He was really a black nationalist at heart, I think. A sound position (at least for the ’60s).

It’s a tricky thing. How best to live when you are under attack — but at the same time still enjoying a cushy existence at the top of the economic food chain? Everyone thinks you are nuts and a whiner. And I guess at one level I sort of am. If I’m at a $60/plate restaurant being served by Ecuadorans making $4/hour and at the same time moaning about oppression, there’s an inconsistency there.

One guy who I think dealt with this challenge very eloquently is Muhammad Ali. He was oppressed in the ’60s and knew it and talked about it and was angry about it. And at the same time he was able to overcome it. He was in many ways a truly loving presence and a man of god — He sacrificed his brain to god in the sense that he kept fighting long after he should have retired because he felt it helped spread the word.

When someone starts reeling off magic black men to me (Che, Mandela, Ghandi etc) I now come back to them with Muhammad Ali. He was the TRUE magic black man and perhaps a role model for NRx-ers wrestling with the problem of how to live creatively in an oppressive environment.

If I mistook your point, I blame your huffy, always exacerbated prose style, which clearly gets in the way of your clarity.

Deserves a quote note.

Yuray’s description is too polite. Let me shift focus slightly to the trichotomy.

The source of NRx is not virtue, but animalistic rage or fear. Not love of truth, but hatred for your enemies. It’s an aversion response as a result of being unmistakeably attacked by something unmistakeably Progressive.
Tech-comms had their liberty attacked.
Theonomists had their beliefs attacked.
Ethnats had their kith or relationships attacked.

The reason NRx are Brahmins and Rx are Vaisyas is simply because Brahmins won’t have their traditions attacked by proggies, whereas Vaisyas won’t be attacked intellectually. (Or something near there.) It’s not like there’s no Vaisyas in England. Yuray’s caste pattern merely matches the pattern of imperialist aggression, which is primarily intellectual in the ‘Brahmin’ areas and primarily social(?) in the ‘Vaisya’ areas.

My point being that if your liberty, beliefs, or relationships haven’t been attacked, they simply haven’t been attacked yet.

The human brain privileges the goal over the process, because in normal humans the executive consciousness is not supposed to know what’s going on. This can be usefully exploited, but in the case of analysis, it causes the subconscious to feed the consciousness approaches for destruction or creation per se rather than curious analysis. Which I suppose is a meta-kind; to perform the analysis so as to discover in retrospect whether it was naturally creative or destructive.

‘Critical’ analysis is an asemantic way of saying destructive analysis.

You’re critically analyzing the tendency to critically analyze. You cannot succeed without also destroying your own argument. Popper rolling in his grave? Well, this argument certainly reminds me of the accusations of falsification being self-refuting.

There is a creative analysis here, which I know because I’ve done part of it. (I haven’t finished because it’s obviously going in an unpopular direction and it’s of no use to me individually.)
What is action as applied to scholarship? Start with thee ur-principle of scholarship: knowing the truth. Action, then, is spreading the truth. As there is only one truth, then minds must converge.
Action, then, for scholars, is converging of minds subject to external discipline.
Action, then, is coming to agreement. Or, prerequisitely, deciding on a methodology for coming to agreement. (Schools of thought are then alternative methodologies.)
By contrast, what’s popular is the impulse that makes Scott Alexander say that blog posts appear for free, and subsequently hoping what appears for free is what you need and subsequently hoping agreement appears for free.

(Agreement does not appear for free. Ref: open your eyes. What happens instead is too many chiefs, not enough indians. I couldn’t hide my own chiefing impulses even if I wanted to, but for exactly this reason I’ve developed strategies of deliberately indianizing myself.)

What does this mean? Well, see above, ref: unpopularity. Don’t know, no reason to care. However, it is easy to see a mass of minds in agreement is likely to lead to some kind of actual implementation for free. WIth enough minds it will happen by chance, and even with fewer it makes action easier in numerous ways. Lowers the activation energies.

It’s worth noticing that the Soviet Union became nationalistic in ways during and following the war.