Majorityrights Central > Category: History

Our nationalist arguments alone, however germane, however well-made, however moral, will not bring the political class and the wider British Establishment to grant our people a hearing.  We are all too well insulated from the political, and that is how our rulers like it.  Nothing will change without a very great pressure from our direction.  But how is that to be generated?  How do we make the Establishment’s dismissal politically unsustainable?  Obviously, only the people themselves can force the issue to the right conclusion.  Politically active nationalists, therefore, have the duty to free and then harness our people’s will.  To free our people’s will we must speak not merely negatively of our crisis but positively of freedom.  They must then speak of their freedom to the Establishment.

How we get from here to there is the subject of this essay.  The good news is that something very like it has been done before.  Its (for any nationalist) sobering story tells how Nigel Farage and UKIP achieved their own historic moment of victory over the Establishment.  That is the general path for any micro-party seeking to change history in a truly significant way.

The campaign for an EU Referendum grew out of the heady ideological years of Margaret Thatcher’s first government and her burgeoning atlanticism.  In contrast to the spring of freedom and change which coursed through that period, the process of European Community integration, with its Heathite corporatist connotation, appeared stodgy and bureaucratic, centralising and undemocratic.  Opposition to it arose both from within and without government, in particular among the ideological free-market members of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet, including Thatcher herself.  There was also a strong contingent of senior backbench Conservative MPs who were like-minded, and there was a powerful caucus of right-wing eurosceptics outside parliament, including the majority of association members and significant parts of the press.  Some senior Labour Party members in both Houses, including Tony Benn, Frank Field and the Lords Shore and Stoddart, also argued against EC integration on the basis of Brussels’ burgeoning power and emerging unaccountable structures.

The first expression of organised resistance to European integration only came later, though, and from within the Tory Establishment.  This was the formation of the Bruges Group in 1989, following Thatcher’s benchmark speech of the previous year to the College of Europe, a speech intended to set out a different vision of Europe’s future from the integrationist one advanced by Brussels.  The speech proved a watershed for ambitious men and ideological europhiles in her own cabinet.  When Thatcher was removed from office in the same year and a leadership election held, the choices being the ambitious John Major or the ideological europhiles Michael Heseltine and Douglas Herd.  Major won and quickly revealed himself to be a conventionalist on integration and just about everything else.  The Bruges Group found itself out in the cold and fighting integration alone at Westminster.

In 1991, during the struggle over the signing of the Maastricht Treaty which was due the following year, a Bruges Group founding-member, the academic Alan Sked, founded a second organisation which he named the Anti-Federalist League.  That act got him expelled from the Bruges Group, not least because the AFL intended to give voters a say by running AFL candidates at elections (which it did in the 1992 General Election and in two subsequent by-elections, failing ignonimously but providing clear confirmation, if any were needed, that to prosper in Westminster elections single-issue parties have to become full-spectrum parties).

With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty by John Major, and the European Community re-named the European Union, and with the Maastricht Rebels within the Conservative Party defeated, the struggle against integration was over.  AFL had lost its purpose.  Accordingly, Sked and most of his members committed to change tack and campaign for complete withdrawal from the EU under the banner of the United Kingdom Independence Party – only to find themselves eclipsed for a time by James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party, formed in 1994 (in the 1997 election campaign Goldsmith stood over 500 candidates and spent more money on press advertising than did the Tories or Labour, all for 2.6% of the vote and no seats.  It deregistered in 1997, following Goldsmith’s early death).

That same year, with much frustration among members at the lack of progress, Sked was toppled from the leadership by a group within UKIP led by Nigel Farage.  The cause of a Referendum had never looked weaker.  Yet what no one knew then was that in Farage it had a top-class media performer and a natural communicator.  Even so Farage was not initially the UKIP leader.  Under Michael Holmes the party fought the 1999 European Parliament elections and won 6.5% of the vote, gaining three seats.  Then, much professionalised under the leadership of the former Conservative MP Roger Knapman, it fought the 2004 Europeans and won 2.6million votes, 16.1% of total votes cast, and twelve seats.  That was the beginning of the UKIP breakthrough.

The strategy had always been to pressure the Conservative Party to return to euroscepticism or, failing that, to maneouvre it to see that its own self-interest lay in giving the people another Referendum on Europe (and, in fact, both objectives would be achieved, the latter first, immediately prior to David Cameron’s election triumph of 2015, the former second with Boris Johnson’s general election triumph four years later).

On coming to the leadership in 2006, Farage quickly cemented the policy, putting together a range of populist policies to attract the Tory voter.  It did not matter that the objective was not to win power at Westminster or even to replace the Conservative Party as the main party of opposition.  It was always about instilling fear and doubt at CCHQ.  To that end, Farage also broke conclusively with the de rigeur plastic-man image of Blair and David Cameron (elected Tory leader a year earlier), and of political spin, and the fashion for youth.  Farage gave forth in the saloon bar, pint in hand, speaking unscripted and much in the manner of any rather well-informed Tory of the shires.

It worked.  The party came second to the Conservatives in the 2009 Europeans, and in the 2013 local elections it won an average of 23% of the vote in wards where it put up a candidate, and in the 2104 locals it won 168 seats.  Finally, in the 2014 Europeans UKIP won a grand total of 4,376,635 votes, 26.6% of all votes cast, and twenty-four MEPs - more than of any British party.

By the time the 2015 General Election hove into view, with David Cameron in 10 Downing Street at the fag-end of coalition government with Nick Clegg’s LibDems, and with party polling showing a likely second hung parliament, Cameron’s party strategists, fearing the loss of another four million votes to UKIP and the return of a Labour government under Ed Miliband, opted to meet UKIP’s challenge head on and include a Referendum on EU membership in the party election manifesto.

When, on the morning of 8th May 2015, Cameron found himself the surprise victor he was saddled with a campaign promise on which he never expected to have to make good.  Ever the PR executive he committed himself to an entirely cosmetic re-negotiation of British terms of EU membership with the other 27 leaders of the member states.  In the campaign which followed, Cameron’s renegotiation package sank like a stone in the public consciousness.  Even the Remain side ignored it, offering a high-handed and unremittingly hectoring defence of our membership.  The two Leave organisations, with Farage and UKIP fighting under the aegis of Leave.EU and the Conservative eurospectic ministers overwhelmingly under that of Vote Leave, presented positive and hopeful messages of a sovereign and free national future.  Optimism, patriotism and the Anglo-Saxon love of freedom had defeated Establishment bullying and deceit and the power of the old media.

The Sunderland celebration on Referendum night - the first result to be called.

So, what are the immediate lessons to be drawn from this history?

First, the party began to take itself seriously.  It did not rely on change coming from some other quarter (say, from Bill Cash and his party-first clique).  It did not rely on “worse is better” in the form of more and better banana stories.  Rather it established a clear political strategy and held to it.  Throughout its period of electoral success it also really understood the presentational nature of its mission.  It knew it had to look like its prospective Tory voters.  When the charge was made in the media that the BNP was infiltrating the party, action was taken to publicly ban anyone with past or present BNP connections – Hope Not Hate was brought in to vet new applications for membership.  The tendency, common in minor parties, for non-mainstream politics to attract marginal people was ruthlessly addressed.  Even the senior MEP, Godfrey Bloom, who bopped the deceitful BBC journalist Michael Crick on the head with some rolled-up papers, had to walk the plank.  Members who told off-colour jokes on social media were expelled.  It paid off.  The press found it had much less of an easy job to paint the party as wierdly extremist and hopelessly amateur.

Second, the party had luck and timing on its side … luck that a skilled operator like Farage, mercurial though he could be, was on its side, and that the eurosceptic cause was shared with a number of senior and respected Tories in cabinet and on the back benches.  Likewise, the Tory press was largely eurosceptic, which at least prevented it from applying an extremist sticker to the party.  The Daily Express, when under the ownership of Richard Edmunds, went one stage further and actually campaigned for UKIP, becoming almost as much a house journal for the party as the Telegraph was for the Tories.

With regard to timing, obviously UKIP under Farage was favoured in a way that Sked’s and Goldsmith’s parties never were.  When Michael Howard retired as Tory leader and David Cameron succeeded to the role, supported by George Osborne as shadow chancellor, the last of the mainstream parties dallying with euroscepticism had gone and been replaced by another internationalist clone-party.  The Tories, New Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, Plaid, the Greens … they were all europhile.  There was just UKIP, the BNP, and George Galloway’s Respect Party arguing for an end to EU membership.  UKIP, therefore, had a ready-made constituency of the deserted.  It only had to prove itself worthy of their votes.

Cameron’s uncertain grip on power was also a gift of Time.  His advisors were telling him that he was dependent on the very constituencies where the burgeoning UKIP vote could cost him anything from twenty to fifty seats to Labour or the LibDem, and thus the election.  That concentrated minds wonderfully.  The final element was the cynicism of the Tory hierarchy, who seriously believed they could steal UKIP’s clothing then, after the coalition is returned to power, send Dave out to the lectern in Downing Street to tell the voters, “Sorry folks, but Nick won’t support a Referendum.  I’ve tried to convince him, I really have.  But his whole party is terribly pro-EU, you see.  So with the greatest regret we are going to have to pass on that one.  Hey-ho.”

Third, UKIP grasped fairly early that it had to become a professional political machine.  Grandstanding about the nature of power in this corrupted world was fine for hobbyists.  But it wasn’t going to deliver votes.  As soon as Roger Knapman took over at the helm in 2002 he began to professionalise the party.  A full-time political advisor was hired, centralisation and strategising took over, and amateurism was discouraged.  By 2005 serious levels of funding had begun to flow in.  By 2011 Stuart Wheeler, a former major donor to the Tories, was installed as party treasurer.  Arron Banks donated £1,000,000 for the 2014 European Parliament election.  In March of that year Ofcom duly awarded UKIP major party status.  It was an arrival!

Love or hate his politics, Farage’s relatability, high national profile and speaking ability (so evident in the YouTube videos of his often hilariously disrespectful speeches in the EU Parliament, viewed hundreds of thousands of times) brought massive media attention, and that brought a mass party membership which peaked at 46,000 in mid-2015, making it possible to fight on the ground throughout England and Wales.

The UKIP path, as such, went through three phases: from 1994 to 2002, when the party was full of naivety and had yet to fully understand the nature of the enterprise on which it had embarked; from 2002 to 2014 when the party professionalised and experienced success and growth; and 2014-2016, when the party matured to the limit of its potential and finally achieved its grand purpose.

It was done by seriousness, a respectable and popular cause also voiced by senior politicians in the other parties, a voter-base that was inherited and so did not have to be built from scratch, a skilled communicator as leader, strong mainstream media support, good timing and good fortune in its enemies, solid funding, a mass membership, professionalism in party management, intelligent policy-making and presentation … these were the elements that together generated the UKIP phenomenon of a minor party changing history in a major way.  These are what political nationalism, in its own “same but different” context, has to broadly match.  Carry on as we are and that will never be done.  Our people will never have an opportunity to bring this criminally errant Establishment under their will.

As the conversation between James and myself on his post detailing the sociobiological history of Euroman has drifted towards some thoughts of my own on the doomed Levellers of the English civil war period, I thought I might post those thoughts here in the following form.

The history of how the ancient, socially vivifying quality of fair-dealing between English brothers in law-conforming pre-Norman society flowed not into the timeless, naturalistic ethnic politics which we espouse today but into the modernist politics of equality and class conflict … that history is interesting and instructive.  It centres on one event in the autumn of 1647 at the very dawn of the modern era itself.  It is a story about the coming time of an idea, and the ideological clamour and energy which impels it into the political consciousness and into history.  It is a story about the ease with which an ancient contention can be suborned and bear consequences quite opposite to it.  It is a story, for us, about what might have been, but also a reminder that we possess the prior right to speak from those vivifying moral virtues which both socialists and Establishment anti-racists so readily and promiscuously ascribe to themselves.

A year and a half before Charles Stuart’s beheading, officers and men of the New Model Army (which had just driven the forces of the king out of London, and set up headquarters at Putney) had gathered along with commoners at St Mary’s Church.  They were there to debate the rights of free Englishmen, the meaning of sovereignty and consent, and the future Constitution of England, all which they did over the course of fifteen days from 28th October to 11th November.  They were the very antithesis of a rabble and a wondrous demonstration of the creativity and high-minded principle which abide among the ordinary and unassuming like water in the rocks.

St Mary’s Putney, sketched by Thomas Rowlandson, though over a century after the Putney Debates

St Mary’s Putney still stands today, hard by the bridge over the river.  Emblazoned on a plaque above the transcept is a single sentence uttered by Colonel Thomas Rainsborough, a Leveller, member of Parliament, and the highest ranking officer present in those fifteen days.  It was the enduring sentiment, and it reads, “For really, I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he.”

The Putney Debates resonate strongly with liberals, and have an honoured place in their socio-political iconography as a watershed for the rights-based liberty of the individual against the over-bearing power of the state.  But Rainsborough’s truism, so plainly of its time in its usage, is also of its time in its relational certainties.  They are not the certainties of present-day liberals.  They do not relate to bloodless civic entities, each induced by the philosophical gods to unfetter his or her (or whatever’s) individual will while domiciled in the constitutional space otherwise known as England.  They relate to “the free people of England”, in the words of the Leveller Manifesto of 1649, actually titled An Agreement Of The Free People of England, signed by Lieutenant Colonel John Lilburne – “Freeborn John”, as he was known – and leading Levellers William Walwyn, Thomas Prince, and Richard Overton.  The text styled England as “this distressed nation” and, most interestingly, “this Common-wealth the land of our Nativity”.

Rainsborough’s England, then, was not at all the neutral administrative space of the liberal rationalist who would come a century after, nor neutral at all but the home we nationalists of today would recognise, where mutual belonging and fellow-feeling bestowed meaning and worth upon the life of every Englishman and woman.

The English Civil Wars are situated in the long (and, obviously, on-going) struggle of the Anglo-Saxon sons and daughters of the soil for deliverance from the Norman heel, and thence from all arbitrary power.  Lilburne – as near to an English nationalist as one could get in that religious age - actually wrote of common law as a Norman Yoke.  It is easy for us as nationalists today to understand the instinctive sense of English peoplehood which imbued and inspired Lilburne and all the other Levellers.  They were populists, and could command the stated support of a third of the populace of London.  But they were a minority in the New Model Army.  While all the parliamentarian forces made war on the degrading, subjugating power of absolute monarchy, the majority did not support the cause of a people’s participatory democracy, as conceived, for example, by Rainsborough who, after uttering his celebrated dictum at Putney, said:

“I think it clear, that every Man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own Consent to put himself under that Government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under.”

And therein is the outline of a second struggle of that time.  The greater part of the senior officers or Grandees, including Oliver Cromwell, the future Lord Protector, had fought not for a parliament with supreme authority over the law but for a constitutionally sovereign parliament above the people.  They fought not to give the people an equal vote but to restrict the vote to landowners like themselves.  They rejected the Levellers’ insistence that the people, not their elected representatives, are the final source of authority, and must be so because, in the words of the Leveller’s Manifesto:

… having by wofull experience found the prevalence of corrupt interests powerfully [incline] most men once entrusted with authority, to pervert the same to their own domination, and to the prejudice of our Peace and Liberties ...

Nothing is new.  Nothing really changes.  Nor would it change after the crushing of Leveller mutinies at Bishopsgate, Banbury, Andover and Burford by forces under Cromwell’s command, all in April and May 1649.  That proved to be the tipping point.  The great London funerals for the murders of Rainsborough in Pontefract in 1648 (in a bungled Royalist kidnap attempt), and Robert Lockyer, executed by Cromwell pour encourager les autres after the Bishopsgate mutiny, were forgotten.  The last full-throated Anglo-Saxon cry for all the people’s freedom and for fair-dealing died away.  It was not, after all, the time for a politics of the people.  It was the time for the modern, and the modernist understanding of the individual and his unfettering will and, thereby, a novel freedom abstracted from its ground in human presence and affirmation.

As the hiatus that was Cromwell’s authoritarian, puritan rule passed, the path was open for power elitism to slowly reinvent itself in the form of the elected representatives of the people and all those who enjoyed special access to them.  Ahead lay Lockean subjectivity, complete with the tabulu rasa, which would take hold in the next generation of elites looking for some promising ideology of human artifice to sink all trace of the populism and naturalism that, for a few short years, had lit the darkness, and which had ... indeed, could have … no place in their own scheme of things. 

Further ahead still lay revolution in France and radical ideas of a social progress which somehow left out the human in substance, and ideas of equality which left out the human in scale; bringing us to where we are today, beset by all manner of deadly and estranging harms but without that recourse to self and kind and nature which the generation of the England Civil Wars had through the voices of the Levellers.

As the urban industrial era solidified so Man became more and more a creature of caesura and of mere socio-economic import.  The Levellers’ cause, especially Rainsborough’s famous dictum, was not purloined exactly but re-interpreted in the only way it could be: as a somewhat picturesquely doomed but nevertheless noble struggle for the franchise and an interpretation of fairness in terms of social conflict and economic inequality.  The real principle ... the cohering principle of being and belonging that animates and explains the Rainsborough dictum (which liberal individualism does not)  may be formulated as:

However rich or poor in circumstance, each and every Englishman and woman has the life inherent to us all to live as he or she may, and none can be insensible to that English life in another of the English yet remain a whole and moral human being.

… and that’s what was lost to working-class solidarity and the nebulous ideal of social justice.  The capitalist stood in for Lilburne’s Norman.  The new political Grandees deftly drew a veil over their Cromwellian proclivities and jumped into the moral shoes of the Levellers.

Even so, it is not liberals or their socialist offspring but nationalists who are the Lilburnes and Rainsboroughs ... the passionate advocates for the people … the populists of our time.  For one thing we actually know who the people are (ie, not Africans or Pakistani Muslims or Roma, or whatever else 21st century Grandees like to claim).  For another, the decades of Establishment destructiveness towards the native British people are far more onerous than any transgressions of Charles 1st upon the religion and estates of his subjects, and it is nationalists who are reminding the Establishment of that.  It is nationalists reminding the English people that we all enjoy a negative right not to be subjected to government abuse and coercion.  Each of our folk has the right not to be cast down and oppressed for his or her love of our people and his or her desire for their freedom and good, and may bring opinions to that effect (or, indeed, to the effect that we do not love Africans or Pakistani Muslims or Roma or whatever) to the public space ... the St Mary’s of our time ... as freely as anyone else.  Fairness requires that those opinions are heard and, moreover, respected by our arrogant latter-day Grandees and, if they are the majority opinion of our people, acted upon.

The Levellers’ fight for fair-dealing, then, is ours now, and in its fundamentals it has not greatly changed.

While I am finishing-up what I think is an important piece on the issue of triangulation against White interests (and I still hope to have it up later today), this material, which was a comment, emerged worthy of shoring-up into a head post.

Although I have been saying this more or less for years, the gas-lighting that I’ve gotten from those reacting to my disabuse of red capes, like children having a tantrum because their kosher coloring book has been taken away, has only forced me to become still more articulate of the matter and to stiffen my resolve. These concepts are simply too important to be swept-aside for whatever motives. There has been no good reason for it; perhaps Nazi idolaters don’t want me to be the purveyor of worthwhile knowledge, Christards don’t want their absurd excuse for a moral order to be shown to be unnecessary or, as I said, the conceptually lame, like children who don’t want to grow up (and out of the provided discourse box), don’t want their characterology of “the left” shown for what it is - a kosher coloring book.

And obviously, Jews don’t want their deceptive games exposed.

While the gas-lighters try to deny accurate inferences that I’ve made independent of academic enforcement, in addition to lived, experiential perspective and various disciplinary perspectives, the disciplinary perspective that I am mainly coming from is a communicologist perspective (interaction unit of analysis); nevertheless, the sociologist unit, the social group concept is more than valid; it does not have to be the only unit of analysis, but when it comes to race and anti-racism, it is central, highly relevant, if not most relevant…and already there in nature, not denying any worthwhile science where it is worthwhile sociology….nobody is saying that we don’t also need biologists looking through microscopes, etc. or “ordinary people” contributing their deep experiential knowledge - in fact, that cannot be replaced. Social constructionism is bolstered by the input of different perspectives and disciplines.

See this response to manciblack:

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. And how is 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 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 a hermeneutic liberation from the mere arbitrary facticity rife of modernity, providing instead coherence, correctabilty (homeostasis is self corrective systems) agency and 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 for our propensities 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 but acceptance. ..or, “(((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.

In a recent podcast, Dangerfield ran clips from an English village in the 1970’s celebrating The Queen’s Jubilee.

Dangerfield remarks among his derision of “Post Modernity” read (((post modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity, and “The Leftists”, read international, red leftists as opposed to White ethnonational left, that these “Leftists” will denounce the celebration of “The Queen’s Jubilee as right-wing reactionary nostalgia.”

This is not really quibbling on my part. Rather, it provides a good example of why it is important to understand Post Modernity correctly, viz. White Post Modernity as opposed to its (((red caped))) misrepresentation along with other language currency counterfeiting the depth grammar of left and right.

Dangerfield says, “these leftists want to say that these English villagers celebrating the queen’s jubilee” is an expression of right wing reaction.”

However, Post Modernity proper, viz. White Post Modernity/left ethnonationalism, would say, on the contrary, that it can be fine and good for these English villagers to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Unlike the rule structure of Modernity, a practice (and a people) does not have to be different and new in order to be good; and should not be put at risk to uncontrolled experimentation.

If it is a healthy tradition, one can feel free to participate and reconstruct the practice/people without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity (as opposed to modernity’s paradoxic mandate to the individual: “be different so that you can fit it”); one invokes a willing suspension of disbelief in the hermeneutic (liberated from Modernity’s mere facticity) and one does so understanding when it is healthy for one’s people (while one is free to Not participate and can give way to Modernization when a tradition is not healthy for one’s people).

You begin to see why it is important to have a clear understanding of Post Modernity, viz., White Post Modernity.

For one clear example, for capacity that it provides for Optimal Competence, as per Aristotle’s description of performance requirements: minimal, satisfactory, optimal.

A minimally competent person could not participate in the Queens Jubilee appropriately, because they would not understand it well enough - thus, not understanding how to reconstruct the practice normally, or adjudge where the practice might be right (despite modernist derision) or where it might be going wrong (despite its having been tradition).

A merely satisfactorily competent person can ONLY participate in a rather verbatim reconstruction of the practice. But given the disorder of Modernity, lacking the stability that once underpinned the practice with assurance (e.g., The Queen has our interests at heart and would never decry those against immigration as “racist”, nor lord accountability to the universalizing Jesus over us, as opposed to accountability to our native people, nor have a grandson married to a Mulatto), there is no such thing as the kind of stable criteria for one to reconstruct; one must have more understanding of the context.

Hence, given the disorder of Modernity, especially (((weaponized))), as it were, there is no stable traditional order to practice satisfactory competence, one is either minimally competent or optimally competent.

* Aristotle’s discussion of minimal, satisfactory and optimal competence uses the example of fairness in exchange and knowing the difference.

Satisfactory competence can only make an equal exchange.

Minimal competence doesn’t understand an equal exchange, might make an equal exchange by accident, or give less than the appropriate value or more than the appropriate value, not really understanding it.

Whereas optimal competence knows the equal value of an exchange but can exchange less without being niggardly in truth or can give more without being ingratiating in truth.

It is not only necessary for English and all European peoples to understand Post Modernity properly, but it is also quite possible, not too hard at all for the vast majority of our people to understand its performance requirements; minimal/optimal. Hence, we must not be deterred by Jewish red-caping of terms and concepts.

Related at Majorityrights:

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

White Post Modernity

State of the Fart Right: why the bum steers from Jonathan Pohl, STFU James, et. al?

Lately, I have been making the rounds on some of the prominent racialist hangouts and podcasts, trying to get attention to the ethnonationalist platform that would make most sense, be the most viable and with that, to cultivate means for its coordination. As always, I am motivated to take theoretical/epistemic misdirection and help re-direct it to solid theoretical premises for the defense and advocacy of our European peoples.

I have been lured into some hangouts in order to defend myself and this platform against misrepresentations that were happening in real time. That’s what this post is about - to defend this platform as the prominent voices presenting themselves as experts or worthy common sense critics on behalf of European/White interests continue to receive and give terrible misdirection. Recently, I was lured onto a hangout hosted by ‘Babylonian Hebrew’, a young Jewish fellow living in New York but advocating Zionism for Jews and honest, hard criticism of diasporic Jewry.

I joined the hangout in order to correct an egregiuos strawman committed against me/this platform by one of those disingenuous diasporic Jews - Kyle Rowland, an obnoxious kid made infamous in the current racialist conversation by his slathering dissimulations on Luke Ford’s weasil streams - aimed to provide ways out of responsibility for Jews.

Anyway, the world should know by now that I advocate a platform of European/White Left ethnonationalism in order to garner the underlying social organization, accountability and conscientiousness that the concept of unionization provides for, along with other White post modern means to manage our population and stave off infiltration, misdirection into runaway and betrayal - of key importance, the perspective of the union is intent on holding elites to account to our group (union) interests.

Now, Kyle Rowland has been busy peddling the Luke Fraud line that de-emphasizes the hyperbolic ethnocentrism and nepotism of Jewry in its assent to disproportionate if not hegemonic representation in niches of power and influence; at the same time emphasizing argumentation that Jews have achieved this according to objective merit; while Whites have suffered where they have suffered for lack of objective merit.

Predictably, Kyle had tried to strawman me/this platform with stereotypes of this platform being anti-elite so that he could discourage those Whites of powerful resource from taking our side.

I was happy to disabuse the world of this strawman. It is one of the benefits of defining the left for ourselves, viz., a White ethnonational left is not equalitarian, not against private property, relatively free enterprise and people having more according to their merit. It is not against elites, it is about holding all union members, especially including elites, to account - they will not betraý our unionized interests.

Kyle responded that ‘‘your kind always says that’ ...‘you are an anti-social right winger.”

Ah, I rejoined, in truth, that I am not anti-social - you want White advocates to be anti-social and that’s why you want them to identify as right wing, paying short shrift to social accountability in futile quest for pure warrant beyond or within nature, below relative human group interests.

At this point Ecce Lux joined-in against Kyle, wanting him to steel-man his argument that race replacement is immoral. Ecce did well, and I pointed out as well that Kyle was making an egregious buyer beware argument - if White people are hoodwinked into accepting race replacement it’s their fault. But I also pointed out to Ecce that anti race replacement is not the strongest angle in America, because Kyle could just hit you, as he already had, with the displacement of native Americans by Whites.

A better tack is to argue carrying capacity and from there segue into human ecology ... well, we’re sorry about the history but it is history and we’ve got to manage carrying capacity and human ecology now…

This was when Jonathan Pohl’s cohort, STFU James was encouraged by him and other half wits of the fart right to start attacking ...ME…

READ MORE...

Part 1

Part2

Part 3

READ MORE...

I tend to agree with a lot of what MJOLINIR has to say - as in this article - he is correct to recognize Christianity as an affectation at best, more like a defrauding of our moral order which would otherwise be based on our natural interests.

..and to recognize those looking to Hinduism as equally affected.

I would not even quibble with his criticism of post modern architecture, as the architectural necessity of being fixed in one place at one time has tended to create hideous amalgams as a result of modern logistical and economic requirement for efficiency; and the stylistic requirement for some “tribute” to tradition with raped and barren semblances of ornamentation that only make the monstrous edifice more sterile and alienating than modern architecture. That’s not to say that architects may not make better decisions in post modernity…

The ready use of the pejorative term, post modern, and culmination of this article in commendation of the aesthetically appealing architecture of a newly constructed Odinist temple - perhaps with it, a commendation to re-enact this religion - is probably symptomatic of the yet poorly understood concept of White post modernity. Not knowing what to do in response to the ravages of Modernity’s universalist and internationalist wrecking ball, and the (((dada impostor))) of “post modernity”, has some reacting into larping attempts to resurrect ancient traditions which are inadequate to our contemporary understanding of the world and its performance requirements.

With regard to our religion especially, we must avail ourselves of White Post Modernity’s capacity to take the best opportunities of modernity - that is to start anew and take what’s best of discovery. ...in tandem with Post Modernity’s raison d’être to begin with, ergo White Post Modernity - to protect the different inherited forms of people, including ours, from the oblivious ravages of modernity and backward traditions.

Based in our most profound natural requirements (survival includes managed co-existence with other peoples) and taking account of those practices which are requisite to us as a people, our survival and the well being of our time in memorial pattern, we can generate observance to recognize these practices as sacred and bearing reverence for their episodic enactment. We can devise reasonable moral principles to which our people are accountable, which circumscribe our people, genus and species of Europeans, on pain of ostracism, to form a new religion - say 14 Words, genus and species, to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children…

Sacralizing of the episode will help lift it to accountability to a relational level and cultural pattern (our race) beyond the rapacious momentary and episodic performance requirements where the severely atavistic judgement of Modernity’s Enlightenment falls down to, particularly after (((weaponization))).

And there is no reason that we cannot build amazing temples for our new religion.

While our original attempt here at majorityrights was stalled, if not failed, I believe it stemmed from a reaction to “post-modernity” misunderstood as shallow da da irony and “deconstructionism” - therefore, doing it back to the “post modernists”, without yet appreciating the difference that makes a difference in White Post Modernity - which can avail ourselves of the best of modernity, including generating a new religion which is truly based on the deeply committed interests of our people; along with the liberation from anachronistic superstition that religion comes to us through divine revelation as opposed to a negotiation between people (with more or less force - negotiation as in forcing your ways upon obstructive people or around obstructive people; or negotiation as in coming to agreement with others).

Anyway, those criticisms aside, here is is MJOLNIR‘s take on how we might respond to the burning of Notre Dame. He tends to be closer to our view than most.

MJOLNIR, 16 April 2019:

THE DESTRUCTION OF NOTRE DAME

While I am not a Christian, I appreciate church and cathedral art and architecture more than most, for I remember that while the religion is a foreign import that has been instrumental in crushing the soul of European Man, the aesthetics are indigenous to Europe and will be instrumental in its restoration. Unlike some Pagans I could mention, who in any case seem to love an even less European religion in Hindooism, I therefore have mixed feelings about the fire that has brought down the spire and roof of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. There are of course suspicions about whether the fire was started deliberately, and inevitably, we on the Right look towards those who have sought to invade and conquer Europe, whom our corrupt politicians and businessmen have now invited in willingly. Whether the incendiary is yet another Islamic atrocity is yet to be seen, and even if it is, it will probably be covered up by our equally corrupt journalists, who have become cowardly and perverse apologists for Muslim terrorists. After all, several French churches have ‘accidentally’ burned down in the past year, according to the press. What is clear though is that Muslims certainly see the destruction of Notre Dame as a source of amusement and joy:

       

READ MORE...

Part 2a of the audio version as I didn’t have room for all of part 2 at once. There’s a significant edit from what has been the long standing text in that I should have, but do now, mention social constructionism straight-away as part and parcel of the post modern turn into praxis.

While White advocates do sparkle with intelligence and insight at times, seeing how badly they are screwing things up in some basic respects and believing that I’ve got a good handle on these philosophical/theoretical matters by contrast, I’m venturing a fairly comprehensive post; extending an overview of my conclusions from over the years to where we need to go now as a people in order secure our social systemic homeostasis; as it is threatened as a result of our own errant theory and by effective attack by adversaries seizing upon those vulnerabilities.

It is a long text - this is only the first installment of the follow up - and it will be reworked some as these are notes for audio - yes, I have mercy. I would not torture your eyes and mind with that much reading. I hope to start-in with the first installment of the audio form tomorrow.

........

A good place to begin this second installment on the philosophy of European/ White ethnonationalism is by addressing the most controversial claim of the first part - that there is no unassailable warrant. First, you have to look at the words in that statement - unassailable means ‘cannot be challenged’ and ‘warrant’ means ‘grounds of justification.’

Now, there are two aspects to this claim, one is pejorative and one is ameliorative.

On the pejorative side, these claims to doubt provide wiggle room for weasels.

It is true that this kind of objection can really get more than a little bit “cute”, but rather completely absurd, for example, when one ventures to dispute a DNA match that has a one in 65 septillion chance of being mistaken.

Or when liberals try to take a scientistic idea of race, “one race, the human race”, ignoring the phenomenon of speciation of racial differences, treating this as necessarily unimportant because all people can interbreed.

Or, when they ask a kind of indelicate question which should be almost non-existent, but is shockingly common - such as, ‘so what if Europeans go extinct, lots of them are jerks?’ Or, ‘what is the extinction of European peoples anyway? Aren’t they a mix anyway, and aren’t they still alive, even if mixed into other races?’

Part 2b audio, a significant chunk of information.

Liberals have the nerve to ask these disingenuous questions, while we know damn well that they’d be up in arms about the Amazon rain forest, endangered species or indigenous tribes being destroyed. We are eager to see them go and live with their beloved people.

Yes, we’re getting there, coming back to how the YKW and anti-White liberal cohorts tediously exploit even negligible capacity for skepticism, exploiting and misrepresenting the utility and capacity for willing suspension of disbelief for a facile deployment of concepts of species preservation only where it suits their hubris.

Even though our enemies have been assiduous in trying to get our kind to react away from the systemic homeostatic capacity that is to be found here, in that thin queer margin indeed, there is that positive side to be discovered in interactive pragmatism: where impure warrant and the truth of human fallibility invoke social accountability and the agency of our systemic correction from its current state of dissolution and runaway.

It has been said that the great contribution of pragmatist philosophers is that they upheld falliblism without skepticism - that is, they saw it as occasion to welcome correction.

It is a corrective measure for Europeans to place our relative group interests at the center of our perspective, whereas Not having placed our people at the center of concern but rather placing our penchant for universalism and objectivity at center has left us susceptible.

This centering in praxis brings us to the age old philosophical question: ‘if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise?’ and provides the best answer - it assuredly make sound waves but for us, it may as well not if there is nobody left to talk about it and determine how it, among other facts, counts in our relative interests.

Audio Part 2c. Image from a conference that I organized. The late Barnett Pearce, right, his students and colleagues sorted-out the forms and ways of communication (Barnett liked what I was doing with Maslow; I’d been talking to him about it since 89) and Mary Catherine Bateson in blue, daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, who is central to all this theorizing.

This effort to center praxis accounts for the controversial social constructionist perspective - which has been badly distorted and misreprestned to Whites, whereas it would be and will be quite helpful and necessary when it is understood properly. We’ll talk about that later; this side focusing a bit more on the social interaction of praxis; but I want to talk first about its sister anti-Cartesian, post modern notion of hermeneutics which facilitates the emergent side of praxis a bit more.

This corrective process relies a great deal now on what is called hermeneutics: this is the non-Cartesian, interactively engaged circulating process of inquiry that allows the inquirer to correct hypotheses by transcending mere facticity, re framing arbitrary, ostensibly confusing or even contradictory facticious logics of meaning and action; taking avail of broad narrative perspective to provide context and orientation - e.g., on temporal systems and their history. On the other hand, hermeneutics allows for a graceful zooming in for close, rigorous readings of facts and data in operational veifiability of hypotheses.

Fallibility and correction doesn’t merely impose the positive, rigorous side in correction of impure warrant and fallibility by asking important practical questions of an event’s frame - right DNA wrong person doing the criminal act? Wrong DNA kit?...

It also allows for imaginative breadth of narrative form in the hermeneutic step back, the willing suspension of disbelief in our broad and historical social systemics, to ask the legitimate question, in working hypothesis, where does the responsibility for what that DNA did/does begin and end? Again, this re-framing can be pejorative weasel stuff - the kind which we’ve been subject to under PC for these past few decades, or it can relieve us from truncations of accountability, the kind of weasel games that we’ve been subject to from the right, its pseudo objectivist position, weather of its liberal variant or under the pseudo conservative guise of the right wing that left us susceptible in rational blindness in the first place - a game of pure pseudo objectivity which the YKW have been reinvoking with increasing vigor and scope since 2008, while encouraging elite, deracinated White right reactionaries to sell out and join them against the concept of unionization and coalitions of Left ethnonationalism in order to make quick work of social accountability.

In either event, in service of requisite rigor or requisite imagination, by maintaining fallibility and requiring accountability, we bring humans, our relation to one another in praxis, into the centrality of concern - and no, that is not a call to universal brotherhood.

With hermeneutics we have the capacity to suspend disbelief and liberate ourselves from the arbitrary flux of mere facticity and engage the interactive process of negotiating our personal and group coherence. And ultimately, it rescues us from the dangerous runaways that result of Cartesianism, of seeking pure laws above, beyond, within or below praxis - in pure nature, such Hitler’s epistemic blunder in exaggerating struggle, competition and will to power, applied imperviously to praxis.

.......

Coming back to ground our hypothesis at this point we’re going to borrow some radical hypotheses about the nature of Europeans as opposed to people evolved in the Middle East and Africa (Africans discussed later on).

Clerk Maxwell’s Demons and Jewish Crypsis

Clerk Maxwell described two metaphoric “demons” to symbolize classic challenges that people are up against:

1) “Augustinian Devils” are natural challenges, which do not change when you’ve solved them.

2) “Manichean Devils” are man made challenges, which can change the rules of challenges if you’ve solved them.

In the Middle East, where differing tribes found themselves pitted against each other, the challenge was more about one tribe against another; the challenges were not so much about securing natural resources and withstanding the forces of nature as in the northern climates, but the challenge was rather other tribes and their cunning self interest, and so they evolved more in capacity to deal with manichean devils, as Clerk Maxwell called the man made devils which hinged about trickery that could change the rules if you solve them: the Jews Masada literally goes under the motto, “wage war by deception” and the Muslim religion has its practice of takia, which is another form of Manichean trickery, lurking deception, like a snake in the grass ready to be called to jihad.

Perhaps the most naturally ingenious part of this group evolutionary strategy of manichean deception on the part of Jewry is “crypsis” - Crypsis is a phenomenon in nature where a creature can blend-in and become indiscernible from its environment; or in the case of the term applied to Jews, their crypsis is that they can look White and pass for White (European) as they moved into Europe and intermarried with Whites.

On a genetic level they remain distinct as a group and apart from Whites, largely by their own insistence. On a behavior level, their group strategy is typically at odds where not catastrophically antagonistic - notably, while they have maintained their own group homeostasis, their group strategy has a pattern of ‘activist’ disruption of White group bounds and homeostasis.

This evolution follows the Faucett theory of Jewry’s evolution of ‘horizontal transmission.’

Those Jews who returned to Judea after the Babylonian captivity epoch moved into power niches and commenced to develop a parasitic relation to the population and its resource. This parasitic relation was compounded after the Romans conquered Judea and Jewry scattered into Europe. There was some intermarriage with Europeans, but in overall pattern they maintained their distinction and closer relation to even the most distant other Jews as opposed to Europeans. At the same time, as diaspora people in the host nations, their parasitic relation increased as they moved into middle man and professional niches through which they’d eventually consolidate wealth of a host nation. The people of the host nation would eventually realize that they were being exploited and rise up - in the form of the pogroms, inquisition, the holocaust; but some part of the Jewish population would manage to escape to a new host nation. In these murderous events, the European peoples would tend to be killing off the more innocuous, grounded, accountable, if not intermarried (with Euiropeans) Jews. This cycle of horizontal transmission was compounded as the more “virulent” Jews, who had the greatest cunning and wealth, the least social conscientiousness, were “selected for”, as they were able to buy their way out and escape, moving on to a new host to start the cycle of parasitic relation again.

Now, this type of evolution is in contrast to European evolution, especially Northern Europeans. Whereas Jewry was evolved in circumstance where the greatest competition was other tribes and thus manichean deception and parasitic relation was a more pronounced strategy compared to Europeans, for Europeans the challenge to survival was more a matter of ability to deal with the “Augustinian” challenges of Nature, markedly the seasonal changes, and markedly the winter. The Northern European evolutionary attention was not thus putting a premium on the relative interests of the group and its cohesion to deal with challenges from other tribes, as there was not as much flocking to these environs less hospitable in terms of food and or shelter, but the selection was more for those who could objectively deal with the brute facts of nature and survive these “Augustinian Devils” ..this enhanced our penchant for objectivism, science and their attendant susceptibilities - scientism and rational blindness.

As it was understood that people who could get things done in objective terms were valued, and the threat from other peoples was not normally the day to day concern, they also created “higher trust” societies that facilitated marvelous scientific, technological advances and great social resource. Pit these European qualities against the Jewish strategy of Manichean deception, crypisis and parasitism, and you have the makings of a problematic relation indeed.

Now then, after the holocaust, the cycle of horizontal transmission led the select, more virulent Jews to flee to the United States where their parasitism permutated to its greatest hegemonies.

But before I elaborate, I want to emphasize that parasitism is a metaphor that does Not describe all of Jewish behavior, not even all of their bad behavior, which can be more straight forwardly antagonistic - antagonism being something different than parasitism.

The saving grace of this metaphor of horizontal transmission is that the prescription is not knee-jerk reaction and murder, as that has tended to perpetuate the cycle by only killing-off the more accountable, grounded, vulnerable, sympathetic, less cunning and less virulent Jews. Rather than murder, the prescribed answer is maintained separatism in ethno-nationalisms and forcing Jewry to develop “lateral transmission”, a non parasitic relation from the ground up.

However, we need to render a great deal more description of the circumstance. [No, this theory will not hold Jews solely accountable as all powerful; the niches are hypotheses of where they exercise disproportionate influence if not hegemony; we will address their relation to other elites, including deracinating White right wing sell-outs (and the liberals that come form the same root) but later].

As the Jews ascended into European and American niches of power and influence after the holocaust….

The Niches:

It is the hypothesis here that their group evolutionary strategy, crypsis and horizontal transmission has led Jewry into significantly disproportionate representation if not hegemony in more than seven niches of power and influence over society:

1) Media:
Now, as Bowery observes, the bible was the controlled media particularly in times prior to print media, radio, television, movies and internet - combined with other power niches, this niche control would probably spawn other means of communications control. [note the Manichean trick of Christianity]

2) Academia:
Having been selected to pursue earthly success, power, intelligence and in particular, for verbal I.Q. combined with nepotism, they have gained vast over-representation in academia - particularly in the humanities (determination over how society is described, the concepts and stories that are ascribed to ourselves and prescriptions thereupon). [note the Frankfurt School and PC; the lawsuit of Harvard, which reveals that in Ivy League admissions, Jews are vastly over represented if the criteria is merit, while Asians and Whites are vastly discriminated against.]

3) Money/Finance:
As it has been famously said, “give me the purse strings and I care not who is elected”... this is probably the most important category, because even if you have things figured out, there are always people dishonest or desperate enough to be bought off. [Note the 2008 subprime crisis, the culmination of a boom bust cycle which put Jewry into its greatest hegemony in the horizontal transmission cycle - whereupon “the left” became the great enemy [story from Frank Meyers to Alt and “Dissident Right”].

4) Politics: AIPAC is the most powerful lobby in Washington; just about all politicians are controlled by Jewish interests, particularly by campaign funding through lobbied interests. They can get the United States to do the bidding of Jewry, weather diaspora or Israel, whether through the Democrats or Republicans - Donald Trump gained the presidency by promising to undo the Iran Deal for Israel.

5) Law and Courts: Jews have disproportionate representation in the profession of law; judges; in law school professorships; and in devising and passing legislation - which can overturn popular, democratic vote, as they have overturned popular opinion against immigration and spearheaded other significant liberal changes in law - Brown vs Board, Civil Rights Act, Immigration and Naturalization Act, Rumford Fair Housing, and generally in anti-discriminatory, anti-racism, anti-“hate” legislation.

6) International Business: to which we can extend NGO’s, Foundations, Unions (especially as they can control them, liberalize them and internationalize them) and such - this is an effective means to traverse national boundaries, profit from the exchange, devastate adversaries while increasing their niche hegemony.

7) Technology, e.g., genetic, military and such - such as Stuxnet - can come of their other hegemonies.

8) Religion: Judaism, Islam and the Jewish trick of Christianity - devised to overthrow Roman hegemony, it was ultimately effective in overthrowing Europe.

Now, to be clear, there is no escaping the issue of moral order - not completely, anyway: you cannot simply be beyond moral concern. There will always be actions that are obligatory, actions that are prohibited and actions that are legitimate.

In terms of maintaining social systemic homeostasis, moral order ranks high among concerns. Perhaps survival comes first, but it’s near a chicken / egg question, moral concern is typically related closely to survival; and to matters of practicality - that’s probably why Kant placed morals under the rubric of pragmatics.

Our concern, of course, is with European moral orders, what is happening with them and what has happened with them.

I take a classic White Nationalist hypothesis, which is highly critical of Christianity, not only rejecting the popular idea among western civilization for a thousand years or more, that it is synonymous with moral order, but believing it rather to be worse than a Jewish affection, rather more like a trick played by them upon European peoples.

It tangles-up Europeans most important concerns with Jewish interests - look, after all, at who the Christian god is - and look who the most evil civilization is supposed to be, the enemies of Israel - Babylon and Rome. But its worse than that, in that this manichean trick, played on Europeans originally to overthrow Roman occupation, operated on the European penchant for Augustinian detachment and purity spiraling with the obsequious golden rule [instead of the silver rule, which would simply ask that you do not harm others as you would not want to be and that it is good to expect a reasonable exchange for your deeds], moreover, they added to the purity spiral by universalizing of the moral concern to un-differentiate the gentiles (as GW observes), destroying their capacity for organized resistance and compounding it further with disingenuous directing of away from temporal self interest and to speculative concern for after life instead. They scared people and kept them in line with notions of hell (even if you think of sinning!) and these narratives were their version of media control (as Bowery observed) for nearly a thousand years.

Now, it is true, that one can pluck out verses and apply them selectively even to an ethnonationalist end, that has been done to some extent historically and people might do it again; it is also true that in Christianity, Jewry have created something of a Frankenstein that comes back to kill its creator, but perhaps only culling, like the Nazis did, their less “controlled members;” perhaps non-Christian ethnonationalists would not object too stridently. But I am skeptical of their prospects for long term success, sympathetic to those who don’t like and don’t believe in Christianity - and it is these people we seek to talk to and serve here. We don’t go out of our way to dissuade Christians nor do we revel in mocking them - they are trying to do the right thing, to invoke a moral order, but going about it the wrong way with reams of useless and misdirecting text. Once the broad population could begin reading the text for themselves, let alone comparing it to the gains they made in scientific and other knowledge, the religion would have trouble functioning as an ethnonational moral order.

We do need the semi transcendent, narrative means of hermeneutics to foster a religion that serves our people, to transcend the fact that most of ours are not very good and those who are good, significantly flawed nevertheless; we need the guidance of our patterns which inspire, loyalty and faith in ours past and future; and while there are ways to instantiate this that we’ll discuss, they have not germinated to any kind of significant consensus yet - 14 Words, great start, but our enemies keep tacking on the 88 to derail consensus.

Nevertheless, for those who want to continue to worship the Jew on the stick, who never existed in the flesh, by the way, so long as they don’t get any of that crap on us, we’ll let them go. For Europeans, however, the usual starting points of moral order come with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle - with Aristotle’s framework of Theoria, Praxis and Poesis being given the general nod as the epistemological framework, while there is an increasing Nordicist argument for our natural penchant for attendance to Augustinian detachment, sublimation and planning resultant from nature being the greatest obstacle and translating to a severe predilection for science and technology. The Nordicist view is not necessarily at odds with the Aristotlean view but you see that it has us veering away from attention to social sources and responsibility and can rationally blind us to our social participation for its valuation of warrant as objectively pure and scientific as possible. It has rendered the Northerners in particular, like a naive species when confronted by the Manichean trickery and group interestedness of Jewry.

Northerners continue to be most prone to Jewish trickery as they purity spiral in reaction to Jewish tricks by pursuit of pure and universal foundational warrant against them. This makes them like a bull chasing after red capes - the red capes being distortions and misrepresentations set up largely by Jewish academia, to make them didactic, to have the goyim reject and fight against the very ideas that they need to reconstruct their social systemic homeostasis.

Our Southern European penchant for objectivity may stem from the Greek teleology while our Northern penchant for objectivism from Augustinian confrontation with nature proper; and Christianity magnified this purity spiral greatly with scriptures such as “even if you think of committing a sin, etc”, culminating in “The Prejudice against Prejudice” of Cartesianism that seeks pure warrant divided from natural, relative and engaged concerns on the transcendent, mathematical end; and in Lockeatine foundationalism on the empirical end.

Part 2d audio: Hippies and Feminists in incommensurate agendas of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Now, Locke becomes much more relevant even than the French revolution in telling the story of where Western Civilization went wrong vis a vis America, thus basically, where we have gone wrong, period, largely of our own accord, at least in terms of leaving us vulnerable in our capacity ot protect our group patterned interests.

Locke resented the English Aristocratic class having exclusive educational privileges and believed the English middle class should have access; with that, as an empirical philosopher, he argued that there were no classifications evident in perception, they were a fiction of the mind and all individuals had the same perceptions - therefore, all Englishmen should have equal civil individual rights in pursuit of resource. Now, this was a liberalization of bounds within England, specifically a call to liberalization of the Aristicratic class’s exclusionism, but it does not necessarily follow that it would or should break up the union of English national bounds, that they should be opened as well - that weaponization would have to wait for Jewry, their instigation of radical liberal and right wing objectivist purity spiralers who felt they were individuals beyond classificatory/racial loyalty.

This Lockeatine notion of individual civil rights over and above the discriminations of “pseudo” classifications was written into the American way of life, becoming the most distinctive American idea - individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is true that Kant recognized the danger to our moral orders by Lockeatine empiricism - the arbitrary flux that he saw we’d be taken into by this vast over emphasis on the empirical end. Kant tried but failed to rescue our moral order through a foundation of universal principles. Indeed, for those unfamiliar with Kant, he does provide steps in moral rationale superior to Christianity, that can help people get over it - beginning with unanimity, the fist principle, to think in agreement with yourself, to the principle of “good will”, treating people as ends in themselves, without which beauty, fortune and intelligence only make a person worse; to his three part sequence of morality, from common principles, to deviations in popular philosophy, to foundational philosophy to secure principles against the vicissitudes of which common and popular philosophy are subject. He failed, he was still Cartesian as Heidegger said, he was still pursuing a universal foundation, in many respects the last thing we need to emphasize for our social systemic homeostasis, for our relative interests; and while Kant was taking a step in correction, alas, Locke’s idea of Civil individual Rights was already institutionalized in America.

Particularly after the horizontal transmission of a more virulent YKW to America following the holocaust, the notion of Civil Individual Rights would become one of their key instruments of weaponization against potential threats of White grouping.

READ MORE...