Ic have had much concentrated focus on this subject since the first article was posted on Thoughts of a Comrade. As promised, this article is exclusively posted here. The complete, or most complete of them, articles is finally here to post. As promised all the way back in Of Grandeur of Gemacht I, it is uploaded here. New Conclusions and points of confusion have arisen over the course of my thought between the times of the previous articles. See the previous two articles here: Part I, Part II.
Citizen B, the gemachtist we are using as our examinary subject as ye may recall, has fleshed out the conceptions which divide gemacht from grandeur in his further actions, and my further examination of said actions. With that said, Ic must warn that he is but a single subject, and thus his ideas may not entirely fall into line with or represent gemachtism. As was earlier covered, his ideal of best man and society is the free tribalism of Teutoburg, and mine a glorious past of civility and imperium (not in the sense of state expansion via empire, but imperial splendour of state, society, and culture domestically), exemplified by Rome, Versailles, and Preußia.
Not truly spoken of was the dimensional otherso implicit in these two worldviews. Grandeur harks to a specific set of moments and practises in the past as being ideal, whereas Citizen B's gemacht relates to a baseline of a populace, 'the folc/volk' being ideal, and so eßentially as long as he, or the gemachtists generally, can continuously identify the folc as time moves on, then gemachtism remains valid. Gemachtism is time-negligent, meaning that it does not recognise the conception of time as a malleable or determinant state of societal being. Grandeurate, on the other hand, is time-sentient by conceiving of certain times as important in the conception of an ideal man and society.
This distinction has doesaned a rift between Citizen B and Ic. He considers whatever the commoner does and thinks to be most ideal, yet Ic find the rampant influence of such things as post-modernism, maß- or pop-'culture', and peasantile arrogance in ignorance to all be inideal developments. Citizen B must a priori oppose the past, as glorifying the past would invalidate total submißion to the ideality of the folc.
The concept of the folc leads to another incongruence between us. When Ic speak of the 'folc', Ic am merely Anglicising the 'peuple' , unlike Citizen B who carries over the political and social implications from Deutsch, who is speaking of a 'das Volk' entity. That is to say, he is using a particularist term. The problem, however, is that his personal form of gemachtism is globalistic, my grandeurate nativistic. So during discußions, he uses particularist concepts, and Ic use a nativist system with alternative variables depending on nation, both of which doesan the breakdown of lingual comprehension.
Aside from our othergoing views of ideal society is the interred view of who society ought to favour, be controlled by, and be changed by. Ic have two answers to this, one cultural and one economic, but they are not neceßarily mutually exclusive. Economically, Ic triumph the doesan of the proletariat, culturally, Ic am of a faction within the intelligentsia, a faction/niche of which combines Preußian militarism (martial culture) with more generally accepted forms of high culture. Ic feel it neceßary to clarify here that all things Preußian descend from grandeurate, Preußia is the latter-day Rome and Versailles, whilst all things Deutsch relate to a gemachtist folcism. Who does Citizen B and gemachtism regard as the rightful propietors of society? Society ought to favour the folc, but gemachtism holds a very sharp vanguardist stance. Gemachtists have taken the leßons of maß-politic to an extreme, making their own theory of the übermenschen, members of the folc who are either socially conscious or strong enough to lead the folc to ultimate siga, victory. obviously, this doesans both parties to reach immensely otherseem ways of viewing and organising for culture and politic.
Though grandeurate at the surface may seem to be an un- or anti-democratic worldview, its relation towards republicanism and democracy is much more complex than that, not only bedoes of my other personal ideological views, but of itself. As against to gemachtism, grandeurate does not utilise a vanguardist model, or at least not acroß its membership. Practically all types of gemachtism make use of the theory of the übermenschen folc-vanguard. The most which might be said about grandeurate is that it poßeßes a natural distrust of republicanism, but anything else would go too far in violating the personal views of a maß of the membership.
A result of the combination of gemachtism and the übermenschen theory is that, whilst grandeurians tend to do things more slowly, from both caution and decadence, the followers of the united former storm to the next objective, seeking the initiative to put their triumphant will more cwickly into action. Likewise, when grandeurians are engaged in playing with a mind for the long game, gemachtists consider this weakneß, a slow loß subtly in the making. Without continuous gains, gemachtists believe that loß is being incurred, a kind of theory of constant, ever-active motion. Grandeurate does not recognise such a state, believing that, like the concept of the present in time, there dwells a status-cwo, or current position, in the motion of activity. This otherso goes back to whether time-negligence or time-sentience is accepted. Time-sentience allows one to consider time as multiple separate moments, and therefore activity can be viewed from outside of motion. An activity can stretch into to-morrow and so on, for future time dwells as a very real measurement for motion in a specific state, an exact set as it resembles at that point in time. By employing time-negligence, gemachtism is forced to view motion as a grandeurian would view time (id est, view motion as in the stead, in replacement, of time). Motion, as an entity, is only ever a present as it moves forward, as it changes. Motion is timeleß of itself, the concept of time is recwired to examine activity outside of immediate motion. It goes without saying that grandeurate is more keen to focus on strategy, including grand strategy.
At last, we reach the end of this article, and the selection of articles as a whole. Unleß Ic find some new material in regard to Grandeur or Gemacht, Ic shall consider this the ultimate, final word from myself on this subject.
Comments