Category: Liberalism & the Left
It’s a shame that Tan would say that I’m “not using my brain”.. “don’t have my thoughts organized clearly” and then take an idea that I have clearly organized and advanced for some time, and promote it on the Hitler worshiping “Renegade Network”, saying that he has this idea that our objectivity has given us advantages but also susceptibilities.
On the topic of genocide vs suicide he has an informative discussion but it is a false either/or in that MacDonald is not taking his eye off of Jewish power and influence and arguing “suicide” by examining our own susceptibilities (nor am I arguing White suicide).
Tanstaafl argues for genocide of Whites as opposed to White suicide
Tan quotes (from a post that KM put on TOO!):
“That’s not suicide”
For a curious example of White passivity of my own recent experience, I was at a fare yesterday, thousands of people, 99 percent White, probably a few Jews, a few middle easterners and one interracial couple - lovely, elegant blonde with a special kind of blue eyes and a Negro in no way handsome or manifestly impressive.
I used a strategy of walking near them while not looking at them directly, saying loudly, “very good! 41,000 years of evolution destroyed, given it to an ape!”
The important point I want to make is that nobody of this White crowd even noticed or was the least perturbed by this sickening interracial spectacle.
It is legitimate to ask why a visceral response isn’t forthcoming. The inquiry into our own responses or lack thereof, WILL NECESSARILY BE connected with the inquiry of those who might suppress and obstruct them - hence it cannot distract from the J.Q. ultimately. Rightfully angered response and resistance to it would provoke inquiry as to who is resisting and promoting our dispossession. Moreover, it would be paranoid to suggest that KM and I are trying to deny or distract from the Jewish influence. He has insisted, and so do I insist, that Whites can be brainwashed by the Jews media and academia.... lets add religion, law, politics, business procedures and financing.
Nevertheless, I hear Tan referring to other causes, some of our own making, for example my idea that our inclination to objectivism leaves us susceptible.
Objectivism, as I have been saying, has appeal by yielding some spectacular practical results and insights, powerful moral warrant and innocence from subjective concern, but leaves our people susceptible to be non-discriminatory - perhaps especially of the obvious - as one can readily demonstrate if not “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments upon even such obvious differences.
That’s called “rational blindness” and this relative blindness to our subjective position and interests is a requirement in quest of pure objectivism.
Rational blindness can blind us to our involvement, indebtedness and accountability to our people’s interests and other people’s impositions. Scientists can famously be dupes to Manichean trickery for the habit of this Augustinian mindset. * I remember a former MR regular who, rather than request an explanation which I would have readily provided, tried to suggest that I was being pompous and deliberately obscure with these terms: Manichean - human challenges which can change when solved in order to trick an adversary; Augustinian - natural challenges which do not change when solved just to trick you again (how does Kol Nidre versus science grab you?).
As for looking at ourselves…
GW’s ontology project advocates evincing our authentic natural systems such that we may proceed by our own lights, not largely react and mirror the Jews as has been known to happen (in the case of the Nazis).
This isn’t making excuses for Jews or letting them off the hook in any way or form.
Has KM fallen into disfavor because he does not think AH and revisionism are the royal road to White salvation?
I haven’t heard MacDonald talk of “suicide”, I know that I do not talk of suicide.
I do know that Tanstaafl has overreacted when I, and others, cited liberalism as a problem, as if we were trying to distract from the J.Q. when discussing liberalism or other causes for peoples being under threat (as if we are not aware of the shenanigans of Lawrence Auster, et.al).
In this podcast I hear Tan accurately criticizing the Jews for transforming World War II into “the Holocaust” and elevating themselves as the special victims. All true and foul.
But he doesn’t see how the Nazis, and his over-sympathy for them, have him mirror the Jews, to where Nazis are the special and only important victims, didn’t do anything (it’s all a “hoax”), their victimization is pure, removed from cause and interactive conflict.
Evidently, right-wing WN interest to make the Jews the “only problem”, to where they would even denounce MacDonald for looking at our role in the interaction, is a motivation of those who want desperately to redeem Uncle Adolf and completely disprove the holocaust, blind and oblivious to the fact that those tasks are unnecessary and largely counter-productive to pursue.
The key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right and its susceptibility to liberal universalisms which transcend accountability to social group interests vs the unionized and therefore particular and relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by a White Left.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, May 25, 2015 at 01:44 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Far Right, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Libertarianism, Linguistics, No particular place to go, That Question Again, White Genocide: America, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism
The interview is quite a long one by our standards, but I believe it is entertaining and informative throughout.
Given that no-one seems to conceptually acknowledge the dark side (so to speak) of inclusive fitness theory it perhaps undermines the creditability of those that wish to make broad political points using inclusive fitness theory as to (1) do they actually fully understand the theory and (2) do they understand how excess competition effectively removes relatedness from the picture (siblings killing siblings is perfectly optimal within many animal species from the point of view of the victorious Sib).
Given that fitness within social evolution can be derived from both the individual level and the group level (note all evolutionary change concerns changes in alleles and their frequencies) as demonstrated by Hamilton and Price’s work (and Steve Frank etc) in hierarchical selection theory how do these insights relate to political economy?
For example, if we take Aristotle seriously than any polis must be a balance between the parts and the whole (individuals and the group) what mechanism can be used to discourage ‘free-riding’ and self-serving perfidy by our own indigenous elites? Accountability to the groups interests seems lacking in contemporary Western life.
If Europeans are so ‘individuated’ - uniquely so? - why is it that only a few centuries ago that Celts, Nordic people etc were so tribal and ultra-communitarian in their cultures. Why the stark difference in pre-modern pagan social ontology compared to the ontology of liberal modernity. Given the relatively short time frame any explanation based upon changes in gene frequency would seem analytically bankrupt. The Greeks also had a more communitarian social-ontology (Sparta anyone?, Aristotle and virtue ethics etc).
Given the social ontology of liberal modernity (massive ideological emphasis on individ- uals and individualism) what type of personalities and psychological traits succeed within such a environment? If all human interactions are viewed through the prism of individual competition is that healthy or wise for the long term sustainability of the group (one could speak here too of free-riding and the slow accumulation of toxic ‘externalities’ cultural, environmental, social etc generated by liberal modernity which in short term benefit certain individuals but at the longer term determent of everyone).
Given that all political societies are ultimately about power and power relationships (see Carl Schmidt), and that power is always open to abuse, a high degree of relatetedness/ homogeneity/ social capital is by itself not enough. What mechanism of elite accountability and social cohesion are possible and necessary?
If denied the siblicide point, then why are civil wars so vicious and nasty (often the worst)? Higher levels of relatedness (on average) didn’t stop Englishmen, or Irishmen from utterly hateful behaviour towards their brothers during civil wars…
This was to have been the final part of my investigation into The Rotherham Syndrome. But I have received a further email from my correspondent Steve S, whose original mail precipitated this series, in which he writes:
I think that’s a pretty valid observation on the mysterious, ubiquitous phenomenon of Establishment treachery. So in this fourth but no longer final part of my essay, I will investigate how the old Establishment class - the elites of the old courtiers, the new industries, and Empire – lost its political foothold. It will now be the fifth - and final - part in which I will focus, finally, on today’s controlling class of thousands of men and women who attach no human value, indeed, scarcely any meaning at all to children of our people simply because they are white victims of Asian Moslem sexual criminals.
It is worth noting in passing that although the context here is British, the latter’s monopoly of control, the common purpose, the hermetic networking, the focus on “modernising” everything via a near-religious progressive obsession, the unnatural preoccupation with racism, the total absence of empathy for kind, and the easy resort to race-treachery are common to political and liberal Establishments and the official mind throughout the West. Rotherham is only an extreme example of how absolute their thinking can be and just how far they are prepared to go to defend their racial proposition. I hope non-British readers will indulge me, therefore, in the following (brief) history of British elitism.
Today’s Establishment is an historically unique and most recent development. It finally flowered managerially and ideologically with the election of New Labour to office in 1997. But let us not forget that for the best part of three centuries the Establishment in Britain was a very different quantity. Certainly, from Waterloo to 1914, its elites were unassailed anywhere in terms of power, wealth, sheer confidence and security. They can be profitably presented in a tri-partite form, the oldest element of which was the landed aristocracy, whose power was expressed and maintained largely through the House of Lords but also through the Whig Party. Then there were the commercial and financial elites of London, including the Jewish banking dynasties. Their ties to the Tory and Whig/Liberal parties in the Commons and in government (principally the former) provided for the pursuit of their interests. To a degree, these two groups represented wholly different and conflicting interests: those of the land and tradition, continuity, paternalism and a somewhat self-serving connectedness to the safely uneducated, rustic labourer; and those of the town and modernity, of expansiveness, of the merchant class, of profit, therefore, and of the revolution of the machine. This was the real division in the politics of the age and, to no small extent, it mirrored the divisions of the American Civil War.
In this third and penultimate part of my essay on the Rotherham Syndrome I am going to expand on the disconnection between philosophy (and philosophically-derived politics) and thinking that comes out of ethnic or racial conflict. In particular, I will focus on the dynamics of absolutism and its ascription of human value.
A petty history
A few years ago I came across the story, I think in a television history, of the last civilian to be hanged in the Third Reich. I don’t remember his name. I cannot find a link to the story on-line, so I hope I have it right. But my memory is that this unfortunate man was a resident of a small south-western German town which lay in the path of the advancing US Army. I suppose it must have been early- to mid-April 1945.
The war was already lost, of course. That knowledge had been building among the people since the defeat at Stalingrad and Goebbel’s Sportspalast Speech of 18 February 1943 (which changed the tone of the propaganda from a war of conquest to one of national survival). The general thrall to a military dictator and the whole mesmerising, deceitful dream of German greatness and glory was dissolving in the acid of the military reality. By April 1945, with the Allies fighting on German soil, the general will of German civilians would have been for the killing and destruction to be brought to an end, and for Germany to find its way into whatever future was available to it. But the Allies were only interested in complete and unconditional surrender. Every last German town would fall, this little one included. This was not going to be where the Allies would first be held and then pushed back.
Having been a child of the sixties and come to my majority in 1972 … having an acquaintance, therefore, with the famous personal, spiritual and sexual freedom of that time and with the aesthetic and the argot, and having witnessed and rejected the anger and dissent which disfigured the politics …. having been exposed quite routinely to all that feral revolutionary thought and deed, still I find in its lineaments no real clue to or explanation for what today, I suppose, we can properly call the Rotherham Syndrome.
This is something of a blow actually, since my preferred, all-weather explanation for the ills of the present is precisely the malign formative effects of the past. If the seeds of the psychological present are in the ideological past, then it should certainly be possible to find them in the fertile soil of the sixties counter-culture. But my thesis in this short second part of the essay will be that there is, in terms of effect, a limit to political causality and a limit, even, to the philosophy which forms politics. We commit a category error when we look there for the cause of an ethnic or racial crisis. We must look into inter-ethnic and inter-racial rivalry for that, even if there are political and philosophical dimensions and implications to the rivalry. It is a question of defining and ordering them, that’s all.
The other day I received an email from a reader who expressed the same vexing disbelief felt by all of us, I would say, about the role of “the Establishment” in this vast and viscerally offensive phenomenon that has become known euphemistically as Moslem Grooming.
Steve S, I shall call him, asked how, “given the length of time, the quantity of the victims, and narrow demographics of the perpetrators and the horrific nature of the crime” there could have been literally no Establishment response, beyond an implacable will to look away.
Well, Steve, the time period over which the crime has been around is well over 25 years. Back in 1988 there had been an uproar among Sikhs in Birmingham when girls from their community were targeted by Moslem men. Then, when news of the first Rochdale trial finally broke into the press (that is, when the press was forced to report it), a retired police officer came forward to report that as long ago as the early 90s he personally was ordered not to investigate victims’ complaints. Because of the “grooming” nature of the offence, involving supposed boyfriends, drugs, alcohol, and other forms of bribing the girls, it is likely to have been initiated by Mirpuris of the second or later generations. It could have been going on thirty or even forty years ago. However, it is not limited to Mirpuri or even Pakistani Moslems today. The BNP has reported that in Wrexham, for example, the offenders are Iraqi.
Given the uncertainty of the time-scale, the quantity of victims is, of course, impossible to assess with any degree of certainty. The latest assessment for Rotherham is that there have been around 2,000 victims there alone. But Rotherham, it has been said, is dwarfed by events in Manchester and Sheffield. There has been talk of “the tip of the iceberg”. There have been over fifty cases brought to court so far – few of them reported nationally. The other day I saw someone use an estimate of 130,000 victims from day one – whenever that might have been - and that could be the right sort of scale. We just don’t know.
A few weeks ago Daniel sent a request to Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests, to consent to be interviewed for MR Radio. He was then in the process of a double-session interview with Red Ice. We hope he might be interested in a more intellectually demanding approach to his thesis in OGI and his hopes for European peoples in the West. He was unavailable.
In anticipation of a positive reply from Dr Salter I had scribbled down some questions – heads of discussion, really - which I hoped to put before him. It is unlikely that they will be asked in that form now. I thought they might be of interest to readers all the same, duly embroidered with some of my own understandings which would have emerged in the discussion.
1. Academics, science and politics
Dr Salter, you describe your profession as that of a political scientist and ethologist engaged in studying the motivational and organisational aspects – the laws that are at work, if you like - in human group dynamics. In the process you have afforded us all some unique insights into normative human behaviour, most particularly in the central thrust of On Genetic Interests. Purely for myself, I would like to thank you for that; and I’m sure very many others with our politics would feel the same.
(a) Can I begin by asking how you see yourself and your work? Is an ethologist like you, with his basis of work with empirical data, fundamentally of the humanities or the sciences? How do your politics, which are clearly quite nationalist, influence your selection and formulation of research projects? Do you have to make additional efforts to function as a disinterested researcher, while your peers down the corridor in the politics and sociology faculties are quite free to operate as de facto campaigners for progressive causes?
(b) More than a decade since the death of Stephen J Gould, and with the Sociobiology Study Group a forgotten entity, what is your assessment generally of the state of truth-speaking in the biological sciences, in particular about human difference? Would you say that the era of strict censorship has passed, and academic freedom now obtains? Or has the focus merely moved from a rigid control on what can be studied to a more subtle but no less widespread control of how studies can be framed, how results can be presented, and so forth?
(c) What kind of reception have your conclusions had among your academic peers? For example, has EGI, as a concept, been discussed by, or even incorporated in the thinking of, other political scientists with your ethological focus, or that of evolutionary biologists and psychologists, or even sociologists?
2. Politics and the public discourse
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, December 1, 2014 at 12:17 PM in Anti-racism and white genocide, Australian Politics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Islam & Islamification, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, White Nationalism
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, November 22, 2014 at 11:20 PM in Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Economics & Finance, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Health, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Race realism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, White Genocide Project, World Affairs
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, November 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM in European culture, European Nationalism, European Union, Feminism, Humour, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Popular Culture, Social liberalism
Two views of the “modern” British Labour Party in all its current fear and confusion, the first from an email sent to me by Graham Lister:
The second offering is mine, and takes the form of a rather sympathetic (well, sort of sympathetic) piece of advice to party members and readers of LabourList, the party’s “biggest independent grassroots e-network”. So called. It was posted in the aftermath of the pretty disastrous by-election in Heywood & Middleton, which Labour held on a recount from a fearfully healthy and strong-looking UKIP.
The nobly inclined, missteps, the ill-advised and the misnamed.
MR’s commentariat survey European/White Nationalist exponents.
It’d “be good (to have) a post critiquing far right nationalist movements and leaders:”
“or any other high profile organisations or individuals you can think of.”
I would be quick to add William Pierce among others.
Rather than relying on extant articles surveying these peoples and platforms, we may look at these matters afresh with the interest of MR commentariat.
Taking as a point of departure the terminology that JamesUK’s adopted upon broaching the topic, what jumped-out as salient and perhaps in need of re-naming or re-framing was The Order designated as “Right-Wing Extremist.”
...“right wing extremists like The Order”
There are also parallels with “The Sons of The Revolution” who fought for independence from Britain; we might go on to discuss them among other guerrilla campaigns which fought for independence. That is, naturally, revolution and the taking or re-taking of a nation can entail “extreme” activities according to the status-quo and powers that be.
But to begin discussion, a comparison of Bob Mathews and Józef Piłsudski is relevant to normalization as the parallels are clear, yet Piłsudski is not stigmatized, he is widely accepted a nationalist hero.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 11:24 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, European Nationalism, Far Right, Law & Order, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, U.S. Politics, White Nationalism
Adding (August 4th, 2014) a definition of Peace (at bottom).
In response to “Flippityfloppity’s” concern regarding definitions
I may have deserved a barb for being a little hypocritically amenable to Anthony’s proposal that Christianity can serve an important constructive function in organizing a guiding and spiritual light for Whites. I was a bit too agreeable perhaps because I like the rest of what he says well enough. Though his including Buddha and Lao Tze into the mix would indicate that he can reach accord with people like me for whom race serves as the organizing spirit and transcendent, religious factor (our legacy being the hereafter). That is probably why I appeared to flip flop a little to accommodate him.
However, introducing Christianity into the mix, with its propensity for a myriad of definitions, including liberal and universal, non-accountability thereof, is problematic.
Regarding definitions, I do not flip flop. But people, including WN, do, especially between definitions of “Left and Liberal.” Basically because they are following an “official” (i.e., convenient to Jews) definition of “the left”, which fluctuates between being liberal and open to all; or specifically open to unions of non-Whites or unions of people with problems; imposed in special admission, inclusion and integration upon Whites under the guise of equality and undoing exploitation.
The chief reason why people might use The Left defined as such is because that definition has gained wide currency as the Jews have largely defined and promulgated the term through academia and the media – that being a confused definition promoted by Jews precisely because it is confusing and because it altercasts us as rightists (who are not necessarily against imposed liberalism, just against “equality” - great, we are accepting the definition of ourselves as elitist pigs, but open to others if they are “better”). The acceptance of this definition and its flip flop between left and liberal is exemplified by the way that the Political Cesspool (among others accepting the definitions, themselves as right, their opponents as left) will flip flop between saying “the left and liberal” in the same broadcast.
Those who accept the rightist altercast and endeavor its position are to blame as much if not more than Jews for enforcing the idea that leftism and liberalism is all about “equality.” That is even worse theoretically than it is descriptively. For as White Leftists, we would be basing discrimination mostly on an assortment and disbursing of qualitative differences, which would be a symbiotic, largely non conflictual basis; not subject to the false comparison that lends to conflict as the phoney “equality non equality” issue engenders. Equality/non-equality is neither sufficiently descriptive or prescriptive - unless, perhaps, you want to instigate what is likely to turn out to be mutually destructive conflict.
We might stay with the confused definition of The Left - as liberalism, advocacy of non-Whites, their equality and imposition on Whites because it has had currency through Jewish media. Then oppose that for obvious reasons, as has been the strategy of almost all WN. However, staying with that definition, just because it has wide currency - despite the fact that it is a disingenuous and confusing definition promulgated by Jews (for the reason that it is confusing and disingenuous as they want us to be “rightists”, to scare people, our own included) and turn people off, our own included, as such, by reflecting that disingen -uousness and confusion through disorganization and denial of accountability - is neither sufficient reason nor compensation for the price paid. It is like saying we should continue to trade in currency that makes Jews wealthy and destroys us. It is counterfeit currency (definition) aimed to circulate to our confusion and detriment.
It is obvious enough that plutocratic, traitorous and well, elitist pigs of any stripe, will conveniently cite “The left” as the great enemy.
I believe you make a good point, that we probably should nail down some definitions and try to make them stick, as best we can, at least here at MR. One trick will be getting people to do this despite me – so that they will not refuse to do it just to spite yours truly. That can be a problem because I am not always most tactful. I understand this motivation to not be ego bullied (for example, I would not use the prefix “Zio” or “Jewish supremacist” in part because Duke proposes it, in addition to the fact that I don’t like the sound). Nevertheless, I maintain that the aim here is not about ego but theoretical accuracy, viz. theory which serves White interests. I do use the following terms consistently and they continue to make perfect sense – that is why I “stubbornly” continue to do so.
These proposed definitions are holding up, making consistent sense of pro and anti White alike.
We must not be so averse to terms and concepts Jews have abused as to fall into the trap of their being didactic as the Jews may want, for us to rebel against what is good for us. This has happened with social constructionism and hermeneutics for example. To where even the Heideggerian notion of hermeneutics would be looked upon as Jewish and Marxist, such that we would not admit of that part of the non-Cartesian process which provides orientation on scientific focus, to allow for that tad of narrative speculation of the not-at-all-times-observable social classificatory boundary of the European biological system and its history (to allow for Heidegger’s admission of the form of the people as necessary as well, an observation by GW that I had missed).
The White Left as:
A social classification and classifying of a people (specifically native European people), legitimizing unionized discrimination against outsiders; accountability to those within; both in positive return on effort and what is brought historically; and in a negative sense against those would-be facilitators of “scabbing” and those elites who might betray the class. This would be in contrast to leftist classification and advocacy of other groups; and certainly in contrast to our universal obligation to include in (our) vital resources (esp. genetic) just anyone who appears to be down-trodden or desirous of entry, including those outside the socially delimited group. This is discrimination against individuals of classifications based on warranted prejudice of the pattern of which they are a part. The White Left would take the White Class as synonymous with the distinct genus of the native European race and its distinct sub-classifications. It is a social taxonomic classifying necessary to accountability and human ecology.
It focuses on qualitative and symbiotic differences while keeping to a minimum false, quantitative comparisons (as opposed to equality/non equality it focuses more on qualitative sameness or difference).
It is decidedly not against private property (may in fact work with the land tax / exemption scheme laid-out by Bowery)
It does not aspire to equal wealth (there can be some people who are significantly more wealthy than others), but does strive after some balance, a middle class and shared leverage on some basic necessities. The point is that the boundaries are maintained. More or less socialism or free enterprise can be flexible according to the particular state.
As a rule, it applies the silver rule to out-groups as opposed to the golden rule.
Thus, it is in contrast to liberalism as applied to non-Whites, which is what racialists normally mean when they say, “the left.”
Beliefs and practices which intimate and can ultimately deviate and rupture reconstruction of the systemic biological pattern, accountable social classifications.
Designating, classifying a social group as a race (a species of people distinctly evolved to circumstances and practices in history, who have discernibly more genetic similarity to themselves than to other human groups) and discriminating accordingly. It is a motivation to separatism, not elitism, exploitation and persecution. This separatist discriminatory motive is more than generally advisable, it is necessary for accountability, human ecology and biodiversity.
The coercive prohibition against classifying people (could be even non-racial classifications) and discrimination accordingly. The coercive imposition of one people upon another, the denial of their freedom of and from association.
As they are defined here, they even make sense of how other people bungle these terms.
This issue probably is worth this main post, as trade in the currency of these terms defined in this way would help a great deal to achieve clarity and direction. These definitions make consistent sense of organizing our people, their requirements and problems.
In my next post, I will attempt to show how modernity, as a pejorative term, does not contradict but contributes to the articulation of what Bowery sees as negative in his definition of “civilization.”
In connection with that, both Migchels and Bowery seem to have a concern to maintain individual integrity as an authentic and distinguishing characteristic among Europeans. GW’s close readings have some similarity there as well.
In that regard I would point them to Harré‘s suggestion that there are two vital aspects to self, and thus to authentic self and individuality, which are 1, the corporeal, embodied, genetic self, having biological requirements, potentials and limits (which you three are concerned to approximate in description of its authentic functioning as closely as possible, un-borrowed from non-native influence) and 2, a narrative self, which is crucial for the matter of coherence, orientation, connection with the systemic whole and history. Now, that narrative self can deviate, even terribly, from the authentic biological interests of the self and system. It is obviously better if it accords well with our biological interests and historical form. I believe the Jewish abuse of hermeneutics is why GW has been a bit averse, and surprisingly, as it is one necessary side of a would-be Heideggerian, hermeneutic process; but then, even MacDonald was averse, apparently for the same reason of Jews having made it didactic.
It is important to note that this hermeneutic view not only permits of individuality, integrity of self, I would argue that hermeneutics is absolutely necessary for it - a coherent, agentive and warranted self. What it does deny is that there is no social relatedness and indebtedness to its make-up, its construction and its constitution; or that one has no accountability for its direction other than “the countenance of Jesus” or some other unverifiable source.
Adding a definition of Peace
I will probably turn this into a post later, but I will propose this definition/ working hypothesis of “peace” in comment here.
Later, I will invite others to contribute to a working hypothesis of peace and correlate it to prior definitions proposed.
Peoples as they correspond with nations, states, regions, localities, mutually respecting and recognizing sovereignty of genetic accountability, prerogative to discriminate and prohibit association accordingly; while those who wish to leave may go to a consenting receiving nation, their return to the people they departed from may be prohibited; their offspring, if any, may be prohibited as well.
Negotiative, persuasive, non-lethal tests are sought as the normal recourse in conflict resolution (lest there be any misunderstanding, miscegenation is not a normal problem requiring negotiation - that is prohibited; expulsion being a softer variant in resolving the problem).
This would include the capacity for a people to maintain its genetic kind and the reasonable capacity for individuals to find an appropriate mate; with that, to have the means to provide for a family that does not require a detrimental number of hours away from family and leisure, is grounds of peace.
Those who overpopulate, burden the world’s ecosystem and create spill over effect - let alone deliberate exploitation or usurpation of other nations’ land - are seen as in violation of the peace.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 06:26 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Christianity, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Linguistics, White Nationalism
I am one who tends to think that concern regarding homosexuality is exaggerated beyond its true importance in WN circles.
Perhaps because I was at one time confronted directly and from a complexity of different angles with the implication to myself, but having no doubt that I wasn’t, and wanting to be unburdened of any accusation’s tedium, I was forced to make efficient intellectual work of putting aside any such accusation, to master the ways in which the issue could be deftly set aside as it is - largely irrelevant.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, June 16, 2014 at 03:09 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Art & Design, Awakenings, Conservatism, Feminism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Health, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Social liberalism
In citing Yockey’s definition of liberalism, I do believe Tanstaafl captures some of the “it’s a bit more than that” to the definition of liberalism that GW advised over and against the one that I was proffering in the interview with Metzger.
Fortunately for me (and for us as a race), it is not really contradictory of the definition which I would venture as most useful. Though it is, I admit, more articulate in some significant ways that GW would/does appreciate.
I would have liberalism be defined primarily as permission of the violation of the classification - which is the parameters of the group systemic organism of race.
Yockey, like GW, focuses even more meticulously on the individual (as well), to where liberalism would be the experimentation with going beyond the normal parameters of our biology as individuals as well.
That would have several “more than that” interesting implications which provide clues as to where GW was going.
One implication would indicate why GW focuses so much on the Ontology of who we authentically are as European group(s) and individuals. We cannot even know what liberalism is, entirely, or what is inauthentic response to liberaism, a reaction, until that is settled…
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, June 11, 2014 at 03:06 AM in Anthropology, Conservatism, Liberalism & the Left, MR Radio, Psychology, Social liberalism, The Ontology Project
That Hitler and the Nazis were not White/European nationalists, nor can they represent the interests of White/European peoples.
I would like to clear the way further for Majority Rights as a place of sanity for White interests.
Indeed, if a former head of state where I am from had the attitude toward Germans and Germany that Hitler had, for example, toward Slavs and Eastern Europe, frankly, I would not boast of this man, but would be eager to leave him in the past as an embarrassing expression of overcompensation. I am frankly surprised that this is not the default position of every self-identifying White nationalist.
Hitler’s was a position which could only have led to inter-European fighting and diversion from our proper organization.
On the other hand, the Germans I meet in my travels, by sharp contrast, are very fine people; I am eager to help them, as I might, to ensure the flourishing of their particular native European form and ways; as well as to unburden them of undue guilt and foreign impositions. This generation had nothing to do with World War II, for better or worse. I am sure that there are sufficient many of them who see fit to participate in our mutual and discreet survivals as European nations and peoples.
I was ready to dive right-in with this frame of mind years, in fact decades, ago. One of the crucial issues obstructing this has been, and is, the absurd position of some self-proclaimed White Nationalists that we somehow need Hitler or to redeem Hitler. We need nothing of the kind. We need Europeans deeper and wiser. Let there be no mistake, those who insist upon Hitler and Nazism are Not White Nationalists.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, April 20, 2014 at 01:37 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, European Nationalism, Far Right, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism
It’s all rather reminiscent of those far-off days when a constituent of Enoch Powell was talking about the black man having the whip hand over the white man. Indeed, on the second of those two Telegraph pieces (both with comments open, which was odd) somebody helpfully posted the video of David Frost’s hour-long interview - cross-examination, really - of the great man in which that very matter is explored. Frost considered it risible that Powell could consider such an event remotely possible. Now we know better. But in 1969 the liberal classes were only just learning how to impose their value system on the rest of us:
Their great fear was that speaking too truly and, certainly, too plainly might “stir up racial hatred” among the English. The African and Asian colonisations must not be thought about too much because “hate” would be worse by orders of magnitude than anything else that could possibly happen.
Things haven’t changed much. The same shallow attitudes prevail. The liberal-left still thinks that “immigration” takes place in a consequential vacuum while dissent among the natives indicates the presence of “hate” - obviously, an irredeemably shocking and just not liberal state of affairs. This, of course, is a deeply irrational point of view. It is emotionally rooted. It is faux-moralistic. It does not respond in any way to facts or to reasoned argument. I know from personal experience in the thread-war that it does not respond to proofs of liberal guilt or even total humiliation. Nothing seems to touch it. What, then, will? What, if anything, are we missing?
Along with White Leftism, The White Class and other useful theoretical tools that Jews abuse and obfuscate as they direct White identity into the foibles of the Right.
This discussion will have a fringe benefit of provoking and flushing-out those who are not truly concerned with our people.
This essay is to be something of a summing-up and clarification:
“You alone are uncontingent my friend. I would counsel epistemic humility”
Thus, in background to this essay:
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 07:42 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Immigration and Politics, Journalism, Liberalism & the Left, Race realism, Social Sciences, The American right, The Proposition Nation
On 22 July, 2011, Israel commemorated the 65th anniversary of the King David Hotel’s bombing in Palestine, by exploding bombs in Oslo, killing 8, and shooting dead 69 on Utøya Island. Israelis picked Norway for the celebrations because she had increasingly become sympathetic toward Muslims and in favor of a Palestinian State. Professor Ola Tunander concurred that only a State-level entity equivalent has the capability of pulling off such an operation, and this wouldn’t be the Norwegian administration slaughtering relatives on Utøya Island. Tunander knows Israel did it, but to avoid the heat, hinted at it, saying that some have suggested it was Israel’s handiwork. Given Tunander’s academic credentials, the mainstream media decided to keep Tunander’s analysis and the Israeli condemnation of it out of the Anglosphere.
At first it wasn’t clear whether the mysterious individual blamed for the attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, was a scapegoat or patsy. But the cues were there though overlooked by many. One clue was Anders Breivik’s amazing beard, capable of changing within seconds.
Posted by R-news on Sunday, July 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Global Elitism, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Media, New Right, Political analysis, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social liberalism, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
by Daniel Sienkiewicz
When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.
In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]
Dr. Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.
In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal than a leftist.
In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; ie, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equal? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.
These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.
Last November Daniel Sienkiewicz published an article at VoR criticising the tendency, prevalent in much WN intellectualism, to target “the left” rather than Jewish activism. We agreed that I would reproduce the article with some minor revisions at MR and I would offer a commentary on it. Daniel’s article will be published separately on our page immediately after this first part of my essay. Here, I am going to put forward my own, no doubt idiosyncratic and shamelessly provocative view of the central problem here, which is the foundation of Jewish thought in the Western religious and secular intellectual canon, and the open doorway that offers Jewish ethnocentric activism.
I am English. My beautiful, brave, precious people are, today, suffering a vast and shocking physical colonisation by, to my northern eyes, unbeautiful and utterly alien peoples. These peoples are unadmired, unwanted and unloved by the overwhelming majority of us. Our will in the matter is clear and is known, and is, on all historical evidential bases, perfectly justified. But because the power of choice in the matter has been taken from us, and our dissent delegitimised, we can do absolutely nothing in our own defence. As things stand, the colonisers will minoritise us within the normal lifespan of anyone in his or her early forties today, and beyond that tipping point lies only one foreseeable outcome for us: an increasingly dark and vertiginous descent to the hell of a despised and threatened rump minority. My child will see the first, my unborn grandchildren the second.
By any reckoning, and notwithstanding the extended temporality of the process, this is a genocide event. But it is a genocide that nobody is interested in talking about, which is odd because we are given to believe that the decent, educated liberal abhors genocide above all crimes, and strives mightily to eradicate it from the life of Man. As a creature much given to moral crusades, to non-aggression and opposition to colonisations, to sniffing out any injustice, to empathising with victims, to human rights, and to peace in perpetuity you might think he would have some sympathy for the English, and for all Europe’s children who face this same terrible and final existential disaster. But he cannot. He just can’t do it. Prior considerations exercise too much, in fact, vastly too much control over him.
Right on cue this morning Mary Riddell, one of a clique of left-liberal journalists working at the DT, has produced an article titled, Now the stage is set for some sensible immigration policies. “Sensible” for Mary means more - in whatever form the masses will accommodate - because Mary is a moralist par excellence of the universalist persuasion.
I might not contribute much to the thread myself. The postings have started to sky-rocket, and it is always tiresomely difficult with DISQUS to maintain contact when that happens. However, I did get an early swipe in against Mary’s universalism, for which she references Shakespeare, no less, and the influential Oxford academic Marc Stears ...
I received a mail this morning from one Friendrick requesting a “position statement” on the argument for the dissolution of white America presented by the science correspondent of Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey. Bailey has a pretty impressive CV, and obviously considers himself expert in matters of ethics as well as science. But he is also a liberal, and the argument he has written is a wholly liberal argument, not an ethical or scientific one.
It is an argument relying on a particular reading of 20th century American immigration history. Its principal thrust is that the definition of white America already expanded from “Nordic” during the 20th century, and will continue to expand in the 21st to include Hispanics (he means Mestizos). Obviously, one could respond to this in equally historical terms, standing on the ground of the righteous white American deploring the effects of that expansion. But that’s not intellectually aggressive enough, I feel. One has to get at the faux-virtue of liberal principle and undo it by more powerful ethical arguments.
Bailey’s guiding principle is tolerance ad infinitum in the face of coercive change, and the “good” that diversity does to expand said tolerance. It is the job of white America to deracinate to be tolerant. Bailey writes of “the ever-broadening inclusive tolerance of the American social project” without ever stopping to consider whether peoples and races have the right to life, or the right to express their own interests, or the right of consent, or the right to self-defence, or whether it is intolerant to deny such rights solely in respect to one people and one race. In the politics of the unfettered will such ethical considerations are assiduously ignored or, if they can’t be ignored, hurriedly buried beneath a flurry of weak and easily rebutted arguments.
I have responded to Friendrick’s invitation by visiting Reason and the thread to Mr Bailey’s article, and posting what is, I hope, a suitable ethical and even scientific argument. Whether it qualifies as a position statement I don’t know. But it will be interesting to see if any advocate of endless tolerance can undermine its position.
I doubt it somehow.
My reply is reproduced below the fold.
by Graham Lister
In the Anglophone world, in particular where it has been picked up by cultural studies, the term ‘body’ is a fairly reliable warning of hot air to come: a flashing sign for the sensible and time-poor to stay well away. But there are exceptions. One of which might well be The Coming of the Body by Hervé Juvin, in which premonitions of a new and radical regime of individualism under the aegis of the human body, as life distends and capital mutates to meet it, emerge (somewhat incongruously) from the French insurance industry.
Social agendas in the West are in flux, as new kinds of issues gain salience - pension provision, immigration policies, reproductive rights, marital arrangements. Juvin’s contribution belongs to the genre concerned with such issues; illustrated with an abundance of striking data, and delivered with an intellectual mordancy and crisp literary style that remain, even today, peculiarly French. The author might also be regarded as a very particular and local phenomenon. In the Anglophone world business and culture are typically strangers, yielding at best, earnest middle-brow apologetics at the level of Adair Turner’s “Just Capital”; but in France the intellectual executive is a not unfamiliar or strange figure. Operating within the insurance world, Juvin writes without any overt political attachments.
“The Coming of the Body” announces a time when the human body has started to pre-empt all other measures of value in the West, separating the experience of contemporary generations from that of all predecessors, and the rest of the world. The basis of this sea change lies in the spectacular transformation of life expectancy. When the Revolution broke out in 1789, the average span of life in France was 22. By 1900 it was just under 45. Today, it is 75 for men, and over 83 for women, and continually increasing. Quoting Juvin; “We have every reason to hope that one girl out of two born in France since 2000 will live to be a hundred years old”. This prolongation of life is “the present that a century of blood and iron has left us - the present of a life that has doubled”. It amounts to “the invention of a new body, against need, against suffering and against time; against the world too - the world of nature, which was destiny”. The gift is restricted to the rich. “An entire generation will soon separate Europe from its neighbours to the south, when the median age of its population passes 50 (towards 2050), while that of the Maghreb remains under 30”. If we were from the developing world we too would be desperately doing everything within our powers to make it to the West.
… against the pathological left, anyway.
I have spent a few days discussing golf and football with a dozen or so folk at the Telegraph online. They were hardly committed sports fans, unless you count screaming “racist” at every slightly “incorrect” white man a sport. Perhaps they do.
They are certainly not very sporting themselves. They never answer questions. With the more capable anti-racists who gather at British Democracy Forum to plague BNP members I always felt that the wriggling was at least partly strategic. But now I think the lot of them are probably constitutionally incapable of answering anything. The answers just aren’t there.
The same feeling that the multiracialist ideology can’t answer the questions of the present-day runs through this article in the Guardian today:
The rest of the article is worth a browse. The original Demos report, which is less lurid in tone than the article above, is here.
Next stop Cool Britannia?
This piece in Saturday’s Daily Mail could not be allowed to pass without comment here, even at the very real risk of re-igniting the Cock-up or Conspiracy debate that inflamed passions around these parts not so long ago. Has there been a single confirmed Scrooby sighting since?
While the Mail article succeeds in its obvious aim of getting the readers stoked up (almost 600 overwhelmingly hostile comments so far) it fails to add any real context or search for greater meaning, taking the opportunity to slag off Tony Blair being apparently an end in itself.
But, we perhaps we need to probe a little deeper ...
White Genocide Project
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa