Majorityrights Central > Category: Activism

So, the political is the ideational store of everything that has currency and, therefore, political potential.  As our people’s existential concerns may expressly not be talked about in party-politics, then they can have neither.  They are not political in this key and unavoidable sense.  They are, instead” “hate”, “racism”, “xenophobia, etc; and no amount of nationalist discourse and nationalist activism can make them otherwise.  For we nationalists do not control that process and neither, manifestly, do our people.  The groups who, by participation, do control that process are listed from (i) to (vi) above.

To become political our people’s existential concerns must be introduced to the political by people who are connected to those groups.  For them, the gates to the citadel are unguarded, and they may carry in any ideas they like.  At first they will be rebuffed by some, certainly.  But if the action is undertaken by others again and again, if shibboleths are challenged and injustices exposed, if fairness and justice and freedom are appealed to, if logic and commonsense is displayed, resistance will break down.

Well, it does not matter who carries our ideas into the chalk circle.  It only matters that political correctness and anti-racism are ignored and are seen to be ignored, that our people’s existential concerns gain political currency and, in time, become not just a commonplace of the public discourse but an unavoidable reality for it, that the political is electrified thereby as we would willingly electrify it ourselves, and the way is prepared for our people’s cause to be championed by nationalists electorally and in every other way.

The question for us today, then, becomes: How can we influence such an outcome?  What will it take to establish a group working covertly and daily on specified projects, each targeting the soft edges of the (at a rough estimate) fifteen to twenty thousand people in this country who alone possess anything like the power of free political speech?

... And at that point discretion must prevail.  The paper will be presented to its first recipient(s) this weekend.

To define the political against politics may seem only to be of interest to a few geeks and wonks who are unsatisfied with the usual utilitarian definitions.  “The stuff politicians do” ... that sort of thing.  But, actually, an understanding of how the political delimits politics, opening in any given time to the new, is key to its historical dynamic and also to people like us who wish to subvert and even replace that dynamic.

Perhaps the first thing to note is that, “great men” aside, politicians themselves are almost never the source of change.  As we saw with the long and disgraceful Remain rebellion, politicians of all mainstream parties are conservative in matters of their own position and persuasion.  They don’t welcome instability in their own political careers, or anything that might result in them being found out and forced out.

Because the class is self-selecting, its politicking from parliament to parliament, from generation of MPs to generation of MPs, tends always towards something vested and, in the longer term, alienating from the voters.  That self-selection occurs in no small measure on the basis of the possession of certain canonical values and beliefs which themselves refine and radicalise as other influences are brought to bear - for example, the agenda of those who actually fund political activity in this country, and all those who, at once or perhaps twice remove, participate in the process of developing (in our time, radicalising) “the stuff politicians do”.  Thus ...

i. Formal advisors have, of course, been a staple of government since the Pharoahs, and probably earlier.  The breed populating Westminster and Whitehall these days is the SpAd, dozens of whom provide ministerial teams with political strategy options and a very few ... Dominic Cummings being the notable case in Boris Johnson’s government ... with blue-sky thinking.  SpAds fill the party-pris space between ministers and their civil servants, whose terms of service include party-political neutrality.  They tend to come from, and eventually return to, the policy institutes and PR firms which have likewise thickly populated the political scene over the last few decades.  But while they are “in the thick if it” at their ministries or in Downing Street they are as much part of the political class as the honourable members and noble lords of Westminster.

ii. Immediately beyond the Westminster class is the oft-termed chattering class, the professional reporters, commentators and critics of the legacy media, all of whom have daily access to politicians, and whose relationship with them is symbiotic.

iii. Also very close to the politicians is the huge array of quangos, policy institutes, charities and organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, and pressure groups such as the British Board of Deputies, the Muslim Council of Britain, Stonewall, and Hope Not Hate.  Their contact to MPs is more formalised, since information really only flows one way and MPs don’t need many of them as such - excepting left-of-centre MPs, of course, who can find gainful albeit chrony employment among the forest of Blairite quangos, international panjandrum bodies, and what-have-you when the Westminster career is done.  Much like Blair himself.

iv. The most cordial of political relations are those between Conservative MPs and corporate and banking interests.  Of course, said interests have to become party donors to gain access to ministers and actual influence over policy.  But it’s always money well spent - and valued by the politicians much more highly than, say, the loyalty of voters.  Career-expired Conservative ministers who have proved useful can expect to rack up a fine collection of non-too-taxing, two-afternoons-a-month non-exec directorships and consultancy arrangements.  Keeps the wolf from the no longer ministerial door, doncha know.

v. Beyond the clamour from all these entities is the source of the most fundamental input to the political process, and that’s the professoriate: the political philosophers, the political scientists and theorists, the economists, the sociologists, the historians, the jurists, and so forth.  It is their historical function to shape the future.  There are some instances where the political connection is direct.  Freidrich Hayek, for example, shaped Thatcherism.  Anthony Giddens shaped Blairism.  Even archly pragmatic governments such as David Cameron’s have their intellectual gurus (in his case the rather more humble Steve Hilton, an original member of the Notting Hill Set).  As a rule, though, the most historically re-defining government is informed by the most philosophically re-defining intellectual.

vi. Way out in the distant margins are the radical street activist groups such as Black Lives Matter and Unite Against Fascism, publicly toxic because of their extremism, but not so toxic that politicians can’t slavishly follow every demand they chant.  And that’s without these groups having any formal contact with them.  In these cases, of course, it’s not always about political cowardice.  A significant fraction of MPs, and not all of them in the Labour Party, very likely agree ideologically.

So these are the six sources of “the new” which feed the political class.  They define the boundary of the political not via their broad output (books, papers, lectures), much of which may never attract MP’s attention or interest, but via their input to Westminster and Whitehall itself, however restrictive that might be, however that may come about.  The political is the totality of theory in metamorphosis and theory already metamorphosed into practise.  The political is all that can be talked about in party political circles. 

We should note at this point that this essentially technocratic arrangement came to real prominence not in Thatcher’s time but a decade later with the drive by Clinton, Blair and Shroeder to fix for all time the then regnancy of the progressive left all across the West.  In part that was to involve ideological radicalisation.  The formal institution of culture war, anti-racism, and political correctness moved wholesale from the American campus, where they incubated in the 1970s and 80s, into national party systems; and at the same time Third World immigration was massively ramped up.

So it was that in his famous and very candid article for the Evening Standard in October 2009 Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, reported “coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

The other weapon in the progressive toolkit was the system of appointments to Third Sector bodies at all levels.  John Major’s government had installed Tories in 57% of these appointments.  But Blair completely changed the ideological balance. By 1998, Labour supporters made up 75% of appointees and Conservatives only 13%, a trend which carried right through the years of Labour rule, Gramscian style, and onward to that of Theresa May.  They were the years of the networker in an ideologically progressive, state-funded managerial system allying not in their hundreds but in their thousands with like minds in government.

Blair’s intention - to render right-wing opinion politically inoperable and thereby dominate government in perpetuity - was never achieved.  But he did succeed in insulating party politics from the more inconvenient opinions of the people.  In place of the steering hand of the voting public MPs had all the expert advise and creative thinking they could possibly need.  Politics could function for four or five years at a stretch without once taking account of what the people thought.  And why not?  The votes still rolled in on election day.  Blair won three general elections.  Brexit notwithstanding, he made politics safe for politicians.

For nationalist parties trying to mount electoral challenges dependent on unbridling the will of the natives his dispensation presents a near-insuperable barrier.  How do you make a breakthrough when your own arguments are simply, cleanly excised from every area of the political, and all anyone ever hears of you is the usual mechanical abuse and condemnation?  How do you make a breakthrough when you don’t really understand why the political is so impossible to penetrate ... not just ideologically because the Establishment and the media are hostile to nationalist thought, but literally, because the political is filled to the brim with the unholy marriage of economically hyper-individualist policy and socially hyper-egalitarian policy.  There is no room for kinship when all is individualism.  There is no room for particularism when all is universalism. 

The question, then, becomes one about how to drive a nationalist wedge into the rockface - or, perhaps a better analogy, how to strew the political ground with nationalist seeds.  The good news is that it is possible.

Culture war advanced from the neo-Marxist left is, by its careful targeting and its singularly existential consequences, race war against us native Brits.  But it’s a race war that need never declare its true nature and meaning publicly.  Its constitution is such that the leftist race-warrior can break every moral bound and act towards our people as oppressively and hatefully as licence allows, yet still claim to be acting culturally and in the interests of an equalitarian and universalist human freedom, ie, excising “racial oppression” and “hatred” from this land.

It is only the latest in the long, doleful line of utopian struggles to rid the world of all conflict.  That it denies Nature and human nature and the Darwinian principle of fitness and selection ... that its demand for the obliteration of identity and difference is anti-human ... that it is a genocidally destructive process for us, as the native people ... that it commits all this trespass simply doesn’t enter into it.  Quite the contrary, any action in defence of our people’s precious life, however culturally we frame it as our people’s way of life or by the proxies of “Christian values” or “Western civilisation”, immediately draws down upon us all the same old barely contained violence and hate-labelling, like Orwell’s vision of a boot “stamping on a human face forever”.  There is no conversation to be had with the owner of the boot.  The owner, ultimately, is the universalising, equalising, homogenising dynamic of utopianism, and it is deaf and blind to us.  For all its rejection of racialism, UKIP found itself stamped on in its day.  Already, Laurence Fox is finding that the boot needs must stamp on him, too.

So while it is fair to say that there is no culture war at all, and never was ... that everything was always about our ethnicity and race, always about obliterating us by any and all political means, because our obliteration is both the goal of and the latest way to the utopia of sameness ... while that is all true, nonetheless the rules of the political game are that everyone must proceed as though the left is indeed innocent of all sin and, far from being pathologically, hypocritically anti-human, is the proper moral arbiter on nationalists and nationalism.  This is how the left, as the client of the British Establishment, the corporate Establishment, has achieved the marginalisation of nationalists and forced the culturists, civicists, and conservatives to walk on the thinnest of eggshells.

All this serves one purpose only: to remove the life-cause of our people from the debate and practise of politics and confine it in moral quarantine as far away as possible.  Our job as advocates for our people, whether we are nationalists, culturists, civicists or traditional conservatives, is to put that life-cause back into the political, with all that implies for discrimination against the human Other - the Establishment’s tool of our replacement and dissolution.  Discrimination for the life-cause of one’s own genetic kind is necessary, natural, and good, and is the true human universal.  Discrimination for a greatly abused and discriminated-against, colonised people is likewise wholly moral and necessary.  Our people must live, for that is what Nature commands; and, besides, that life is a higher cause by vast orders of magnitude than the utopians’ pathological and obsessive, profoundly unwanted dream.

Nationalist politics in this country went into crisis from the moment in autumn 2009 when Nick Griffin was humiliated on Question Time, and the revolt by senior BNP activists began. By the time that Griffin stood down as leader - all of five years later - the party was vitiated. Membership had collapsed and nationalism had lost all political momentum. Online activists took up the slack, growing their audience as the social media platforms grew and adding a degree of thoughtful analysis to the general diet of polemic. But this year, again, we have seen a setback in the form of the programmatic, “wokist” purge by those same platforms of even the mildest non-liberal opinion, all conducted under the specious, self-defining rubric of “hate”. In the longer term it is entirely possible that the new free speech platforms will render the “mainstream” social media a boring irrelevance. But we are a long way from that today.

This has been happening, of course, while politicians, public sector managers, journalists and the police have been patronising Black Lives Matter, and thereby facilitating a paradigm shift in wider Establishment attitudes. The race dicta has moved within a hair’s breadth of the general judgement that “white” equals “racist”. It certainly equals “unconsciously biased” - a novel pathological condition that can, apparently, be “trained out”. For now this is the Establishment position. But the possibility of “training” alone holds back the judgement that white lives don’t matter. This is where we now stand, even as we are being replaced in our towns and cities by populations which have been taught to hate us.  Something truly terrifying is being prepared, and the forces driving this do not have a moral stopping point.

There is, let it be said, some cause for renewed hope in the appearance of Patriotic Alternative under Mark Collett and Laura Towler, whose refreshingly novel activism has caught the imagination of many. There is, in consequence, a renewed momentum in political nationalism (which explains the all-too-typical hit-piece published in The Times some days ago). As and when PA wins party political accreditation from the Electoral Commission it will be a safe bet that the other micro-parties who lay claim to an ethno-nationalist philosophy will be hard-pressed to justify their existence - Britain First has already been forced to add repatriation to its policy list. Further, PA claims to be pulling support away from the non-racialised parties of dissent. Its website traffic already exceeds that of the For Britain and UKIP sites. There is, in addition, a reasonable possibility that by the end of the year, or perhaps early in 2021, PA will pivot in a new and original direction which could have far-reaching implications for political nationalism in this country.

We must also note that there is some positive action, too, in the political mainstream. This government, under the influence of Dominic Cummings, is doing something at last to fight the culture war - the first time any Conservative government has even acknowledged its existence. There is push-back against the deep-seated, liberal patrician or mandarin culture of the civil service. The BBC’s equally ingrained urban liberal values are also finally coming under attack. It is reasonable to expect that, in time, other quite weighty blows will be landed by Cummings on the progressive edifice that is maintained at the tax-payers’ expense. Education, arts and culture, and the quangocracy are likely targets.

But elsewhere there is only deterioration. The race dicta in government very much reflects the standard globalist conjunction of neo-liberal economic policy and neo-Marxist social policy, the latter perfectly open to colonisation by BLM’s marxistic and anti-native politics. The corporate demand for basement-level labour costs and non-unionisation, high immigration and an ever-expanding population, all of it got by campaign donations to the Conservative Party and the promise to ministers of lucrative non-executive directorships when the Westminster career is done, always supercedes election-time promises to the party faithful. As a result, Boris Johnson’s government is driving immigration blindly onward, threatening to import half of Hong Kong, seeking to advertise jobs in vast swathes of the British economy anywhere that potential migrants with “points” might be found. Further, an historic liberalisation of the planning system, sweeping away the local power of decision and so attacking the principle of consent and the democratic process itself, is being engineered with the obvious (if not aim then certainly) by-product of colouring the rural Home Counties and the south.  We English - many, in this case, who have already fled from urban “diversity” - are having the last vestiges of our control over who we live with stripped from us.

Add to this the Brexit marathon, add the Covid epidemic with its effect on social and work practise, its impact on liberty, its debt economics, and a picture emerges of a nation in a time of flux and struggle, a nation being pushed towards the unfamiliar and to the extremes in every direction, with nothing remaining in its place and no realistic or immediate prospect of stability.  But that’s not to say that it’s a one-way journey to hell.  The political parvenu and ex-actor Laurence Fox’s embryonic but nevertheless reactionary, culture-warring party Reclaim, with £5 million to spend but no politics as such, is clear proof that anything is possible in this historical moment. As moments go, it is at once the worst of times if you are one of our people, but by no means the worst of times if you are a mainstream political activist. Yet it is also as good a time as any for us to act, and act we can.

Within days I will set up a website to advance the best in White advocacy/nationalism as it is known to be - a place for the resource brought to bear, for its cultivation by those who recognize the crucial value of this resource.

I will endeavor to maintain a presence at Majorityrights in order to correct any misrepresentations of my positions and to challenge any perfidy which might make its way back, hoping for my riddance.

Some may think that I might be disheartened with the marketing campaign and those beholden to it having held sway over me thus far, but it is not the case.

Some will mock me as having spent my time in futility, but I think not; especially as compared to the likes of those who spend $10,000 only to die on the side of Mt. Everest.

I have achieved what I set out to do, which is to summit (what I am satisfied to be) the most vital and necessary in theory for the advocacy of European peoples. Similar as those not understood for having undertaken a quest of Mount Everest, it was my objective. Something that I had to do. But unlike their project, mine was not so personal or futile; rather it was in service to my broad understanding and to our people (and, ok, if I am to be most honest, perhaps as much against antagonists and those who do not care - their practices which are objectionable for the destructive impact they are having upon us), and against those who time and again mislead the theoretical trail; by contrast, I have left clear maps on trail for the sovereignty of European peoples: I know that I have brought the best in truth and in depth; while some may be determined to deny this truth out of custom, habit, tradition, their prejudices or vanity - or in red caped misdirection, as I have particularly shown - all one has to do is take a look honestly at my efforts which I will carry over to the new site to be disabused of pseudo justification for antagonism to the platform which I bring to bear.

Whether the new site achieves popularity or not right away is not an issue; any more than popular approval might not be first in mind for the guy who dies on the side of Mt. Everest, singularly focused in his aim, irrespective of how futile and impractical popular opinion may deem his quest to be; however, by contrast, the objective of the new site is not vain nor impractical, nor destined to be unpopular or out of the mainstream as those who do take a look will see; as the perspicuous overview from this summit has shown what is most relevant; a manifestation of the most necessary resource for our people.

Healing that confusion, the lack of wherewithal that comes from a family with crazy and hostile communicative patterns has a price which one is not particularly aware of when still in the midst or recovering from its throes…

As one heals, regains their natural emergent form, the poise of its perspective, one is suddenly confronted with the myriad of one’s own culpability in not negotiating these family and friend circumstances better; one is somewhat braced for the fact in that one is now essentially healed, but the memories of one’s own interactive failings, i.e., to negotiate relations better for one’s own sake and to make one’s way better with them, are on constant offer to the consciousness, really too many examples and presenting from any given day that one might reflect upon.

One thematizes, taking examples, and tries to empathize with oneself as having done the best they could in the circumstance and remember that the person that you view failure with can bear some joint responsibility.

I’m thinking of my father, specifically.

Confusing, could not effectively and respectfully communicate his thoughts; questions about his confusing statements were treated like an affront, volcanic temper like you can’t believe, otherwise largely catatonic TV-watcher - infuriating the way he’d smile along with it…. but might turn away momentarily to literally paraphrase his WWII generation mantras - “you can’t fight city hall” and the liberal, “anything goes when the whistle blows”... he would say this with a smile on his face, like you were supposed to relate.

His worst characteristic, however, was his penchant to attack vulnerability - made it near impossible to trust him. This did-in my mother’s psyche; and having to deal with her broken psyche is another can of worms that we don’t need to talk about. Psychologically, intellectually, bad situation all around.

Materially, I’d be a jerk to complain. Weren’t rich, but had what we needed and a modest bit more…and that does, indeed, spill over into some opportunity to heal the psychological and intellectual deficit.

But as harrowing as my father could be and the fights that he had with my mother were (you could hear them around the block from our house), I eventually gained enough perspective to see how I might have done better as well.

First of all, a working class family without advanced education and four kids.

I could not have done better than my parents ...oh maybe a little better in some ways, but overall, probably worse…

READ MORE...

Triangulation

One of the advantages that Jews have in altercasting White identity as right wing or somehow in response/reaction to “the left’s social concerns”, is that they can take advantage of the inherent instability of right wing reactionary rigidity, its quest for pure warrant beyond social accountability and correctability, whether in Nazism’s natural fallacy or Christianity’s otherworldly nonsense (kosher diversion). It has been apparent for some time that some Jewish perspectives are using a triangulation strategy against White identity and solidarity, by encouraging singularly focused Germanophilia in WN, even to the point of encouraging ostensible WN advocates to roll around in Nazi redemptionism and Holocaust well, if not denial, then downplaying with “humor”, etc. With White America being largely German, there is going to be enough of a true believers market, people desperate enough given the onslaught of PC liberalism and lacking in time, energy and concern to see beyond an overly German sympathetic perspective (with its background of Jewish interests) - wanting to believe rather that they are in sheer defiance of the anti-White, PC narrative - such that they will go along with this angle, not particularly concerned that they are playing into a divide and conquer triangulation.

Perhaps Thamster’s shirt is funny too

Thamster, Josh Neal and Jefferson Lee. Quite articulate of liberalism’s rupture of the organic whole, but what they haven’t figured out is that Hitler and Jesus are not what is needed to keep it together. The day before Richard Spencer’s NPI channel was taken down from Youtube, he was in conversation with these guys extolling the virtues of Mussolini and Hitler (David Duke was doing the same thing the same day and his channel was also taken down after he went on about all the “peace offerings” that Hitler had made. lol). Jefferson Lee invokes the absurd, “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway” argument (i.e., so you may as well prove them right?). When unavailable for a show, Josh says that Jefferson Lee is busy planning the revival of The Prussian empire (so funny).

The Final Solution to the Denier Question David Cole Stein 30 July 2020. 32:05: “Here we have the most prominent deniers. Here is Robert Faurisson (French). He’s dead now.

See also, Do Joel Davis and Richard Spencer Want to Suck Jewish Cock? ...or would they prefer to take it up the ass?

.......

Note, I will be adding to this article, but for now, let’s get it underway, starting with that, the hypothesis.
.......

The observation of this misdirecting pattern is the important issue at this point. There is no urgent need to trace this pattern to a single or few sources, though there are some of the usual suspects, like Regnery publishing and some of its Alt-Right/Dissident Right/ come Third Positionist/ (((Alt-Lite))) orbiters…

The Final Solution to the Denier Question Here is Jurgen Graf, ok, he’s a Swiss gentleman.

While he is apparently innocuous, David Cole Stein’s Holocaust revisionism has been enough to ingratiate himself in this Jewish sponsored Germanophilism; a proud German-Jew, he is not above coddling Nazism a bit, apparently for the sake of re-routing animus against other Europeans. Cole-Stein uses the revisionist cred and attention that he gets to promote The Institute of Historical Review and “true historians, ‘Mark Weber and David Irving.”

“Hey! quit fuckin around, come on, we’re trying to teach the people something.”

The Final Solution to the Denier Question And Carlo Mentionio (not a wink and a nod but emphatic Italian emotive, including gesticulation to make it clear that he is NOT German). Aaay! ‘Scusi carabinieri, Carlo Mentionio gobadagul gabagul!’

“So this is the denier side. Here we have the three stooges on the denier side (Faurisson, Graf, and Mentionio).”

“This side is the actual historian side. Mark Weber which is represented by the Journal of Historical Review that he edits. David Irving…and then you got me. So, here we have me, Irving, Weber. We represent real history.”

Comments:

rollo clevich
Why did you ignore Arthur Butz?

Daniel Sienkiewicz

It seems to me (Cole-Stein ignores Butz) because Butz is a German name (even if a German American).  The classic, shifty pivot. David’s classic shifty pivot is apparently to coddle Germans as much as possible, including Nazi apologists, “true historians” Mark Weber and David Irving, to play divide and conquer against Slavics, especially Russian Slavics, including Russian Jewish Slavics who David Cole Stein admits to disliking.

While Greg Johnson’s “New Right/Old Right” has denounced Hitler and the Nazi project as counter to current WN interests, of late he has returned to performing rim jobs on overly Nazi sympathetic perspectives. In a recent podcast featured by Counter-Currents, Frodi Midjord goes along with Mark Weber’s (IHR) endorsement of Patrick Buchanan’s dubious, “The Unnecessary War,” to set in motion a perverted line of “reasoning” that blames everybody but Hitler, but especially Churchill for WWII. Of course David Irving’s pro-Hitler slant also works well enough for them. In fact, there are two recent podcasts with Mark Weber featured at Counter-Currents, here is one, “The War That Destroyed The West”. Here is another.

Besides the pandering of Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, Regnery Publishing has long been suspect, showing signs of promoting this Jewish/German, Germanophilic perspective to the point of soft peddling Nazism. Along with Germanophilic Regnery, there are apparently Jews involved in its executive decision making. The Regnery circus, as we might call it, was pivotal in orchestrating the Alt-Right Tentosphere, a paleoconservative 2.0 which featured tents not only for Christians and right wing Jews, but also for atheistic Nazophiles.

Regnery and Spencer

I post this picture a lot, but it remains central, and telling as these paleocon right wingers (and Spencer derivative), double down on their bullshit. Left, Patrick Buchanan, half Irish and half German with a corresponding bias that panders to the bulk of White American demographic reaction. Center, Paul Gottfried, (((paleocon))) maven and leading exponent of “THE Left” as the problem, a Germanophilic German-Jew, he is wont to distinguish Slavic Jews where Jewish culpability is to be acknowledged at all.

Many people orbiting White advocacy, like Jonathan Pohl, Right Ruminations and “Terminal Philosophy” a friend of queer Pilleater, cite Paul Gottfried as a reliable leading light. While Gilad Atzmon is another Jew who tends to pander to the Germanophilic perspective; and will get some endorsement from the likes of David Duke, as such.

The latest means of introducing Nazi triangulation has been through the promotion of “Third Positionism”....

Mark Collett and Keith Woods have been a party to this, sadly along with Morgoth (who should know better, but I already tried and failed to dissuade him). I initially took a disliking to Angelo John Ganucci because he was both popular and taking the line that the most intellectually penetrating of WN were “National Socialists” (Nazis). Typical of right wingers, he demonstrated the inherent instability of the right by becoming a defacto liberal rebounding into “Third Positionist” anti-Zionist (while diaspora Jews can be fellow nationalists with him). Just before he was disgraced, Millennial Warts made a statement that “World War II shouldn’t have happened” and added, to paraphrase, that ‘anybody who can’t accept that Britain made a mistake in entering World War II, that they took the wrong side, is just going to have to step aside, sorry.’ How about Hitler not attacking other European nations if you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight? Warts is soon to be resurrected by Fudge Johnson for an interview over there at Counter-Currents.

Johnson can be a bad judge of character; recall that Warts was indignant with me and Majorityrights when I criticized his (self admitted) confidante (((Vivian Veritas))) for attempting to define terms for White nationalism, and Warts demanded that his link be removed from our site. the_lies_will_try_to_live_but_theyre_not_white_theyre_jewish

Some flaming asshole going by the name of Tom Anderson is a definite gate keeper - he has a wrench on several podcasts and is decidedly against me for my stance against Nazophiles in particular; but strangely, he will join Christians, such as Melchy Zedech when they antagonize me, even when they side with Jews, such as Vivian Veritas.

Church of Entropy joined Wll2PWR and Ovfuckyou to attack me for not adopting a right wing position when I began talking with Ecce Lux; in CoE’s case (and she has no business in WN circles) her motive might have been a bit different, but she was joining Wll2PWR who was attacking me mainly because I’m not Germanophilic to the point of Nazism and Ovfuckyou, decidedly against me because I maintain a platform which rejects Nazism.

I lost confidence in Ecce Lux not as much because of his Christianity, but because he let Ov attack me for rejecting Nazism, trying to say that I was too sensitive because I didn’t want to entertain it; that he’d “been through that” - “brainwashed” into thinking that “the Nazis were bad.”

Ecce Lux and Faustian Spirit (who I talked to and also should know better) apparently go along with this Right Wing/Third Positionist angle encouraged by Tom Anderson; while Dennis Dale tags along, unwilling or unable to get out of the kosher discourse box.

       
        Chinese Philo-Semite, Claire Khaw, in proud photo with David Irving

The idiotic Chinese woman, Claire Khaw, panders to Nazophiles with the absurd line that she just wants to promote “real nationalism” and “Hitler just wanted his day in the sun”....  to demonstrate the innocent integrity of Nazi Germany, she brought an Israeli onto her show to talk with Nazi ovfuckyou, and he agreed that the “Nazis were really Ok.”... apparently the argument being that if that’s what it takes to sort people unto their nations [IF].

In his penchant for the laconic and incisive, GW observed “triangulation” and that inspired this article…

READ MORE...

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.