriptive domain. Watch his use of “say”: “If you say there was a full moon….” etc.
D. Do you mean that you cannot use one explanatory principle to explain another?
F. Hmmm….Hardly ever. That is what Newton meant he said, “hypotheses non fingo.”
D. And what does that mean? Please.
F. Well, you know what “hypotheses” are. Any statement linking together two descriptive statements is a hypothesis. If you say that there was a full moon on February 1rst and another on March 1rst; and then you link these two observations together in any way, the statement which links them is an hypothesis.
D. Yes—and I know what non means. But what’s fingo?
F. Well, “fingo” is a late Latin word for “make.” It forms a verbal noun from fictio, from which we get the word, “fiction.”
D. Daddy, do you mean that Sir Isaac Newton thought that all hypotheses were just made up like stories?
F. Yes—precisely that.
D. But didn’t he discover gravity? With the apple?
F. No, dear. He invented it.
D. Oh.
With the epistemological somersault, the Laws of Nature become inventions, rigor is married to imagination, and Nature is fiction, made up by us acting together. Interacting. Ultimately, this means, seeing one’s self through the eyes of the other.
Heinz von Foerster
Pescadero, California
March, 1981
Let us first issue the necessary caveat that von Foerster is (((von Foerster))) and that would explain his taking the intellectual exercise toward an absurd extreme
But while von Forester’s culminating statement seems to confirm all the worst suspicions of the casual observer of today’s university toward scientific rigor, where undergraduates are encouraged to make of truth what they like, that would be to miss the point.
Bateson and Von Foerster are, of course, pointing to the need of Europeans for a social constructionist take …true that it can be exploited if whites fall asleep at the wheel in search for the innocence of mood signs below language as it were.
While both Heinz von Foerster and Bateson were a bit more sympathetic to the mechanics of sheer cybernetics, they are both pointing the way to social constructionism and aware of its necessity for the European perspective in order to introduce homeostasis, systemic corrective for the species.. …that Europeans need to take responsibility for social construction and advocacy – to take the post modern turn from Cartesian estrangement and its vulnerability / mechanism as opposed to the exploitation of and from others, as it were.
Furthermore, they are taking the hermeneutic turn, observing that there are different language schemes and contextualization of how facts come to count, which, again, implies responsibility.
Hermeneutics is no mere weasel device of its (((red caping))) as commonly misunderstood.
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 15:10 | #
What is instinct? A connate and immutable, primitive reflex (and, therefore, non-“social” in origin) which instructs the rest of the cognitive machinery of the brain non-linguistically and non-ideationally to select, as urgently as is necessary, for survival and the vivifying.
Let me see you hermeneutic that into invention, imagination or fiction.
Ok, asshole. Here is my response, which is that you miss the point as always, no matter how often you are told. Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper, not its red caped and misunderstood variants, do not deny the more factual nor even inborn, but recognize that how these facts come to count has at least a modicum of social negotiation, contextualization, perspectives, at least post hoc; and if there is no post hoc, you are dead, can’t talk about it, others can/will talk and determine how those facts come to count for you.. Nevertheless, there are some things that are as close to mere fact as can possibly be and a person who would propose an alternative story will be (correctly) considered crazy or dishonest (or making a point, perhaps, like Bateson and von Forester).
The point is to invoke the fact of our shared social context, for what are these facts to us if we are not here amongst one another to discuss and deal with them? Hence the prioritization, a much needed adjustment among Europeans from the modernist Cartesian estrangement and instead to the centralization of praxis (our genus and species) as calibration, and the facts – such as instinct definitively spoken about – as feedback, which, by the way, as evolution reached human form, would have been furthered though social reproduction (not a sexuality). And again, even when we are talking of the instincts of our pre-human form, still requires social discourse for it to have any social import.
The bottom line being, Europeans especially, need the social constructionist perspective to sensitize our people to our social indebtedness to our kind and, if understood properly, rigorously, actually provides a better understanding of how knowledge is generated and how our lives work, what facts are.
There is no doubt that the marketing campaign against “the left” and directing White identity to the right and against the red cape misrepresentations of (proper, White) post modern philosophy – as if it were post modern philosophy – is meant to keep disrupting and rupturing (by right or by liberal, same sharp edged, purity and objectivist fetishizing root) our boundaries, keep us from this proper understanding and the homeostasis through structured accountability and systemic correctivity – i.e., the autonomy and sovereignty that proper understanding would facilitate.
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 16:35 | #
You have no grand point to make. You are arguing for something your profs said, and it’s contorted and feeble.
I already have, fucker.
And as I said to your dumbassed Christard flying monkey Thorn,
Thornblossom, you (have the nerve) to ask, in the spirit of GW’s gaslighting, what have I accomplished?
I have solved the riddling, contorted misdirection of Jewry and charted the path to sovereignty; lies will never take it away.
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 08 Aug 2021 15:28 | #
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 16:35 | #
You have no grand point to make. You are arguing for something your profs said, and it’s contorted and feeble.
You stupid, dishonest, lying fucking creep with your narcissistic personality disorder. You never fail to disgust me at how you deceive yourself in order to adhere to your autobiography of the great slayer of academic pretense and chimera and your altercast of me as the your academic foil, merely regurgitating what professors of whatever Marxist stipe have told me.
Nothing, in the desiccated peanut that was your brain, now rattling around in the vacuous cavern that is your skull, will allow you to be honest:
To look at what I am saying as inference, significantly where not radically transformed in purpose from anything my professors have said or suggested where I have talked to them. If you were honest enough to make even a cursory effort, you could find NO such parroting on my part of things they said, nor sheer beholdenness and regurgitation of passively received information. Moreover, if you had any significant breadth of knowledge, you would know that many if not most of the things that I’ve presented I’ve generated apart from any conversation with professors; much of it not even erudition, but inference from life experience.
More, I have several “grand points to make”…already have, and your ignoring them for the sake of your unmerited, gargantuan ego (your narcissistic personality disorder) will never change that.
Hermeneutics is the crucial aspect of the Post Modern Turn, so much so that it is alternatively referred to as The Hermeneutic Turn. It is a method of inquiry engaging historical perspective and narrative form, providing liberation from mere facticity in the thrownness of arbitrary circumstance, flux, moment and episode to transcendent recontextualization as it were. With that capacity, it provides the means to amend and transcend paradoxes, strange and charmed loops, dilemmas, confusions and obstructions. As such, it facilitates the first requirement of any human or group in the world – coherence (and what Heidegger would call authenticity). And this is not the lineal, impervious coherence of modernity, but rather interactive and engaged as White Post Modern. It’s mandate is anti-Cartesian and an alternative means of inquiry, moving, as need be, from securing our emergent qualities, holding fast, looking into facts as rigorously and microscopically as need be; achieving operational verifiability and warranted assertability as one might require; then moving with as much imagination and broad perspective as need be in order to provide contextualization, inspiration and working hypotheses.
Hermeneutics provides the means for coherence, thus accountability, agency, correctivity, thus systemic homeostasis, alternative rage of functional autonomy and sovereignty – not purely- hence warranted assertability of our human and pervasive ecology; of our emergent qualities of what Heidegger would call authenticity.
Hermeneutics is Not a matter of anti-science and the capacity to make of one’s self and matters whatever interpretation one likes; as the (((red cape))) sold by tenured (((professors))) and other liberals to 18-24 year olds in the big university business of selling talk would have people believe. That would be Cartesian and would fly in the face of its anti-Cartesian mandate.
Yes, hermeneuics counters scientism, i.e., bad science and bad application of science, but that is a good thing and a far cry from being anti-science (which Professor MacDonald once wrongly insisted to me that it was, having had the red cape of hermeneutics flung in his face enough times. Hermeneutics is what allows one to look at the scientist who might claim that “race is just a matter of a few genetic markers for skin tone” and a few other physiological differences; “but deep down, we are all Africans.”
Hermeneutics is what facilitated the late Rom Harre to initiate correctives to the Lockeatine “empirical” philosophical perspective in its presumption that all people have the same sensory impressions, and therefore should be simply presumed equal civil rights and standing. Rather, people occupy and moved through different positions in evolution, history and lifespan, equipped with different capacities and different narratives by which to make sense. Hermeneutics is the means by which Harre would show how the delimitations of the corporeal self and the contradictions and paradoxes confronted by the autobiographical self might be negotiated.
Hermeneutics is the circulating process that John Shotter rigorously moves through to correct the Cartesian first to third person perspective of objectivist cognitive psychology and behaviorist psychology, noting the rational blindness to its own participation for purported objective detachment, a disingenuous transmissions model of communication, where “mind stuff” pays short shrift to social accountability thereby – “it happens” in passive detachment is supplied instead by Shotter with the agency of observer moving through conjoint construction, shaping, crafting, correcting specificatory structures – more general shared sense making means with interlocutors and observed that are amenable to correction, specification.
Hermeneutics is the means by which I corrected Bowery’s scientistic proposition that a plebiscite vote in Danzig and “the corridor” would have resolved (justly, it is presumed) the dispute over those areas prior to World War II. Bowery’s view is overly limited by his sheer empiricism in this case. While Germans occupied Danzig overwhelmingly at the time, and had annexed the surrounding territory since the time subsequent of Frederik the Great’s aggrandizement, the Versailles borders for Poland and making Danzig neutral under The League of Nations were not arbitrary given historical and logistical understanding.
Hermeneutics was the discipline by which Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, diagnosed the Enlightenment, Cartesianism, the “prejudice against prejudice” …. a prohibitions against classifying peoples and discriminating against their pattern where necessary; and hence turning anti-racism on its head, as far from innocent; on the contrary, hurting and killing people.
Hermeneutics was the means by which Gadamer would circle back to empirical grounds to establish group bounds and popular moral appeal through marginals, which is everyone from time to time, including “the best” among the group. With accountability to and from marginals, we demonstrate ourselves compassionate and responsible to look after our own, thus on moral high ground with regard to other groups as well.
Hermeneutics provides the necessary means to overcome the hypocrisy and betrayal, the bad people among our own, in a word; it provides facilitation over the failed personal relationships; and facilitation over the bad aspects in even our better people, as we are all fallible; hermeneutics facilities transcendence to the pattern worthy of our loyalty and reverence.
Hermeneutics provides the means to transcend the failures and set backs of moment and episode, to connect in confidence and corrective guidance with our inspirational pattern.
Hermeneutics, is the vehicle by which our people, European, White as we are called in diaspora, will liberate ourselves…conceptualize the overcoming of setbacks, Manichean trickery, red capes, paradoxes, dilemmas, strange and pernicious charmed loops, overcome confusion and obstruction to establish coherence, accountability, agency, correctivity, systemic homeostasis, thus autonomy, sovereignty and warrant in our human ecology, stewardship in pervasive ecology.
Hermeneutics is the means by which we can sustain the concept of our classification – despite its apparent lack of empirical bearing – and establish by it the unionized structuring of our peoples, buttressing our ethnonations to provide the structuring of accountability, agency, correctivity, thus guiding systemic homeostasis, autonomy, sovereignty and warranted assertavility; despite the more speculative, less empirically obvious aspects of our patterns.
Hermeneutics provides the liberation of imagination and rigor to take our people to outer space; a necessary recourse should this earthly habitat pass.
Social Constructionism is begotten as the non-Cartesian implication through the shared, i.e., social aspect of language in the Post Modern, hermeneutic turn.
As such, we liberate and locate our coherence, accountability, correctivity, systemic homeostasis, warranted assertability and agency.
But by the same non-Cartesian social constructionist token, the White post modern turn provides accountability and operational verifiability for inborn emergence, qualitative differences, niche incommensurability and genetic limitations of individuals and species.
The White Post Modern Turn implies and looks for agency...
Why it is important to overcome the red caping of social constructionism.
mancinblack: What is new, is that we are being told sex is more or less a social construct and that for this “the scientific evidence is incontrovertible”.
But mancinblack: “Social constructionism” is an important concept which has been Red Caped. It has been red caped as “solipsism” which is the idea that an individual can make of themselves or a group whatever bizarre speculation that they like. How’s that “social”? It isn’t; not for long. That’s the red cape that the right wing altercast chases, as characteristic of “the left”…57 genders from outer space to choose from, “race is an optical illusion”, etc. However, to allege that sex differentiation and gender are mere solipsistic choices, a mere social construct, is not socially warranted – it is Cartesian, as it denies the empirical reality of sex differentiation and the practical complementarity of gender roles (a reality which the vast majority of people will subscribe to for the sake of their survival, if nothing else).
But as Cartesian it is not social constructionist. It reverses the raison d’etre of social constructionism, which is to deal with the modernist, Cartesian estrangement, detachment that doesn’t deal with our social interactive reality, attentive defense of our groups – e.g., the genders and race – against ravages of modernity, particularly as (((weaponized))), etc. Rather, social constructionism corrects this by engaging the interactive process and lets add, emergence, to include GW’s important non-Cartesian emphasis (though emergentism was never shunned by social constructionism proper). Social constructionism proper, maintains that there are four aspects of social construction, always entailing at least a modicum of agency:
1. The more literal: as in constructing a building together. 2. The metaphoric: as in parents “constructing” a child, with the help of some sort of input from any number of people around them at present and historically… 3. The hermeneutic: to manage the non-Cartesian process of inquiry between rigor and imagination as need be to facilitate systemic maintenance (individual and group). Hermeneutics is necessary for the liberation from modernity’s mere facticity and the arbitrary episode into coherence and accountability for both individual and to follow the historical expanse and temporal systemic breadth of our people. 4. The post hoc attribution as to how facts count: That guy may think he’s a woman, but he has a weenie and a Y chromosome, that’s a fact and for us as sane people, that means that he cannot use the ladies room. Of course the bizarre gender stuff is a red cape to make the concept of social constructionism didactically repulsive to Whites, to dissuade our people from it. It’s what “the left does” “those social people” “from their sociology classes” …“those social justice warriors”… But to overshoot, to overreact to the red cape, to react to the deterministic extreme of scientism reduces our agency, keeps us rigid, rationally blinded, susceptible to infiltration, low on social accountability and correctability and thus manipulable…
..extreme reaction also serves our enemies by frightening away normal people as its anti social lack of balanced, real world judgement (phronesis), humaneness and accountability threatens them (‘that’s just the way it is’) .. scientistic reaction can, in fact, become a living nightmare as it can become an impervious/unaccountable founding principle in the case of dictatorships and misdirected war.
This White post modern concept properly understood is meant to provide some agency, but it comes at the price of social accountability (meaning you cannot simply make of yourself or a group of people just anything, not having any empirical lines of distinction – indeed, how is that social?); with that properly managed, it entails coherence through hermeneutic liberation from the mere arbitrary facticity rife of modernity, providing instead coherence, correctabilty (homeostasis is self corrective systems), agency, warrant; including to negotiate niche ecology.
It is important for both individuals and groups to have this concept in order to maintain what capacity for systemic homeostasis (self correction/governance) that we do have – even an authentic (as opposed to arbitrary reaction to moment, episode, relationships) holding fast to emergence, being’s authenticity is facilitated. It is an especially necessary concept for White people to understand given our susceptibility to social group dissolution in propensity for individualism and to take on natural, scientific challenges rather than social group challenges (e.g., trickery).
It is necessary to fight off deterministic concepts thrown at us by our enemies (the opposite of social constructionism, our adversaries will also use determinism against us), such as “migration flows” which happen like a “force of nature” that must be accepted as a mere fact about which nothing can be done other than acceptance… acquiescence to deterministic arguments where it serves adversarial interests – “(((we)))’re vastly over-represented at Harvard because of our I.Q.”, “HBD” (not because of group nepotism).
It is also necessary to fight off the allegation that our freedom is being threatened as such: “they’re trying to take away our individuality”, when our individuality will be destroyed without a group structure to facilitate it somewhere along the line.
Our enemies have red caped social constructionism so that right wing reactionaries chase after the misrepresentation and miss its facilitation of social interactive agency and the vital social organizing function. The YKW are always looking to disrupt functioning organizational homeostasis. They keep right wingers chasing after the misrepresentation and right wingers might even feel clever: “see, scientists can look at a skeleton and determine what race and sex it is immediately” as if they’ve disproved social constructionism… what they’ve done is disproved the red cape and helped the YKW to obfuscate the important concept, which would not deny that factually, there are empirical differences between the races and the sexes.
By the same non-Cartesian token, the White Post Modern Turn recognized inborn genetic limitations of individuals and species.
Though The White Post Modern/Hermeneutic Turn recognizes our agency, is always given to look for our agency in praxis, through our social interaction and in the variegated emergent qualities of our individuality and the genetic clusters of our species, we’re also bound in rigor (accountable in white post modern turn from Cartesian runaway) to observe our inborn limitations.
What right wing reactionaries can’t find in the vacuous cavern of their skulls is that group maintenance, species maintenance, ethnonational maintenance – assuming one is responsible enough to care – is an anti-Cartesian, participatory matter of corrective, i.e. homeostatic process. In their reaction to the massive red caping of post modern concepts, they can’t see that the reason for post modernity wasn’t to deny the significance of inherent, inborn qualities and patterns, but rather to protect them from the ravages of modernity and hostile ethnocentrisms.
Desperate for some sort of stability and foundation to that which they have held dear and see being destroyed by the red, internationalist left, they cling white knuckle to its red capings like a child to security blanket – or insecurity blanket, is more like the red cape at it were – believing that they must do the opposite, fix it there and that they must fix what are parts of a corrective process instead among the red caped stereotypes antagonistic or degenerate of White interests.
What motive Keith Preston has in his endless catering to the marketing program – anything but White Left Ethnonationalism – I am not perfectly sure. But catering in this manner he does to his right wing Christian cohort, Todd Lewis, who chuckled along when Keith looks into the future balkanization and sees factions, some primitive; one small faction being hippies in green luddite farm communes divorced from the sophistication to sustain advanced technology and all it might necessarily afford to confront future challenges.
What motive Keith Preston might have I am not quite as sure, but enemies of Whites would be disinterested at best, and probably more like antagonistic to Whites seeing a profoundly important motive beneath the hippie manifestation. They would encourage right wingers to be freaked out by the organic manifestation, to disrupt articulation, writing it off as a communist movement of the SDS and (((civil rights))) “at best” while suggesting to stupid “trad” and right wing girls/women and other right wing reactionaries that it was all naively trivial, or about peace and love no matter what, the degeneracy of drugs and the free love of Marcuse/Freud at worst.
They do not want you to understand the unarticulated motive of Being that lay beneath the hippie manifestation. That Being is our life and what we want as White men; while they aim to eradicate us and disburse our co-evolutionary females among other peoples. That Being is a verb.
In clinging to the red cape marketing program thus, they do not want to see the Being of White men as a part of a White Post Modern process necessary to protect and reconstruct our most fundamental Being, the organically fundamental, enduring, permanent aspects of our individual and group patterns as they distinguish the human ecology of our species.
There should be no asshole suggestion that the manifest hippie style and aesthetics per se are absolute corollaries to Being and that I insist upon them. It is the motive of Being that these stylisms stood semiotically atop that are important. And critically opposed to the rigid, reifying right wing reaction one must rather see the motive to Being not as a simple, permanent motive of beta male hippies, grubby and weird organicism nor the wildly speculative imaginings of their eastern fetishes, but a fundamental part of an organic process, most essential and the most necessary concern at this point in history for White men still; necessarily instantiated in its emanant validity as part and parcel of the one and only true component of a properly re-tooled notion of self actualization, that is the delimit of socialization.
There is the White post modern hitch as opposed to the modern, universalist runaway. There must be social group delimitation, borders and boundaries in a word if there is to be human ecological accountability – socialization, in a word. Without that, Being is infringed upon and threatened; is constricted form what Heidegger called authenticity and what I might refer to as alternative range of functional autonomy.
Thus, while Being for White men would reject the draft into a war such as Vietnam which represented no clear and present danger to his people; it is not about peace at any cost – as indeed Being is threatened if there are no borders and boundaries. There is no Being in “free love” .. that Marcusian affectation has nothing to do with White male Being. How could it? Men from everywhere vying for your would-be appropriate life partner and the other women that you need to sustain the group pattern upon which your Being and any notion of self actualization depend.
There is a very important misunderstanding in regard to Being through the red caping of social constructionism. Not only are you not free to be just anything that you want (that is neither social nor anti Cartesian) but hermeneutics and social constructionism correctly understood do not only consider autobiography and narrative, but must take into account corporeal grounds as well.
The myopic lure to self actualization through the prism of America’s promise of the opportunity to “be all that you can be” does not only wreak havoc with the borders and boundaries of socialization; it often raises unreasonable expectations to the insult and detriment of natural and inborn limitations; particularly stressed absent the scaffolding to support the way for achievement in niche abilities (in fact, demonstrating the merit in their store of social capital should sublimation be afforded by boundaries), but stressed by competition, threatened to be left behind, alienated from the social capital of which you are a part, co-modified, plundered, in toxic concern for maximization – money, status, whatever – as opposed to the optimal satisfactions of organic process. No time for sleep where there are no borders. No time to learn and value ordinary, practical skills either.
Rampant overvaluation of competition is an atavistic fallout of the disorder of modernity, its ruptured borders and bounds. it is a natural fallacy that fails to appreciate the ordinary every day reality of human praxis; that most is about cooperation, and why should it not be? Are you sure that cooperation does not sustain creativity and that the stress of competition might not leave one only more rigid and repetitive, grasping at straws in platonic forms and Cartesian anxiety, certainly no time for logical tautology and the basics upon which achievement depends.
You say to me, “but look at all the amazing things that White men have done in their self actualization. Are you trying to stop them? Absolutely not. We are looking to facilitate achievement while having the more fundamental aspects of socialization (maintaining social boundaries), necessary to sustain organic Being, its meanderings in alternative range of functional autonomy; the necessary learning and instantiation of respect for routine practices; the honesty, reliability, respect and fairness for the various niche contributions upon which the ethnonational, as any society depends. To facilitate by means of the sacralization of our pattern at its best, in honorary commemoration of our forebears, in service of our legacy, for a world that we can feel ok about our children coming into; in reverence to that which is vital to our survival.
Asshole objects that this is complicated, but it is not. “Clunky”, certainly not. The whole point of a quaternary heuristic is to avoid over complication while doing justice to complexity gracefully, flexibly guiding working hypotheses as specificatory structures.
Where is it not important to our European peoples to have socialization/MidtDasein (the delimitation/unionization of social borders and bounds to provide accountability to our social capital, human and pervasive ecology); Being/Dasein (the anti Cartesian turn to organic being); to liberate our quests for Self Actualization? the respect for Routine Practices and learning; observation and reverence for the Sacred, held sacred for its vital importance to our group pattern survival? to understand this as a non-lineal, organic process interactively ensconced in our socialization.
And what an epicurean delight, the use of pleasure indeed to manage the specificatory structures of this hermeneutic process as need be. For there is not only pleasure in self actualization (be it defined as realizing one’s inborn teleological potential/ or achievement that is recognized as outstanding); but there is pleasure in Socialization/MidtDasein (the security of boundaries, important service thereof; accountability assured, alternative range of functional autonomy thereof); Being/Dasein; Routine learning/Sacred reverence.
The White Post Modern hermeneutic turn advances over both Aristotle and Maslow in its pursuit of these concerns by non-linear, interactive, corrective process, seeking optimal need fulfillment and the balance of being, routine/skill cultivation, the sacral and self actualization in symbiosis with our social systemic homeostasis as the success.
Socialization and its accountability will structure our Augustinian nature in attendance to natural devils and strengthen our compassionate nature to serve our people.
Positive breeding is a fairly complex matter of human ecology and something that tends to happen without any eugenic meddling; anyway, we’re not about to stop people who are doing well from pairing up. For negative eugenics we want to put the breaks on. Yes, people who are not doing well are accountable as well, and should not be a burden, have a bunch of kids that they cannot take care of. But the first motion will be to extend the reasonable measure of help for survival and placement as to where that person might help our group, at least not interfere. Negative eugenics is a contrivance kindred to the shallow manichean trickery of our Middle Eastern enemies; not suitable to the noble Augustinian moral order of our nature. I’m not talking about obvious, extreme cases of genetic defect, making the drooling wheel chair bound a burden on us all. I’m talking about not being shallow and ridiculous.
I am pro-choice for the same reason that I favor the death penalty. You cannot value life so much as to make it unlivable.
And with our Socialization, borders and bounds to our people unionized, we can correct problems in gender relations, make them more fair and enjoyable as well.
Whether a man or woman wants/needs to go up to self actualization, down to Being/Dasein or to focus in the middle in Routine and reverence of the Sacred, we can manage it, accommodate it. The importance of monogamy and marriage will be well institutionalized – sacred and quite possible as an option (none of this natural fallacy crap about its being sheerly unnatural); with help to match people correctly and incentives to make it work. This will increase the incentive for loyalty to our people and take away the draw that the Abrahamic religions have to betray our people. Yes, the traditional gender trajectories and concerns will be best for most people, but we will facilitate the means by which they can become full human beings, as opposed to rigidly fixed within a concern by mere tradition.
Those who opt out of marriage may have to do without a few of the benefits that married couples have, but provided accountability may be looked upon as adding to our fitness for the increasing natural rigor that they take on; provided that they stay within our group. If they want to mix with other races they will be flirting with ostracism; marriage licenses, birth certificates, citizenship, in a word, will not be granted for clear cases of racial outbreeders.
With the parameters of the group assured, much and as much as possible in the way of human affairs will be allowed to come about, bubble up naturally, without social interference, contrivance or accounts requested.
We will be on the moral high ground having structured the means of group coherence, accountability, correctivity, thus systemic homeostasis, group autonomy, sovereignty in human ecology and warrant in coordinated stewardship of pervasive ecology.
Nationalism for all peoples as a means to secure their species survival, a means to see to the needs of our peoples and coordinate with others will not end conflict within and between nations; but it will practically end the most severe justifications for extreme conflict.
Be damned their Mulatto supremacism and the ecological systemic runaway of their global panmixia.
With our praxis, The White Class, centered but in coordination with other peoples by mutual nationalist respect, anti-imperialist and anti-supremacist, objective truth inquiries take their proper place as crucial feedback irrespective but nevertheless gauged against the calibration of our true, relative interests; and function with the corretivity of our systemic homeostasis.
To echo the words of the Basque philosopher, Unamuno, those who would do us harm will be “like waves crashing harmlessly against the rocks of our perfect vision” – that is our union of unions, genus and species of European peoples.
Wonderful the day when we literally cannot breed with other peoples (although that is not the only means by which adversaries can challenge our boundaries), but until then there is a modicum of biological arbitrariness to our distinctive speciation; our enemies will try to take advantage of that; and it will cause the assholes among us great Cartesian anxiety, grasping after absolute foundations and “transit” back to their kind; missing the difference that makes a difference here; that in modicum of arbitrariness also holds the opportunity for agency. Whereas we’d be caused and have no choice were their Cartesian anxiety to be satisfied, we have agency and with that the possibility for coherence liberated above the arbitrary tosses of empirical facticity, providing accountability for our genetic capital, correctivity, hence the means of systemic homeostasis, functional autonomy, sovereignty, and warranted assertability.
“Equality/Inequality” is their red cape. We are not the same. With the recognition of niche evolutionary variance within and between species, we see qualitative and largely incommensurate differences, and are not as prone to false comparisons that give way to hubris and the naivete that leaves us vulnerable. If not caught off guard in the complacency of our naïve insult; we are likely to instigate reciprocally escalating diatribe and war for the hubris.
As we have the means of communication now, we do not need to rely on violence to be heard; let alone a program for mass killing; it is impractical for its reflexive effects (a matter of practicality; not coincidentally, whereby Kant put his moral treatise in terms of pragmatics); we are not right wingers, looking to lord ourselves over and exploit others (with “objective” excuses to do so); they have no legitimate grievance with us; we have the moral high ground; we have the means to our end: separatism is the first step, separatism is the ultimate aim, separatism is always possible.
We may begin our unionization from the inside out, with those who seek to curate their DNA kinds, genus and species – a wildly popular activity, by the way – and from there we may coordinate our DNA Nations throughout the world and one day perhaps the universe.
Patterns can also be difficult on Cartesian anxiety because they are instantiated in manifest expression intermittently. Of course provoking this Cartesian anxiety is not only the intermittentness of racial/species pattern manifest instantiation, but the fact that liberals and YKW are always looking to note the exceptions to the rule, trying to dissuade your “racist” would-be discriminatory classification on those accounts.
There is a folk wisdom in counter to this: “just what we need, the nice ones, to open up the gates for the typically bad ones.” However, neither this traditional folk wisdom nor wailing modernist pursuits of unassailable foundation have been a match for the machinery of YKW niche power and influence through academia, media, law and courts, money, religion, international business/NGOs, the military industrial complex and politics. And never mind anyway, they will say, once they’ve inflicted enough mass brown and black biopower against us.
The White Post Modern Turn of the White Class is requisite.
………
Let me place a first comment, as it were.
I can imagine the typical right wing reactionary response, taking issue with my recommendation that we not get caught in the hubris of false comparison, and rather learn to respect qualitative niche evolutionary differences and their incommensurability.
Taken in by the quantitative red cape of equality/inequality as opposed to qualitative sameness and difference. Taken in by the red caping of “Human Bio-Diversity ” as a lateral, quantitatively comparative matter of “I.Q” (a convenient red cape for Ashkenazi) as opposed to HBD being a pervasive ecological matter of horizontal, qualitatively incommensurate niche adaptational differences in evolution.
I may be mistaken as dismissing I.Q. tests of general intelligence and that is not the case; obviously these tests can help determine who is going to be better suited to educate for engineering skyscrapers, aircraft, to educate in the medical field, etc. The tests have shown predictive value in economic and other quality of life outcomes particularly in a stable society.
The caveat that it is necessary to respect different niche abilities and not get caught in hubris of one’s superiority across the board by false comparison may be illustrated by the example of the White nerd and his pretty girlfriend. Overly confident in his ability to navigate past the low I.Q. Negro, the White nerd casually and complacently makes his way among them; in an instant he is taken in by the relatively high verbal i.q. of a resentful black (who is contemptuous of the hubris of the White who he perceives as weak and derivative of his evolution, the black believing himself better for some abilities – are you John Colerain, Thelonious Monk, Jimmy Hendrix, Michael Jordon? etc. – abilities that he has that the White may not quite), perhaps resentful of the lifestyle that the White may be leading; he then:
Snatches and runs with the wallet of the White. I’ve actually seen this happen to an Australian tourist in New York City; in a friendly greeting of a black who came up to talk to him.
In another instance, the black’s mental state may be exacerbated by drugs and desperation; and he stabs and kills the White guy as he dares to assert resistance.
Another situation I’ve heard from a White co-worker as happening to him: a couple of blacks have a gun; tie him to a chair in his apartment and make him watch his White girlfriend is raped.
There are the countless instances of black on White murders and rapes to go along with theft and destruction of property and businesses.
(While Whites in Cartesian industrialization may destroy land in another way, blacks have a way to destroy lands that were once White as well.)
And in recent decades, there has been the phenomenon of black men taking up with and impregnating White women, not almost always White dogs as used to be the case in the rare instance that you saw an interracial pairing.
Now hubris comes into play where the White guy uses his I.Q. and comparatively good life style that results to over estimate his comparative abilities across the board and in all given instances presented against the black. He may underestimate the use of deceptive verbal skills, sensory acuity, strength, quickness, aggression and ability of the black to assert himself in an instant.
Moreover, he may use the logic of his IQ. to rationalize these destructive affronts to him and his ethnic genetic interests and human ecology. “The coal burner is stupid, we are getting rid of her inferior I.Q.” Ignoring the other qualities that she may have, e.g. immunities, strength, beauty, and the supportive role that her position once played in an overall balanced human ecology. In fact, as the perhaps more physical, less cerebral White guy that was once her natural partner in that balanced human ecology is edged out by blacks who are able to assimilate his detail, rationalized, written off as just stupid (no help in that argument against the Jewish forced hiring and “anti-hate” programs); his reason to be loyal and to care vastly diminished where he dies not die off, once a valuable soldier on our side, managing the border, he’s rationalized away by the White nerd in his hubris; his kind more and more like the parasitic Jew in a niche atop a new Brazil, assimilation to the Mulatto jungle below the option for those lower I.Q. types not in line to have their children intermarry with the tribe.
Rationalizing, he is wise to all this; the blacks are no problem; its all the Jews doing… as the Jews avail themselves of every skill and resentment of that hubris that blacks have to destroy the middle and lower class Whites, their businesses and upward mobility in the red caping of the Covid pandemic, to double down in rationalization of human ecological destruction in reaction to the Jewish red caping (e.g., White carbon footprint should be penalized up to and including loss of livelihood, even death as a species), in red caping of human and pervasive ecology.
We should rather help our people within reason, help them find their niche in our service and hold them to account to no bring us down or be gone from our common ethnonational resource. That is, as much as reasonably possible in accordance with our Augustinian nature, allow natural, Augustinian devils to decide which of us live, where we do not die in service against our enemies and their war against us by Manichean deception.
….
This old post of mine in address of Ryan Faulk, a.k.a., “Alternative Hypothesis”, is also relevant in regard to the I.Q. thing.
I believe the Greeks and Romans (for example) were more inventive than Ryan Faulk is giving them credit for. He is offering specificatory structures (an Alternative Hypothesis) which can work against bad will arguments proffered from the international liberalism of Marxists and Cultural Marxists.
However, that is one of the limitations to the I.Q. and genetics sort of rebuts – the main utility that they have is against bad will and rather stupid arguments.
We are defending our race (genus European) and its species (ethnicities), not I.Q. or even the accomplishments of I.Q. per se. True, the products of our genius are not only an added benefit, but crucial to our survival. However, ethnonationalism protects these differences.
It is primarily stupid and bad will arguments (typically cultural Marxists, projecting their launch into to power, i.e., nepotism and systemic discrimination onto Whites as an argument against White achievement/black non-achievement as opposed to I.Q.) that will need to be defended against when it comes to asserting the value of I.Q. and its necessity to populating functions that require high IQ among our ethnostates; arguments to rebut stupid objections; e.g., if someone were to say that their retarded son should be allowed to engineer a high-rise building.
On the other hand, if a black person, or a Jewish person has a higher I.Q. than your son or your daughter, should you then say that they are a fit replacement, your new child?
This is Luke Ford level absurdity.
It is like a magic trick or a card trick to distract attention from the fact that we are defending species, human ecologies, not a single variable.
Objectivist arguments in lieu of relative racial group interests can disingenuously serve to distract from aspects and doings – other than a blindered, narrow view of merit – that have had Jewish hegemony in niche power and influence as profound ever – a fact they wish to distract from as their qualitative, relative ethnocentric difference is of a different tribe who are largely indifferent where not antagonistic to our group interests.
Naturally we don’t want our positive attributes dragged down, to amplify malfunction, but again, I.Q. rebuts are largely limited to staving-off bad will, typically stupid arguments.
That Faulk is prone to rational blindness in his objectivism is evident in his having sought cooperation with (((Frame Games – who was all on board with the Jewish marketing campaign of controlled right wing opposition – ))) against “the left”, and susceptible to entryism/ infiltration/ subversion as such when he argues that Whites would be better off by shedding some of their low i.q. people and adding some high i.q. non-Whites to our group system.
And you can also see the danger in Faulk’s argument in that he may be isolating one group or area of Europeans; whereas ethnonationalism would serve to protect those distinctions anyway, while not running the risk of throwing under the bus and perhaps even creating antagonism rather than crucial allies among other parts of Europe which may be more a necessary part of our systemic function and survival than he realizes in addition to being perhaps more talented than he realizes.
Finally, the I.Q. and genetics rebut can indeed be used in bad will itself against social justice and to further supremacism, imperialism, exploitation as opposed to ethnonationalism and its coordination. If these arguments are not made judiciously and with the wisdom of ecological thinking (facilitated by ethnonationalism), they can generate unnecessary antagonism within and from without our genus; thus increasing the difficulty of maintaining our group systemic homeostasis, not reducing it.
…..
This issue also goes back to the problem of European human ecology suffering for lack of ecological buffering against non-Europeans; in the case of America for its preponderant North West European demographic; and in Europe, where Nordicism is over-done to the point of throwing Southern Europeans under the African bus and where petty nationalism and imperialism threatens buffering against Asians in the East. We are all under attack as “White.” Our enemies do not make distinctions; our best chances are not in a supremacist ideology that multiplies enemies. Indeed the YKW and their liberal and Marxist trained lackeys have a lot of nerve punishing ordinary, working class Whites for the right wing institution of slavery in America. Finally, presuming that one’s concern is the preservation of a particular European kind, clearly the best means is not to antagonize other Europeans, increase your enemies and reduce your potential allies, but rather the best means to preserve your distinct kind is ethnonationalism and its coordination.
….
A note on “hermeneutics”
I have been criticized in the past for not being clear in what I mean by “hermeneutics.” That criticism has been mostly of bad will, where not outright disingenuous on the part of those who do not want me to be clear because they are anti-White, pro-Nazi/scientism; or against me as the proprietor; or because they have gotten so used to the (((red cape))) of hermeneutics that it has become an integral part of their stage repertoire.
Whatever their problem, their dismissiveness and lack of participatory corrective demonstrates the lack of good will. Nevertheless, in order to stave off misdirection as it should be understood in White Post Modern terms, I’ll endeavor to define hermeneutics; so far a bit more complete than clear and concise a definition, but intelligible enough for those of good will to make sense. I will figure out later how to fit this in the body of the post as need be:
Hermeneutics:
The world is both underdetermined by presenting facts and confusing in the arbitrariness of what facticity there is, and thus we require hermeneutics in order to make sense.
Hermeneutics shuns the pretense of pure Cartesian inquiry and embraces the interactively engaged, circulating capacity of inquiry that language in its means of narrative and conceptualization affords for the sake of rigor and imagination as needed.
And this distinctly human capacity is needed in order to achieve a liberation from mere, arbitrary facticity, as Heidegger would say.
With this capacity of semi-transcendence, as it were, an individual and group narrative is able to amend, reframe, place into a new, better or more accurate context; and with that, interactive challenges, set backs, obstructions, confusions, tangles, dilemmas, paradoxes, strange and pernicious charmed loops, etc. can be amended and transcended; hence affording coherence, accountability, agency, correctability, thus systemic homeostasis, a decent alternative range of functional autonomy and sovereignty (which Heidegger might call “authenticity”).
Hermeneutics provides capacity to transcend bad moments, episodes, relationships, flaws in ourselves, flaws in others, bad people altogether among our kind, so that we don’t become disillusioned, skeptical of it all, and rather might connect with our pattern at its ideal best.
This non-Cartesian, circulating process of inquiry is necessary for its narrative capacity to connect with history, its perspectives and to capture the systemic breadth of group bounds, human ecology, social capital and accountability thereof, in the interest of species and individual.
Hermeneutics is provides a liberation from mere facticity and a corrective to scientism (bad science and bad application of science). It is not anti-science; in fact, it is as necessary to the rigor of warranted assertability through operational verifiability as it is to the inspiration, perspective and comprehension of imagination.
Additional remarks:
The White Class is not a divider of ethnonationalism but a unifier of it – the white class. It refers to the class of classes, i.e., the genus European and the classes of species – ethnonationalism of the various European nationalities.
It is these borders of our people which are the most firm rule, particularly of the genus, European. The borders are not up for vote; the democratic function is not a clunky, quantifiable function of voting, but a negotiation between those having demonstrated themselves to be of sound understanding and judgement of the requirements of ethnonationalism. While certain functions will need to be national, it is probable that around a 60/40 rule of private ownership is necessary. Rules within, particularly for now, shall remain a more flexible matter for the ethnicities to manage; respecting free enterprise inasmuch as it functions symbiotically with the human ecology. True to Bateson’s concept of ‘paradigmatic conservatism”, national borders will have hard bounds, while individual liberties within will be fairly free. Guilds or whatever else designating the niche differences should be allowed to emerge a bit more organically than concern of the borders.
Greg Johnson taught me something new about Vico, which is that he was applying episteme (a-priori judgment) to Praxis; whereas I generally, and still do, for the most part, treat episteme as underpinning poesis, phronesis underpinning praxis and techne underpinning theoria.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkcXrbzZNMo
I will be developing remarks on Hermeneutics and its workings with Emergentism in this comment in order to flesh out the understanding more thoroughly; and then I will integrate this into the post.
Now then…
While taking for granted hermeneutics as a circulating process of inquiry I may not have been clear to make it understood that it goes beyond language and narrative, to include all of the distinctly human capacities of inquiry, including analysis, conceptualization, rule structuring (interpretive, descriptive, prescriptive), all possibilities of imagination and rigorous verification. It also implies physical engagement, interaction with the subjects of inquiry.
I will flesh out the matter of hermeneutics and its necessity a bit more below, but note to begin that I have been clear that it is necessary for the liberation from mere facticity (as Heidegger called it), a liberation from the arbitrary confusion and tangles that the flux of involvement in the empirical world throws at us and rather provides instead for coherence, the first task of any human BEING (autobiography), indeed of any group BEING (historical narrative).
As I had been necessarily focused on the hermeneutic end of reconstruction – hermeneutics being a non Cartesian means of individual and group reconstruction against the Cartesian idea of anti-racism (a race is a classification of group patterns, not a fiction and not immoral to observe as the voices of anti-racism would have it) – focusing on hermeneutics means of sorting out the tangles that antagonists put before our would-be coherence as individuals and group, I noted that the coherence it facilitates roughly corresponds to what Heidegger means by authenticity, and indeed it does. But as I looked at the matter of coherence from the other non Cartesian end, that of emergentism, it became clear that the term “authenticity” makes even more sense, as an individual (particularly regarding their corporeal self as opposed to their autobiographical self) or group (particularly regarding their genetic manifestation as opposed to group history) would cohere with their inborn trajectory, teleology as it were. That is not to say that hermeneutics is at all mutually exclusive to this coherence of the emergent; on the contrary it is necessary to its facilitation; both the sorting out of the “inauthentic” and incoherent and in setting forth the coherent and in guidance as they might hold fast and cohere with the authentic.
The next matter to address is that hermeneutics is a two way street going both ways from more or less empirical in a circulating process (one is not entirely downstream from the other) – circulation is my observation of how this method of inquiry works as opposed to a strict hermeneutic “circle.” It is a process which then affords movement, gracefully (not clunkily as asshole tries to suggest), as need be to provide orientation in broad perspective, or empirical focus where verification and operational verifiability is necessary….. …. this two way hermeneutic process means that it embraces and provides means to maintain and reconstruct emergent, genetic qualities but also instantiates rule structures in the broad social realm to facilitate reconstruction of emergent systems and ward off misdirecting rules, which would send emergent biosystems into runaway and dissolution (liberalism of boundaries by way of Christianity’s purity spiral being a mother of weaponized objectivism and universalism in controlled opposition).
As we fail to draw the slightly arbitrary classifcatory line
as it is disavowed in the Cartesian perspective (viz., Locke’s disavowal that classifications are not empirical and should yield to individual perceptions and rights) and these classifications are finally prohibited in the weaponized, anti racist perspective….
This prohibition of organizing classifications creates the radical disorder of late modernity, and a rupture of its means of accountability…into the arbitrary throws of mere facticity we become tangled; and require the post modern, hermeneutic turn to wrest coherence in autobiography and narrative, to cohere with our emergent, corporeal selves and the patterns of our genetic group history.
Cartesian anxiety which spurs quests above or beneath praxis and its social accountability, requires in remedy the classification (more concretely, unionization – class not being a divider, but unifier of the nation – the nation as the class. The race as the class of classes) to structure socialization, its means for accountability to social capital and the means to negotiate with outgroups…… … … but to manage this/these non Cartesian classifications requires hermeneutics; and I have not been clear to explain that the hermeneutic process of inquiry is not merely a matter of language or even narrative, but of all the other kindred and distinctly human capacities of inquiry and sense making (or nonsense making) of imagination and rigor, including analysis, conceptualization, rule structuring (interpretive, descriptive, prescriptive)….. moving back and forth as need be from more speculative conceptualizations to more empirical verifications. …and yet in this abstract talk of back and forth in hermeneutic circularity or holding fast, to cohere with our emergent telos, we must not lose sight of the crux of the matter for us now as our species is under threat, for it is the concrete matter of citizenship and its management.
Pushed and reacting into our Augustinian predilection for Objectivist detachment from our subjective and relative interests, it becomes all the more important that we overcome the red caping of social constructionism and hermeneutics in order to restore our social systemic homeostasis and not be quite so unaccountable to the unabashed ethnocentric antagonism and susceptibly naïve to the Manichean trickery of other groups….and furthermore, we must re-establish our borders and bounds in order to provide White Post Modern classificatory so that solicitation of our females is not the free for all, without the structure of group accountability at any age – to where gender becomes one of the few meaningful perceptual classifications de facto – women, fire and other dangerous things – and over empowers their prerogatives and predilections, empowers them as liberal gate keepers who are pandered to such that they function at base levels of evolution, prone to incite genetic competition and precipitate an atavistic circumstance, well below the unionized group parameters that would provide for socialization fitting a decent moral order for Europeans.
These next remarks are from my notes and may be a bit redundant to what I’ve put above, but since this entire comment amounts to notes yet be integrated into the piece, its better to be redundant than to leave-out something necessary; so, here goes: Corporeal self / group genetic manifestation corresponds to the emergent end of non cartesian inquiry and (where coherence coheres by holding fast) and the hermeneutic autobiographical /group historical narrative corresponds to the hermeneutic end of the non cartesian inquiry.
Authentic / Emergent vs Coherence as hermeneutics autobiographical/biographical/group narrative
Corporeal emergent and autobiographical self, you need both, auto/biographical and group narrative (remembering, of course, that narrative is necessary for non-fiction as well, just that it is a more ready to yield narrative coherence to facts in the case of non-fiction) for orientation and semi-transcendence of confusing facticity; and, of course, the corporeal in order to stay in accord with one’s personal biology … and while coherence is sufficient to talk about both autobiographical and corporeal … and coherence is the first task, Heidegger’s talk of “authenticity” makes more sense when the concern is to cohere to the emergent direction of the corporeal self.
Hermeneutics as a circularity, is a two way street, of course, between genetics and social rule structures which feedback and reconstruct human species systems or not.
The basic level on any “hierarchy of needs” should be/is socialization
But this requires social classificatory delimitation – without that, there can be no socialization or rather can only be a vulgar, lowest common denominator form that devolves into brute non social, animal realm. …. …. …
CITIZENSHIP IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER. WE HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT WE’VE GOT ONE OF THE MAIN MEANS OF SYSTEMIC AUTONOMY….
…”The Z-Man” copied this idea [social group delimitation as necessary for socialization] from me as he has also claimed “objectivism” as his thing, “what I call objectivism” as a proclivity of White people. It is likely that Greg Johnson put him up to trying to claim these ideas.. Greggy, homosexual elitist that he is, doesn’t what me to get uppity, I guess… also encouraged Andy Nowicky to take my idea about reworking Maslow’s hierarchy… he also lifted my idea about the agency of border control [which I observed in critical response to Gergen]; tried to make my idea of hippie Being Hitleresque along with Robert Stark.. … and, of course, fellow cocksucker, Millennial Woes [can’t even remember the names of all the men who’s penis he sucked] will protect Greggy’s elitism despite the fact that his vertical discrimination lets in antagonists (he banned me for criticizing Mark Dyal), while Millennial Woes goes along with this, doing his part to black ball me on behalf of (((the truth will live))). … … but I digress….
When push comes to shove, moral universalism fails to one’s relative, group interests.
…and the crux of the matter is citizenship, it’s rights, entitlements, obligations, prohibitions ….
Coming back to the hermeneutic necessity [Greggy Johnson says that hermeneutics is just a matter of interpretation, nothing more. While Kevin MacDonald says that hermeneutics is anti-science, also NOT true.
While asshole (GW) tried to say that hermeneutics is my “little dance” or that goes “back and forth, back and forth” apparently whether it needs to or not, despite my having said, invariably, that it moves back and forth AS NEED BE. While he congratulates the Nazi bitch Carolyn Yeager for talking about hermeneutics as “going round and round in a circle” again, missing my distinction in the deployment of hermeneutics as a CIRCULATING process, that may move to subjects of inquiry gracefully as need be, liberated as it were from such mechanism of inquiry…… ….
We must concede a slightly arbitrary line between the European race and others since we can interbreed with all of them. … however, in making that necessary concession, regrettable though it may be as our enemies will try to use it against us, there remains nevertheless an upside in that in drawing the line deliberately, we demonstrate our agency, wresting it from mere causality and arbitrary facticity, liberate ourselves hermeneutically as it were, our capacity for group coherence, accountability, correctivity, social systemic homeostasis, autonomy and warrant of sovereignty…
Even while I correctly extol the virtue of the quaternary systemic heuristic exactly for the fact that can be applied gracefully as a purview on systems and where correction is necessary, of course the contentious, colossal asshole that is GW will try to say that it’s “clunky” (and that everybody says that…as if he knows everybody)….
The Quaternary system is not clumsy/clunky
….it prompts ongoing inquiry
IT IS MEANT TO PROMPT ONGOING SYSTEMIC CONCERN
And its potential to negotiate ambiguity free from fixities too specific is an asset, not a draw back.. as it is TOO COMPLEX IN ITS INTERFACES TO DANGEROUSLY OVERSIMPLIFY AND YET SIMPLE ENOUGH TO GUIDE ACTION
Abrahamic religionists (in the example of Godward and Joel Davis lately) try to affix the matter of faith to these religions, and there is an equally absurd fixation on the empirical end (at least by GW), that “faith”, while apparently a matter of the Abrahamic god, is somehow genetically fixed and one either has faith in that way or not…
But the matter of faith is necessary to wrest from Abrahamics and apparently from those on other Cartesian extreme of empiricism as well in order to serve the pattern of our interests and sustain its reconstructive moral order.
First to note, “faith” need not be absolute. The following definition absent that stipulation is fine: Trust or confidence in someone or something.
Patterns can be difficult to follow and adhere to, a precipitating factor in the Cartesian anxiety because they are instantiated in manifest expression intermittently
We need not require absolute faith in our people and their worthiness, but we need some practices of operational verifiability to warrant faith.
Faith is necessary to remain loyal to the pattern of one’s folk for its better and worthy pattern, when empirical evidence for even the existence of the pattern is not in immediate evidence and where individual members might not be worthy (to say the least); and where one’s self and other more or less worthy members fall short, in moment, episode and relationship.
And there is a kind of faith in the negative consequences of outgroup patterns on our European patterns, as in the example given before of “the good ones”, the exceptions to their patterns directly detrimental to ours:
While it is “the nice ones” that civic nationalist conservatives and especially liberals will focus on, regarding Jews, Muslims and blacks (duly noted Oreo or Uncle Tom), there is a bit of folk wisdom that keeps an eye on the pattern, i.e., the pattern in detriment to Whites/ Europeans: “JUST WHAT WE NEED!” A ‘nice one’ to open the flood gates for the pattern.
To whom it may concern, as with every post on the site, the “Special Terms” dictionary is a work in progress. I have been working on the “Special Terms” dictionary and making significant improvements – corrections of oversights, ranging from simple typos comporting grammatical and syntax error to lack of clarity stemming as a result from what I know but what might not be clear to the reader based on what I’ve said and the order in which I’ve said it.
Greg Johnson is not at the top level and state of the art philosophically. His adherence to right wing identity misguides his own philosophy along with those who might subscribe to his world view with some very basic, therefore potentially catastrophic, epistemological errors. Not the best, but nevertheless very good up to his level and with the energy of yeoman, he has done the study and comprehends much that WN need to understand. Hence, while I have been critical of him, let’s give credit where credit is due. In this discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiKAYeXj-qY
…he makes important points. Liberalism raises the private individual pursuit of happiness over the common public good and takes no responsibility for what really is a shared resource….”it really is the fate of liberalism. If there is no common good, yet we have this institution where you debate policy, to come up with what? a consensus; well, if the consensus isn’t the common good, if that’s a meaningless concept, then what are you doing? Well, the debate is a farce. It just becomes a farce. How then does decision get made? How is debate terminated? Well, somebody puts in a bid, basically. Somebody buys a consensus. …It’s built into the concept of liberalism. There are only private interests. …the highest bidder wins and liberalism drifts inevitably toward oligarchy.”
In addition to correcting some darn distracting typos here and there in the post…
Below the image of “the happy merchant” using “Jesus” as a puppet to mouth the “golden rule/sermon on the mount” (subtitled, “what could possibly go wrong?”), I have added the following paragraph (which is pretty good, summing up and putting together some ideas of mine that I’ve been discussing for over ten years now:
As Jesus condemns even thought about breaking the ten commandments, unconscious guilt is established to reification through petrification; one constraint to the Cartesian point of purity is established and pursued by gentiles to purify themselves of guilt; while later, Freud would provide a sterling example of exploitation of this Cartesian reification in his concept of “unconscious wish” – i.e., suggesting that you really want to submit to this self destructive thing, as opposed to the non-Cartesian engagement in hermeneutics interactive thought process and inquiry, wherein “the sinful thought” or self defeating thing considered, is more like an innocuous (because it is not done in action) thought experiment that is like one frame in an on going film reel to be amended and re-edited for ameliorative recontextualization as need be to show a better course of action.
Thus, for Freud to characterize a frame and reify a frame in a would-be thought process as a “subconscious wish” is an egregious guilt trip coming from an authority figure with power to enforce these ideas, as the Freudian school had; as opposed to something far closer to the truth, the White Post Modern truth, that these thoughts are considerations, mentally tested in order to gain bearings against competition against our interests… more or less experimental, especially if not actively engaged in and only thought about.
Of course, the Frankfurt School’s egregious Herbart Marcuse would go unfortunately far in popularizing the idea that “this Eros” of the Freudian diagnosed “subconscious wish”, needed to be “liberated from it’s libidnic suppression.”