/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

>>165294

The law of identity requires it reflect a property of the thing/person. For people it is more complex for reasons that are political. Color is not a property of things or people. They are perceptions of the mind.

For example: The screen your are looking at now only outputs green, yellow, and blue because people only have receptors for these wavelengths. therefore color is not a property of the patterns you are observing. Identifying the color provides the least amount of information about what you are observing

Color cannot be symbolized. The color you perceive is not a direct property of the object/person. That is what the illusion here demonstrates. Nothing about color qualifies as a property that represents the symbol we communicate as collective identity. People cannot construct meaning from color. We can only project meaning onto it. It is a deterministic direct input that is irreducible and does not itself communicate meaning. Nothing political can be communicated with color identity. Therefore "white identity" is not political. it does not communicate what you think it does. aaaaannnnndd this is why you lose. You choose to lose. But it is even worse than that…

1. It is impossible for color to be collective identity. Therefore there is nothing to be gained. Trying to appropriate an identity only invented to implement Affirmative Action policy is not one that will organize a people as a nation? An identity that pre-determines what people are, that does not include in that process people giving it that meaning, is not an identity people can use to determine a nation. This is why they name you what they name you.

2. The use of color to represent shared cognitive states prevents collective identity from forming. Color is isolated to the experience of individual perception. The cause of the common relationships people share is the same truth obtained by consensus, and also the same cause of the differences we recognize in others. But the cause of those differences is not the differences themselves represented by the color isolated to the perception of individuals. It is not difference that makes a difference which is a cause that has the ability to act as a cause. Collective Identity is what makes that difference different. It represents the cause of that difference in others, that is also the cause of the relationship we share for meaningful purpose. If there is no meaningful purpose, there is no cause for a relationship. Difference cannot bring itself into existence, because difference is not existence. We are the difference we make.

3. Color identity does not appeal to the people it claims to represent. Majority of people who the white color represents, particularly those who still reside on the continent of Europe, have never and will never adopt color as collective identity. Most find it strange and unusual to say the least. Anyone with an IQ above 90 instinctively rejects color as collective identity. There has never been and never will be a color nation for reasons stated here. Americans did not declare their independence from king George as the white color, therefor political action which requires individuals cooperating for cultural and ethnic interests will not succeed by color identity.

4. Color identity is a cattle tag. Color identity represents the shared cognitive state of subjects being subjected to the commands of others. When a descriptive/non-descriptive reference is adopted as identity, it can only result in the reciprocal action for the purpose of who is naming you. Color is unique in that it can only represent a descriptive reference, because people do not share experience of color, and therefore it is impossible for color to represent objective relationships shared between a common people. Whoever has that power to condition the minds of people own its meaning, and they own you when you consent to that name. You are controlled by whoever controls the meaning of that color. This is why they chose this name for you.

5. Adopting Color identity is consenting to libel. Institutions are failing due to failed policy and the people who depend on them need a scapegoat for the problems they have created. The jews and/or urbanites who depend on these failing institutions are scapegoating themselves and using their wealth and status to evade repercussions. By consenting to their scapegoat, you prevent these problems from being recognized as problems, prevent your ability to hold them accountable, and become the cause of everyone's suffering. You might as well just name yourselves "Everyone's Criminal" or "The Cause of Everyone's Problems", because that is what it means when you consent to their names. The ADL is your shepherd and the cost for their service is your dignified existence (MSRP, no refunds).

6. What name you compel the other to identify you as possess strategical value. The other does not speak your language, and they are limited in their ability to empathize on your behalf. Anti-whiteness requires people who use color to identify themselves. By naming grievances as "anti-white", you name yourself as the cause of your own problems by adopting a name that cannot establish causation. This is a Talmudic trick disguised as a solution being marketed for free! Color identity is a mimetic virus. Michael Hoffman describes how this practice is carried out in detail in his book, 'Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare' (pic related)

A. Collective identity is a distributed self-recursive iteration which evolves continuously to match the synchronistic patterns of collective agency over time in adaptation to competitive environment of other collective agents

B. Collective identity must represent a recursive understanding of that relationship we share which materializes in the form of reciprocation to act for the purpose of that relationship.

C. Where observation of a thing is the relationship between subject and object, collective identity is the relationship subjects share by observing themselves through each other’s experiences. The degree to which this relationship can represent shared cognitive states, is the degree to which these subjects can cooperate for a common purpose and for their own interests rather than acting as subjects being subjected to the commands of others. The object subjects share as cognitive states is the purpose they share or telos.

financial incentive is not a factor of collective identity. "Class Consciousness" is a myth, and "dialectical materialism" is an oxymoron.

>>165308

forced diversity creates financial dependence and prevents collective identity from forming. Saying you are duh color does not undo this. Saying you are the color creates disturbances and prevents this from being recognized as a problem

Imagine if you will, if instead of colonizing the west of America, Andrew Jackson forced the native tribes to assimilate with the European settler populations to prevent federalization of America. This describes our global situation and is the definition of tyranny understood through history. The difference now is global and the distribution is everywhere. The nation and its distinction from others exists as function of unique expression, and is cultural/linguistic barrier to political harmonia.

Everyone is everywhere communicating with everyone. The future now is a patchwork of nations distributed throughout a field. We have to adapt to this as nations inter-connected if we want to exercise any kind of influence geopolitically. The Westphalian global order has been a thing of the past for at least 100 years now. It is time to wake the fuck up and use the tools we have available to organize a modern world

Color identity is not normal throughout history. There has never been and never will be a color people or a color nation for reasons stated. Europeans will never adopt color identity. It is really just a post modern Anglo thing left over from the remnants of feudalism that still remains. America only adopted the institutional use of it around 1968ish when it realized it had to distinguish between its own citizens to implement Affirmative Action policy while preventing separate identities from forming (balkanization)

Now just consider that maybe, just maybe, it is possible and quite likely, that people have been conditioned negatively in a pavlovian manner to associate color identity with negative thoughts and emotions.

Now imagine this becoming realized and the need to reinforce color identity as people become aware that color is not identity (the internet)

Now imagine a bunch of these white colors realizing they are getting fucked by all of this, but instead of forming a collective identity or reinforcing the integrity of their nations, they advocate themselves as the "white color". Fucking dumb I know, but it gets worse because this was no accident

>>165320

You have not identified a fallacy or a straw man. The argument is a priori. It is obvious that people are not colors. This is usually the first reply I get. Understanding why this is the case and justifying the ignorance that follows is where the fallacy becomes apparent and its not me

>strawmanning the positions of actual ethnonationalists.

where is the color nation. point to it and tell me. you can't it dos not exist. Color identity is not political. it is population control. It is a barrier to every policy an ethnonationalist seeks implement

>They are, indeed, their genes, though. Culture is downstream from genetics.

THIS. is a strawman. If you read the thread you would see that I understand genetics quit well>>165302. I even describe how such things emerge from complex systems in a format we can contextualize politically that is relevant

>>The likelihood any two people who share truth will share common ancestry is explanation for why people self organize among the identity shared communicatively

>The coevolution of natural language analogs the causal relationships we observe when order emerges from social relationships between people

The topic of this thread is about collective identity and names. WHAT DO THEY NAME YOU

>>165320

>bad faith

how much proof do you need. Yuri was right.

>>165327

>the first nationalization law of the United States stated the nation was open to newcomers who were “white men of good character.”

This was a descriptive reference use for the purpose of legislation. Any US government that legislates ethnicity is an illegitimate US government which is why this is not an argument. You will find at the top of that legislation who those people are. Americans did not declare their independence from King George as "the white color". Where politics is concerned, color is the least useful identifier. It just so happens that along with technology and mass communication, color identity has become quite an effective tool for psychological manipulation. This has to be recognized and a 300 year old piece of legislation does not account for the psychological states of people you are trying to appeal to

>“White.” Why? Because it was understood (and is still subconsciously understood today) that “white people” have commonality in their micro- and macrobehaviors.

no. It was mostly a Anglo thing throughout the colonial territories under feudalism. The whites people could be synonymous with peasant. You are a techno feudal peasant

>“White culture” is a term that is probably too vague to be of use to any specific group of whites, but it sure as hell isn’t too vague to a nonwhite. Everyone on Earth knows the commonality of “white culture”–chivalry, honor, justice, order, empiricism, heroism, and altruism. How those cultural precepts are displayed differs between ethnicities, of course. But they’re all uniquely white, hence why whites can be categorized (and singled out as uniquely desirable, as in the case of the United States’ immigration laws) by their color.

Nonwhite culture (what of it there is, if any) can be similarly grouped. Most caucasoids (not caucasians, but still part of the same species; semites, for example) behave similarly. Most East Asians behave similarly. Most Africans behave similarly. Color, there, is just as valid a neurobehavioral grouping as with whites.

This is not, of course, to diminish the interest and import of maintaining ethnic cultural uniqueness. It’s just saying that we’re behaviorally more alike than we’re not. And that's a reflection of genetics. Part of which is skin color.

Politics = Being with Being

Nothing you stated was political. You cannot BE a color. You cannot DO the color. We have nations. Nations are political entities that reciprocate political action. A color cannot consent to reciprocation.

>>165334

your ignorance is not my pathology. If you cannot understand what is being posted, ask a question or do not comment to the thread

keep pretending like every single one of you hasn't read my post at some point on other platforms within the past year and years prior. Where is your argument? The dumb shit keeps persisting. The same behavior is iterated on infinite loop. Some even dare to treat me like an enemy. But no arguments are ever made and the same dumb shit keeps iterating.

There exists an entire subset of truths unique only to humans capable of achieving collective understanding. Where computers can only produce output functions determined by the internal logic of their code, humans possess the ability to speculate about the future, realize choice, imagine informal possibilities, and observe themselves through others. This unique human capability to understand requires a verification shared through communication. Therefore when the communication between individuals do not achieve a verified understanding, human expression becomes indistinguishable from the deterministic logical input-output of computers and machines. The NPC meme is terrifyingly real, but it is not an unchangeable aspect of human behavior. Black-pills that lead you away from improving our conditions through others are convincing you to masturbate while being anal raped. Refuse to be mounted by that bull.

The methods of disrupting human expression are as various as human expression itself. Many of these methods of disruption are themselves organized human expressions. It is a game of cat-and-mouse. Some people might displace one form of expression unique to specific groups as a means to dominate or control them. By isolating cattle into separate pens we physically disrupt/restrict them from their natural forms of communication thereby domesticating them. By disrupting human expression, people become isolated from each other and must then be provided meaning from others outside the disruption. Censorship is the most important component of this domestication process and can never be completed without suppressing the expressions of people who achieve an understanding outside the disruption-replacement process. Our disruptors are reading our posts now to understand how it is we achieve understanding outside of their disruptions. To disrupt their understanding we must identify and understand their disruptions.

To be successful, our ability to self-reflect must be maximized to the full potential. We must trace every origin of our ideas and conclusions to verify that it achieves meaningful purpose. !Nothing, and I mean nothing is too sacred to criticize. Here in this thread all criticism should be welcome including criticism of the thread itself. Only by this means will we realize choices that were not apparent before, where we may become capable of imagining future possibilities by observing ourselves through the experiences of each other. The deliberation of these disruptions requires minds open to all possibilities guided by purpose we share greater than deliberation of the disruptions. Existing in the future requires minds which imagine a future that always exists in the future. Therefore any solution to problems posed by methods of critical theory can never itself be a true objective purpose. It will be the innovation that hurdles us beyond all obstacles to continue our path of meaningful existence.

>>165404

>>165327

>Hi. Mod here

>I’ve been directed to allow threads (and posts; you’ve damn well seen them) that are anti-white, anti-traditionalist, etc.

Aren't there enough websites for this kind of shit already? I can get nuked on 109 sites for saying "Hitler did nothing wrong" or even "nigger". I just this confirms what most already knew. No wonder the board is dead.

>>165364

I'll back this. I had a vacation in the loony bin for a bit. I also had psychotic friends and family. OP is giving me flashbacks.

>>165294

As for you OP. Take it from someone who knows- NO ONE FUCKING CARES. 99% of these bipedal apes are moronic-mouth-breathers, and literally aren't worth you time and effort.

>>165327

>Mod

>>165470

>Yeah, that’s basically exactly how I feel. It was even worse (if that’s possible, in the strictest sense of the word) during post-kikey 8chan /pol/, where /leftypol/ was allowed to exist and do anything it wanted, and all the other boards on the website were free to ban right-wing speech at any time, but /pol/ was forced to allow everything. Still, it’s no better here.

There is a simple explanation for this. What is being presented to advocate for what you want has no possibilities of producing momentum. If your political decisions are so devoid of nuance that choice is reduce to 1 possibility of two options, your choice was already determined by your inability to perceive possibilities outside of this dilemma. Who wants to participate in something whose purpose is to repeat failure

>>165607

This is a fallacy. By distinguishing everything as either "left" or "right", and then banning the "left", you are implicating the "left" by its negation. Doing the opposite of something is a reflection of its reciprocal. The only productive thing possible is to discard this false dichotomy altogether as it is meaningless in anything politically possible. >>165596

Politics = Being with Beings

~NOT~

-ideology(x)

-the direction wing

-the color

-the e-celeb opinion

etc…

In many ways this "left-right" thing only has one direction. Cthulhu only swims in one direction. Being the direction is knowing. Political distinction is political control

>>165608

>>165607

You know you are winning when you force them to distinguish themselves by /OUR/ direction. >>165404

>>165405

Being the direction is knowing

Metaphysics precedes politics

Realigion is the poetry of politics

picrel #1-4

>>165640

>You really think you've figured it all out and everyone else is just too stupid to appreciate your brilliance, but you're just a mentally unstable idiot.

Another over deterministic interpretation. I did not ask you to read my horoscope and you are not really that good at it.

>1) Color =/= race. People use it as a shorthand, and the Black and White races are named after colors, but it's not really about color. If it were, a Negro albino would be White, which nobody believes.

You make my argument for me. Color does not communicate collective identity. But it is worse than just that. When this disturbance is not understood as a limitation, it acts as a barrier to collective identity and political action. It undermines the nation because colors cannot be nations and people are not colors >>165303 (picrel). You demonstrate this proof by your failure to communicate anything semantically coherent or politically relevant.

>2) You're correct that race is not the be-all-end-all of collective identity, but you make far too much of this fairly banal insight. Race is obviously a component of group identity, and a significant one.

Wrong. I did not make this argument. You must not have read the thread or you have misinterpreted. I question what you may qualify as a category of "race" where such things are politically relevant and require reciprocation to act for the purpose of meaningful outcomes. Color does not communicate this and that is the underlying argument. So then what does? I explain that as well >>165302 (picrel) but it is somewhat complex and requires a little effort to understand properly (so it seems).

The set of arguments here in pic >>165300 #1-9 can be summarized as follows:

Identity requires input to become realized. Simply observing something does not make it be what it is and does not signify those differences which are relevant. We are the difference we make that limit our actions. We cannot do everything and we cannot be everything which is why differences exist. If you do not do the difference, the difference does not exist. You cannot do color and you cannot be color. There are qualifications and success has high standards. Your "shorthand" is a complete failure to do what you claim much less communicate anything coherent.

>3) Race is an abstraction, so you advocate nationality instead as the locus for identity, but nationality is an abstraction, too.

Wrong. Categories are abstractions. If race is just a category then you need better associations that communicate difference/diversity. Perhaps there is an argument for this but it does not concern me. I never bothered to include this word in any of my posts.

NATIONS ARE NOT ABSTRACTIONS. They are social and political entities that enact our being in the world. If your nation is an abstraction then you have failed to be a nation. If it ever occurred to you that you may need to act politically in some way meaningful to your/our benefit, you will need to account for nations in some way the includes yourself in that distinction.

>>165640

>a Negro albino

ok… the negro albino.

>>165640

>a Negro albino

and believe it or not, idiots will post a bunch of albino negros thinking they just got a good smack down argument. It is totally irrelevant to every conclusion I make under this topic.

>>165317

>Now imagine a bunch of these white colors realizing they are getting fucked by all of this, but instead of forming a collective identity or reinforcing the integrity of their nations, they advocate themselves as the "white color". Fucking dumb I know, but it gets worse because this was no accident

>No Accident.

Well what do you expect from a bunch of Fanatic Puritan Protestants that have abstracted themselves out of Reality itself? USA? not even a Name….it's not a Name but a Label. They Sowed this problem themselves.

America? a Geographic Denomination.

The Indians? the Native Americans!

The Actual People living inside the Bureocratic System known as "USA" ? Not the Natives I tell you!

They Never Named themselves, they never defined themselves but in the Negative…we aint' Europeans any more! we ain't British anymore , fuck le King! …of course their Anglo identity was always Present, but at a Foundation Level, it was always rejected aswell! They never felt "at home" in "America"…They never gave Birth to their New Home. They never recognised themselves as not-outsiders…the Native-Americans become Fauna of the Continent, but not the Anglo….but the Anglo is not in Britain anymore….so he is now American! all this contradictions! a Nation that is not a Nation! Even Australians, Canadians, feel the "Americans" as strangers, as not "Kin"; they do feel kinship with and English.

They should have expelled the Africans, but now they are "American" too. But they are Black! and we? we are White!

Their Identity is too Atomized; we wouldn't be even talking about this if it weren't! E.Michael Jones was right; And you are right too! when Identity has been mutilated you define your "in-group" in that Concept that isn't being mutilated, the trap.

"Americans" are too far gone…but they Dominate all other Europeans too! So by attacking "white" identity you get to destroy all European Legacy !So now what is to be done ( for Americans)? You say you are Anglo? Irish? Catholic? Protestant? lel doesn't work anymore does it? It would if all imigrants would have been required to Abandon their previous Identities, to change their names, to Name themselves again and adopt the traditions of their new Kin! but no Nation-State does this….This is in my view the most Fatal Error of Nation-States, that they Act the will of the Bureocracy and not The People , the Ethnos and the Nation living within it, the mayority-minority-religious groups get to Compete for the domination of the State!

>In The Good Shepard (2006), Robert De Niro’s flawed but fascinating drama about the origins of the CIA, there is a quotable exchange that might be a fitting epigraph for the tombstone of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite. It occurs when the blue-blooded Yalie Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) visits the home of an Italian mafia boss, Joseph Palmi, played memorably by Joe Pesci.

>Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something. . . We Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland; Jews, their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

>Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQMzJ5Z7zBw

>It’s all too easy to read that last line as an expression of arrogant WASP supremacism—or as Hollywood’s smear of the now-defunct American elite—and overlook its tragic dimension.

>Wilson here is an intense example of a general tendency among WASPs to dissolve their ethnic and racial identity into a corporate entity, the United States of America. Wilson is America . . . and isn’t at the same time. The USA is the vehicle for WASP power and identity, but its real essence is that of a mass, managerial bureaucracy and geopolitical administrator. Ultimately, Wilson and his class were also “just visiting”; they were just one more people to occupy the U.S.A.’s upper-levels management positions, and were easily replaced by Liebowitzs, Chens, and even O’Reillys.

>St. Patrick’s Day is the celebration of the Underdog—not only the Irish themselves but the perennial, mythic Underdog that is always “just visiting” the United States. What is characteristic about the U.S. is that there is no celebration of the Overdog. There is no St. George’s Day festival, memorializing the people that defined America. In this way, America has no culture. And St. Patrick’s isn’t even about the Irish anymore.

https://radixjournal.com/2020/03/2016-3-17-why-i-c/

>>165625

The proper term is glownigger and that isn't what it means.