In this section we will define terms as they are meant by the proprietor of this site.

Backgrounding: Is a term that I came up with to describe an apparent strategy that I noticed going on among visual media, movies, TV, print media. An interracial couple (White woman /black man, of course) would be placed in the background of fore fronted subjects. This always bothered me in particular because it was apparently a way to slip in a race mixing agenda as if it’s already taken for granted – in the background, a pervasive occurrence that is “not a problem for any normal person.” 

For the fact that it got under my skin, I followed the logic and named it. That is, I followed a logic; I am not claiming that others cannot follow this logic as well; but I have not seen the strategy named by anyone other than myself; and it is always important for me to indicate any of the (many) original ideas from my part as NeoNazis (like Carolyn Yeager), Christards, YKW, conspiratards and scientistic reactionaries have been determined to gaslight me, trying to say that I have “no original ideas.”

Cartesian: a pursuit to separate and fix pure foundational causes beyond nature and human interaction or below human interaction within nature.

While the Cartesian quest has more validity in the hard sciences (can be perfectly valid in some inquiries), it is less reliable as a guide in the social world, where people have some interactive agency and capacity to change scope of concern.

Nevertheless, “Cartesian anxiety” an unease regarding the uncertainty of social interaction, can cause people to double down (in “physics envy” so to speak), in white knuckle grasping after unassailable foundations, epistemological overapplication or mis-application to the social realm.

This anxious, ultimately futile quest to inquiry purely separate from social interaction and concern, its agency and contention, takes a first to third person relation to the world beyond subjective and relative interests in pursuit of pure, detached objectivity and unassailable warrant (whether above nature and relative human concerns or below relative human concerns, within nature).

It is a typical reaction to rhetoric of those sophisticated enough to manipulate the social realm (praxis) in their interests, by those that might not be philosophically sophisticated enough to understand any response but to pursue pure innocence in, quote, “unassailable foundations”, i.e., for a detached, Cartesian response in quest of unassailable warrant to claim “that’s just the way it is, no argument granted”; but this pure, objectivist aim has the consequence of truncating social accountability. Christianity provided a form of this reactionary purity quest prior to Cartesianism.

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 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.

A Youtuber calling his channel “Ecological Hermeneutics” brings to my attention a general term that I could apply to this platform. However, I consider that to be on too abstract a level for our human ecological requirements indeed, which require taking ecological hermeneutics to the more political level of left ethnonationalism. While that character may have 12.4 followers whereas I have less than a few hundred thus far, because he has not gotten to the level we’re on here, he is mixed up in nonsense with Dugin, Evola, basically confounding yarns that lend to misdirection by YKW and those right wing/third positionists who are not out of their box (even if they think that they are).

Incommensurability

Incommensurate Resources
…

If communicators express different resources in the practices they collectively produce, they are likely to misunderstand and thwart each other’s attempt to bring into being their vision of what is good and true.

[…]

Some misunderstandings may be socially serious but yield easily to resolution by good mediation; not theoretically interesting problems. However, some types of differences in resources stubbornly resist the efforts of translators and are both socially important and theoretically interesting. Some social critics describe worldviews that are formally incommensurate, they cannot be “mapped” onto each other, because a faithful translation of the meaning produces a concept with radically different significance in the other worldview. In addition, incommensurate worldviews appeal to different principles or practices in adjudicating the conflict between rival interests and significations.

[…]

The problem (of adjudicating differences and coordination among groups) is clarified by the set of terms introduced. If two sets of stories are compatible, then they can be reduced to agreement or disagreement about the same set of issues. For example, both may organize their myths around the story of a hero, and even if they disagree about whether it was Achilles or Hector who was the most heroic figure in the Trojan War, their differences may be adjudicated by rhetorical eloquence. If, however, two sets of stories differ not only in their judgments about issues but also about the issues they find relevant, they are incommensurate. No amount of rhetorical eloquence attesting to the heroic virtues of Achilles will suffice to endear him to a culture that values sensitivity and altruism rather than martial skills. By contrasting martial skills with altruism, incommensurate stores are made compatible. If two sets of stories differ so much that the difference between them cannot even be described, they are incomparable. If we meet sentient aliens who taste colors and communicate telepathically, their stories and ours may well be incomparable.

In my judgment, all human stories are potentially comparable even if they are, and probably will remain, incommensurate. In practice, that means that one take their own and others beliefs very seriously, they work to make them compatible, but they do not expect or attempt to make them commensurate.” – Barnett Pearce

Left and Right:

In adumbration to begin with, the left is a concept of unionization of groups (and from there, coalitions) to look after their Relative interests and empower them against the tyranny of despotic small groups and individuals. These Rightists seek warrant on the bassis of pseudo Objective ideas, whether purportedly beyond nature or within nature, narrowing accountability to human nature in praxis for the sake of justifying advantage with as little accountability as possible, but at the expense of social systemic correctability – homeostasis – upon which all depend. This may sound like a call to extending the franchise of democracy indefinitely. No.  The union sets the parameters of discussion; for example, as ethnonationalists, the borders and bounds of our people, and our demographic makeup are not up for debate. That is the major calibration. With that established, there will be positions of particular responsibility to take in and provide feedback – “correctivity” – not so much by the clumsy, quantitative mater of voting, but by discussion of our interests; whether it is a relative matter or an objective fact that we must consider because it is true irrespective of our relative interests.

The union structures Praxis, our group(s) and its central world view, and as such provides the means of coherence, accountability, correctivity, thus systemic homeostasis, autonomy, sovereignty and warrant in human and pervasive ecology.

White: The tag applied to the genus “European peoples” especially when in diaspora, as it would be confusing to refer to them as European when there.

White Left Ethnonationalism: drawing a distinction disingenuously glossed over  by antagonists to White (European) peoples; viz, the unionization of our European peoples (genus) and national kinds (species) and coalition thereof. This is opposed to The Marxist internationalist left, which purports to unionize the workers of the world against the nation state, which is to be withered away; or Cultural Marxism, which is unionization of non-White or anti-White peoples and coalitions thereof against White unionization, viz, White Left Ethnonationalsm.

This distinction is disingenuously glossed-over by the marketing campaign against a characterology of “the left” proposed as the grand “problem” to be “solved” by rightism on the part of the YKW in particular, as distortions of left coalitions usually having come by way their tutelage have intersected with their interests as they arouse to greater hegemony than ever in key niches. Thus, they sought to promote rightism (pseudo objectivity), to suggest that they have hegemony by sheer objective merit, and they attempt to build coalition with other right wing elitists, encouraging them to believe that their good fortune is sheer objective as well, and owes no account to the relative, systemic interests of their groups, the direct effects, nor the reflexive effects on one’s own human ecology, that of others, or pervasive ecology.

Thus, if there were this unionization of White Left Ethnonationalism, it would be in position to hold elitists and their exploitation of the genus and species to account. Apparently, the YKW don’t want that (nor do right wing sell outs or disingenuous liberals who take the license/licentiousness).

David Horowitz and Paul Gottfried occupy two axial points of Jewish motivation to promote a marketing campaign against “the left” and characterology thereof, while altercasting manipulable right wing reactionary positions for Whites given intersectionality with the (((progressive stack of PC victim groups))) against their Jewish interests, their need to get ahead of the reaction to NeoConservatism’s Operation Clean Break / Wars for Israel and reaction to the 2008 financial meltdown/ bail-out. 

Freedom From Association: Or slavery, as imposed association implies involuntary contract – slavery, by definition. Supremacism and the implication of inhumane/inhuman force at work – thus, non-negotiative, lose right to be free from harmful retaliation – for the denial of negotiative agency they are attributable as would-be slave master for their imposition, denial of the human status of agentive choice making on the part of their “victim(s).” – credit James Bowery for this articulation.

A primary example of a term needing to be defined as it will undoubtedly be misrepresented…

“Paradigmatic Conservatism:”

Is an idea put forward by Gregory Bateson, endorsing strong national boundaries which, in turn, allow for broader individual liberty within the nation. He maintained that the prevailing epoch has stupidly reversed that equation – with boundaries having been allowed to run wild while individual liberties are pegged.

Praxis:

Praxis is a term that Aristotle used to designate the social group category, its concerns and nature, as opposed to pure theory (“Theoria”) or the arts and crafts (“Poesis”).

I have been stupidly criticized as using “unnecessary jargon” by STEM nerd Hitler-lover, Tanstaafl and one or two other Hitler lovers, who have tried to depict me as pretentious in this usage. They miss important points.

First of all, I want to re-appropriate this term, taking it back for European man after the Marxists have co-opted it and abused it for (((their))) aims for so long. But neither is it as petty as that. 

Praxis in Aristotelian sense is crucial for Europeans to understand in its nature and that it occupies the central place in world view – that is the crucial point of the White Post Modern turn from Modernity’s Cartesian estrangement (as opposed to  the (((red caped))) obfuscations of (((“post modernity”))).

Aristotle provides the correct answer to the question for human interests, “If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise?” with the practical answer, yes, it would assuredly make sound waves but may as well not if there are no people there to discuss the matter. That is, Aristotle held that politics, in a very broad understanding of what is meant by “politics”, you might even say, “metapolitics”,  is the first philosophical concern; for if that is out of whack, then all other concerns may be for naught. So, we are already in the social realm, to the chagrin of the asshole known as GW.

Aristotle goes further to explain that Praxis is of a different nature than what he called Theoria, the realm of science as it moves toward hard physics; i.e., with its more simple cause and effects from which more perfect theory might be derived. Praxis, on the other hand, because it involves humans and their nature, is subject to their agentive capacity, ability to learn and change to some extent.

Even for our very biological nature at the most basic differentiating level from the theoria of hard physics, we are in world of reflexive effects a bit more complicated than straight physics. Take Aristotle’s observation that biological creatures are evolved for optimal, not maximal need satisfaction and that differentiates the nature of praxis into a circulating process as opposed to a more characteristically lineal, maximizing causality.

Then move to Aristotle’s observation that humans are mammals. As such, we are deeply involved and concerned with relationships. With that are going to be more reflexive effects, as people will change course with those concerns in mind.

And then there is humans distinctive capacity to imagine new ways and to learn, which again adds more reflexive effects, putting the potential kibosh on any pure and hard theory. Hence, when trying to deal with Praxis, one must settle for a somewhat more modest claims in working hypotheses and what Aristotle called phronesis – practical judgment. Shotter’s concept of specificatory structures also serves well in this regard.

To note, the quaternary system that several prominent philosophers have deployed shows its utility in that it is both too complicated and ambiguous in its interfaces to wrongly over simplify the realm of praxis; and yet this ambiguity and general simplicity of the framework can provide practical guidance. 

The STEM type, in their concern for precision, is typically bringing a bad pre-occupation to the realm of Praxis, where a bit of ambiguity can actually be highly practical. Some flexibility in working hypothesis is called for in application to the social realm not only because problems for systemic homeostasis and analysis as to its disruption do not tend to emanate from one source but are also subject to people’s interactive capacity to learn, adapt and change in ways that do not follow like the inanimate circuitry/logics of their STEM disciplines.

White Post Modernity:

The White Post Modern project thus is one of understanding and utilizing Post Modern ideas as they would be in service of reconstructing White/European group interests, by accountability and self corrective systematization (homeostasis), facilitating autonomy and sovereignty. Whereas the ideas of Post Modernity (as properly understood in White interests) are obfuscated (largely through the discourse control of the YKW) in their true purpose of holding up against the ravages of modernity, the antagonism of traditional ethnocentrism of outgroups, backwards, self defeating “traditions” of our own.

Now, to the superficial and those indoctrinated of the marketing campaign against the left characterology, it may seem as if this platform is opposed to objectivity, facts, pursuit of natural reality, or cross contextual principles and so on; however, that is not the case. Rather, we seek to place objective quests in their useful function, with their relative merit as feedback, at times crucial feedback, against the calibration of our relative group interests and coordination with others in their relative interests; again, that (centralization of praxis) is what the White Post Modern project is about (properly understood).

Red Cape/Red Caping: 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 even against the concept underlying this red caping and against thus, the very concepts that Whites need to understand and organize their group defense.

Reflexive Effects: Actions and implications of ideas can evoke interactive effects, responses and changes (learning) in the kind of responses in that/those acted upon, and in anticipation of such potential changes on one’s own part.

Scientism: Is Not a criticism of science. It is a term critical of Bad science or the Bad application of science.

Universal Maturity: Is a term that I coined to criticize the notion of maturity that does not take into account critically differing rates of sublimation and sexual maturity between the races, Asia, African and European (as observed, e.g., by Rushton).